Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/2008 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 20, 2008 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Gethsemane Senior Housing (south of 2410 Stillwater Road) Land Use Plan Amendment (park to high density residential) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Parking Reduction Authorization Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Review and Discussion of Future Land Use Plan 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser June 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson July 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 10. Staff Presentations Annual Tour - June 30, 2008 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 20,2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Marlin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present at 7:04 p.m. Staff Present: Ken Roberts. Planner Steve Kummer. City Staff Enqineer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the amended agenda adding item 10. b. Annual Tour Update. Commissioner Hess seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. May 6, 2008 Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the amended minutes of May 6, 2008, changing the second line of the seventh paragraph to read "with an occasional smaller half-acre lot on a side street ... be looked at as an R1 s-Iow density despite the existence of an occasional scattered smaller rather than the larger lot." Commissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. PUBLIC HEARING 7:10p.m. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Salvation Army (2080 Woodlynn Avenue) Planner Ken Roberls presented the staff report for the Salvation Army facility expansion. Commissioner Hess asked staff if additional ADA parking spaces would be required. Mr. Roberts responded the building official will review the parking requirements with his final review of the building plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-20-08 -2- Ken Nordby of NAI Architects was present representing the applicant. Mr. Don Tekautz of the Salvation Army also was present. Mr. Nordby said the plans showed a drainage swale under the sidewalk that runs parallel with the building and into the rainwater garden. Mr. Nordby said the plans do not show this, but this drainage swale will also be proposed to run out into the parking lot under the north/south sidewalk. Mr. Nordby mentioned roof-top mechanical units are proposed for the office area and they will be painted to match the upper parl of the building. Mr. Nordby said the existing ADA parking is sufficient for the building, even with the additional space. The hearing was opened for comments from the public. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood moved the adoption of the resolution approving a revision to the condition use permit for the Salvation Army Church, located at 2080 Woodlynn Avenue. This change is to allow for the revision of their approved site plan to allow the expansion of their building. The city should approve this CUP revision based on the findings required by the ordinance. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan dated April 21. 2008 as approved by the city. City staff may approve minor changes. 2. The owner or contractor shall start the proposed buildinq additions within one year as required bv ordinance. The council may extend this deadline for one vear. 2. Tho proposod addition of child cara shall be started within ono year ::JS raquired by ordinance. The council may extend this deadline for one yoar. 3. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. Commissioner Hess seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. NEW BUSINESS a. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Land Use Plan Review and Discussion Planner Ken Roberts presented the staff reporl and introduced consultant Rose Lorsung of MFRA. Consultant Lorsung said she would like at this time to accomplish the review'and discussion of the 13 neighborhood maps, the top ten worksheet compilation for south Maplewood, and then do a final review of the plan before the open house meeting on May 22. The commission engaged in an extensive working session with discussion and review of the land use map and land use designations for each of the 13 neighborhoods. Commissioner Marlin asked if it might be possible for the commissioners to get a digital copy of the maps for commissioners' personal use. Ms. Lorsung responded that she would be able to get a PDF version of the maps to the commissioners for their use. Commissioner Pearson noted discussion in past years regarding southern Maplewood density issues has been concerned with maintaining the character of the area, rather than with a density number. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-20-08 -3- The commission discussed the rural density designation, particularly as it relates to development in southern Maplewood. The commission's discussion attempted to reach a consensus on the lowest possible rural density designation for inclusion in the comprehensive plan update. The commission felt that a 2.5 net-acre density was too high, but up to a 2.0 net-acre density could be considered. The commission agreed to a "Plan A" rural density designation of a 0.5 - 1.0 net-acre density. It was agreed by consensus that Ms. Lorsung would contact the Metropolitan Council and propose this density, but follow up with "Plan B" of a 0.5 - 2.0 density, if "Plan A" was not acceptable with the Met Council. The commission briefly discussed with Ms. Lorsung corridor studies areas. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. VISITOR PRESEII!TATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS . May 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess will attend. . June 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser will attend. . June 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson will attend. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Comprehensive Plan Open House Planner Roberts reminded the commission of the May 22 meeting scheduled at the Maplewood Community Center. b. Annual Tour Update Planner Roberls asked cornmissioners to submit to him any suggestions for the tour. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Acting City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Gethsemane Senior Housing Planned Unit Development South of 2410 Stillwater Road May 28, 2008 INTRODUCTION Project Description Robert Van Slyke, of Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota, and Gethsemane Lutheran Church and School, are proposing to build a 111-unit senior housing facility on the property owned by Gethsemane south of the church. There are 10 acres of land south of the church that is owned by Gethsemane but has been leased to the city for park purposes for the past 25 years. The applicants are proposing to utilize six acres for the proposed senior housing facility and are negotiating with the city to sell or lease the remaining four acres to stay in park use. The project would be approximately 155,000 square feet in size and would have 61 independent-living units, 32 assisted-living units and 18 memory-care units. The facility would have a small town center or common area consisting of a commercial kitchen, independent dining room, assisted living dining room, cafe, barber/beauty shop, community room, lobby and offices. The residence portion of the building would be three stories tall. The town center part would be one-story tall. The applicants are proposing walking paths around the building as well as pedestrian access to the church and to the potential park. All units would be set up for house-keeping. There will be 24-hour home health care services available. Requests The applicants are requesting approval of the follOWing: . A land use plan amendment from P (park) to R3H (high density residential) . A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) . A parking waiver to have fewer parking spaces than code requires . A preliminary and final plat Desion Plans The applicants are also requesting approval of site and building design plans. These will be reviewed by the community design review board. TIF Mr. Van Slyke is also requesting that the city council approve tax increment financing (TIF) for this development. He is requesting TIF because the project would have 20% (22 units) of affordable housing. TIF would allow them to keep rents down. The city council will hold the public hearing for the TIF proposal which is tentatively scheduled for July 14, 2008. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment This analysis refers to the proposed six-acre housing-development site and does not include the potential four-acre park site. Land Use Plan Goals and Policies The comprehensive plan sets general goals and policies to guide development in the city. There are many that apply which speak generally to site-specific elements like proper drainage and erosion control, safe access to developments, compliance with National Urban Runoff Program standards and such. The following are directives applicable to this proposed land use plan change-changes to the comprehensive plan should: . Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. . Provide a wide variety of housing types. . Provide changes in types of land use that have similar uses fronting on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. Explanations: . The site currently does not generate taxes as a park. The proposed development would be taxable and, therefore, meet this goal. However, as mentioned above, the applicants are proposing TIF financing which would, if it is approved, redirect the majority of new taxes generated from the public sector for up to 25 years and give it to the developer to hold rents down on 20 % of the project. . The proposed project would expand the types of housing available in this neighborhood. . The proposed project would be similar to the Silver Ridge Apartments across Stillwater Road in size and type of development, but would also serve as a transition between Silver Ridge and the single dwellings to the east, being that the proposed project is a less-intense use. 2 Density The applicant is proposing a change in the comprehensive land use plan classification from park to high-density residential. The park classification, of course, has no development density applied to it. The applicant proposes to revise the comprehensive plan to allow up to 22.8 people per acre. In this instance, 22.8 x six acres = 136.8 people allowed. According to the persons per unit ratios applied in the density table of the comprehensive plan, senior-citizen units are averaged to have 1.1 persons per one- bedroom unit and two persons per two-bedroom unit. With the proposed 96 one- bedroom units and 15 two-bedroom units, the total density proposed would be 136.6 persons. This is below the maximum density specified by the comprehensive plan for R3H. Staff feels that the proposed density is appropriate for this site. If the proposed use was for market-rate apartments, staff would have concern, but the nature of this development is very quiet and would generate much less activity compared to other forms of multi- family housing. Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Potential Park Site At the present time, the city has not reached an agreement with Gethsemane Church regarding the city's purchase of the easterly four acres for park use. Staff is recommending that this land remain in a P, park, designation until it has been determined whether it will be used for a future park or held by Gethsemane for a future phase of the senior-housing development. Planned Unit Development Staff has considered the question of the appropriateness of the proposed use in this neighborhood. Certainly, the majority of the surrounding property owners oppose this proposal largely because of the loss of the park, or even its reduction in size from 10 to four acres. Being that the city does not own this land, we haye to acknowledge the property owner's right to do something with their property. The question, then, is whether a 111-unit senior housing facility is appropriate for this area. As stated, staff feels that it is an appropriate use. The proposal would be attractively designed, it would be a neighbor to the church and school to the north, a three-story apartment building to the west and a (potential) four-acre future park to the east. The closest residential neighbor would be the single dwellings to the south across East Seventh Street. The facility, however, would have a 60 foot setback from the south property line as well as two holding ponds and landscaping for amenities. Most neighbors do not see this as a benefit to their neighborhood. This proposal, however, would present the least impact on the neighborhood compared to other developments such as single-family homes, town homes or apartments. 3 Potential Park Site It is undetermined whether the city will purchase the easterly four acres of the church property for park use. If the city does not, the applicants will likely use this area for the future expansion of senior housing. The city cannot at this time, however, consider this easterly four-acre property for a land use plan change since those negotiations are still taking place. Traffic Impacts According to the Traffic Impact Study, performed by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., it was concluded that "senior housing complexes are typically low traffic generators that do not appreciably impact the surrounding roadway network. The little traffic that is generated typically occurs during off-peak times. The proposed Gethsemane Senior Housing development is no exception." Westwood gaye the following data and suggestions, but also refer to the Conclusions section of their report in the attachments: . Average Daily trips (ADT) on Bartelmy Lane is expected to rise by approximately 17% of 220 trips, or 37 trips per day with completion of the site. Compared with the anticipated 2010 No-Build ADT of 390 trips, this amounts to less than a 10% increase. The anticipated 2010 Build ADT of 427 falls well within the acceptable range for a local residential street. . Despite the yery minimal increase anticipated for traffic on Bartelmy Lane, in order to best minimize any potential impacts, it is suggested that the shuttle bus and any delivery or service trucks be instructed to use only the west and north site accesses. Placement of appropriate "No Trucks" or similar signage near the Bartelmy Lane driveway could be considered to reinforce this message if necessary. Parkino The applicant is proposing to provide 108 parking spaces---tl1 garage stalls beneath the building and 47 surface parking spaces. Refer to the attached letter of justification by the applicant. City ordinance requires two stalls for each unit for multi-family units. The city has found that this apartment/town house ratio is excessive for senior facilities and has approved parking waivers for recently-approved projects. Examples are: . The Shores (180 units) . The Regent (150 units) . Summerhill (44 units) . Comforts of Home (42 units) 360 spaces required 300 spaces required 88 spaces required 84 spaces required 115 allowed 145 allowed 78 allowed 25 allowed Staff is supportive of the proposed parking reduction. The city council has supported the concept that senior-housing facilities, especially those with assisted- and memory-care units, require considerably fewer parking spaces than typical multi-family housing. Also, Gethsemane is in agreement to provide overflow parking for the proposed use within their large parking lot. This would be covered by a cross parking and access easement agreement. 4 Park Parkino The city would also need to have an easement for park parking and access should we reach an agreement for the purchase or lease of the easterly four-acres. This should be an element of those negotiations with Gethsemane should the city buy or lease this land for a park. Unit-Size Reduction The proposed unit sizes, for the most part, meet city minimum unit-size requirements. Those that do not are the "studio" memory care units at 337, the "one-room" memory care units at 566 square feet and the "one-room" assisted-living units at 566 square feet. The minimum square footage required by ordinance for "efficiency or one-bedroom" units is 580 square feet. The city has allowed smaller unit sizes in the recent past primarily for memory-care units as shown in this comparison: Project Name Number of Memory Units Approved Unit Size Comforts of Home The Shores The Regent Lakewood Commons 42 units 20 units 30 units 100 units 221 to 360 sq ft 490 to 509 sq ft 388 sq ft 425 sq ft (efficiencies) 525 sq ft (one-bedrooms) Staff feels that the reduced unit sizes would not be appropriate for typical apartment living or for the independent units proposed. The senior-housing industry, however, has moved toward smaller room sizes since it is found that the larger spaces are not needed for assisted- or memory-care units. The city has allowed lesser unit sizes for memory- care units fairly regularly with recent projects as noted above. The proposed "assisted- living" units are 14 square feet smaller than the city's required 580 square feet. This is close to meeting Maplewood's requirement. Staff does not find a problem with this request for these units. Gethsemane Park As stated above, if the city does not purchase the easterly four acres of the church property, Gethsemane will have a right to develop it in the future. At this time, it is anticipated that it would be used for an expansion of the proposed senior housing facility. By far the largest issue with this proposal is the loss of the Gethsemane Park. The majority of the neighbors that responded to staff's questionnaire expressed considerable disagreement with the park being eliminated. They wanted the park to remain. The problem, though, is that the city has never owned this land. Maplewood has only had the benefit of leasina this land from Gethsemane Church. Staff has been working with the parks commission and the church for the last three to four months to get guidance from the commission and to reach an agreeable 5 arrangement for land purchase or lease from Gethsemane. The city staff is continuing to negotiate with Gethsemane and both parties are hopeful to reach an agreement, however, that has not yet been achieved. Ambulance Runs During meetings with the applicants, staff has discussed the concem of what degree of impact on the city's emergency-response and ambulance services a senior housing project such as this would create. Staff asked Chief Lukin to provide data as to the number of calls expected from this project. Chief Lukin provided the following data from a study his department performed in January 2007: . Average number of ambulance calls-14 calls per 50 rooms per year. This translates to 32 anticipated calls per year to the proposed facility. . Cost for an ambulance call-$1,700. This amount is billed to the person, however, if they are on Medicare, the city can only recover $560 of the billed amount. Platting Staff finds no large issues with the proposed preliminary and final plat. The city usually reviews the preliminary plat first which is then followed up by the final plat request once the conditions of the preliminary plat have been met. This proposal is very straight forward and presents no particular concerns. The applicant is simply proposing to split the 10-acre parcel into two being the westerly six-acres for the proposed housing development and the four-acre balance for a potential park or project expansion. City Department Comments Enoineerino Comments Refer to the attached engineers' report by Steve Kummer, staff engineer with the city dated February 13, 2008. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, Maplewood's Building Official, gave the following comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. . All exiting must go to a public way. . Verify the building meets all the requirements for noise based on the Minnesota Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota from the MPCA. . Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. . The building setbacks must comply with 2000 IBC for exterior wall protection. 6 . Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and a building permit. . Provide fire sprinklers to NFPA 13. . Building must meet the current 2006 International Building Code requirements. . A pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department is recommended. Police Comments Lieutenant Mike Shortreed reviewed this proposal and has the following comments: . Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor/developer should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems and any other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity in a timely manner. . Appropriate security and exterior lighting should be provided and maintained in order to assure that entry to and exit from the facility is readily recognizable and accessible. . Appropriate staffing should always be available to assure residents with Alzheimer's disease or dementia do not walk away from the facility, especially with several roadways located within walking distance of the facility. . With Stillwater Road being a state highway and a very busy road, the city should consider posting the exit as a right turn only if possible. It should be anticipated that increased vehicle traffic turning southbound onto Stillwater Road from the new facility will result in an increase in motor vehicle crashes in the area. . The Maplewood Police Department anticipates that calls for service to the new facility will be primarily for medical services. As such, it is highly encouraged that all entrances and exits on the building are clearly marked in order to expedite the arrival of first responder and medical personnel. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, assistant fire chief and fire marshal, reviewed the proposal and requires the following be provided: . Fire protection per code . Fire alarm system per code . A 20-foot-wide fire department access road . A fire department key box (order from AC/FM) . Annunciation panel at the main entrance . Proper marking of fire protection room and fire alarm room . Mini sounders in every unit 7 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approying a comprehensive land use plan amendment from P (park) to R3H (high density residential) for the six-acre site south of Gethsemane Lutheran Church, located at 2410 Stillwater Road. The easterly four acres of the original 10-acre property is not included in this approval. Approval is based on the following guiding principals and reasons as noted in the comprehensive land use plan: 1. Deyelopment with the proposed senior housing project would promote economic deyelopment that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 2. The proposed deyelopment would provide a wider range of housing types in this neighborhood. 3. The proposed development would be a similar type of use to the apartments across Stillwater Road and would also provide a transitional, buffer use between those abutting apartments and the single family homes to the south and east. B. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development (PUD) for Gethsemane Senior Housing project. This PUD also allows the reduction in living-unit floor areas from 580 to 337 square feet for memory-care units and from 580 square feet to 566 square feet for assisted-liYing units. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The planning staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The proposed senior housing development shall remain for use as senior housing unless the city council approves a change in use. 5. The owner/operator of the senior housing development shall obtain a cross easement from Gethsemane Lutheran Church for access and overflow parking before the city will issue a building permit for this development. 6. Compliance with the city's engineering report by Steve Kummer dated February 13, 2008. 8 C. Approval of a parking waiver to provide 114 fewer parking spaces than are required by ordinance. The applicant shall provide 61 garage spaces and 47 surface parking spaces. This parking waiver is subject to the following conditions: 1. The owners of Gethsemane Senior Housing shall get an access and parking easement from Gethsemane Church to use their parking lot as overflow parking. This written agreement shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. All parking areas shall comply with the dimensional requirements for parking lots that are required by ordinance. D. Approval of the preliminary and final plat for the Gethsemane Addition, subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with the conditions of the city's engineering report by Steve Kummer dated February 13, 2008. 9 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 77 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. There were 61 written replies. One person had "no comment," five were in favor and 71 were opposed. Many of these replies were on a questionnaire that the city did not generate. A person or group forwarded their own questionnaire to the neighborhood with direction to return this to Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner. Due to the very large number of printed responses, in an attempt to conserve paper, staff has included a sample of survey replies of our own as well as that which was circulated by other individuals. A full set of survey replies will be available at the meetings. Reasons for Opposition The response from neighbors overwhelmingly shared these views: . Our property value would go down . The neighborhood needs this park . Loss of green space . There are too many senior-housing facilities in Maplewood now . Children would be in danger due to increased traffic Other Concerns . Construction disturbance . Site lights could be a nuisance Additional Survey Sent by Others As stated above, a person or group forwarded their own questionnaire to the neighborhood with direction to return this to Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner. This questionnaire presents a slanted view of the proposal. As the reply by one neighbor states, "all the above comments sound awful-like no one should agree to this project." 10 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Six acres Existing Use: Gethsemane Park SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Gethsemane Church and School South: Single dwellings East: Single dwellings West: Silver Ridge Apartments PLANNING Land Use Plan: P (park)-existing, R3H (high density residential)-proposed Zoning: F (farm residential)-existing, PUD (planned unit development-proposed APPLICATION DATE The city received the applicants' requests on December 10, 2007. Since then there have been several extensions to the review schedule all of which have been in accordance with the statutory requirements for review extensions. The current deadline for the council's review of these requests is August 6, 2008. p:sec25\Gethsemane PUD 5 08 Attachments: 1. Land Use Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Preliminary/Final plat 4. Site/Landscape Plan 5. Building Perspective 6. Letter of Parking Reduction Justification dated December 10, 2008 7. Traffic-Study Conclusions by Westwood Professional Services 8. Engineering Report dated February 13, 2008 9. Neighbor Survey Samples 10. Resolution-Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment 11. Resolution-PUD 12. Plans date-stamped February 1, 2008 (separate attachments) 11 Attachment L ...0 'd -:~' "l^ ~ c~ l", ~~~. !l', /.:'It~J !"",- ':<'\\:'<' - J s.-- ~ ~ ....<:/ . .9\1lEAI7E'^ ~-~.- I J o '" Diii D .. Iii ~d1 cb c LAND USE PLAN MAP 11 N Attachment 2 _ D f.l f.l --- ---..- --- -- --- -CIISEAVE Cb . -." -"....... Wi/OMU i ' .I ;' I ;' ,I i' I I ,/"',/) -,.I I gea.,\;~../' " , , " , \ \ \ " C;~-- j::i <I)' , , , , , \ '" Df.lD JLJ Q ., f.l J o D Q Jj]uii Q '" o o " llUS\11Wt ct d , 0 ~.,., PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 'i! N Attachment 3 .., ii! .~ {'. ! tU it f;fl,..: ' ,11 ilj';"';lii,'* hll,i' i:r I lH ;'ilL ",;!,tHl"!'ill!!millliHlh1!!:!l:: lmiil !~ihl!~iil!i!lmll!ilmHalJJ;Hiijjlillmjlll!;!;;';; l!mjllHil!imml!hnm,.;;~ "":., ,j";,,,j',',h ..il," ~-s.~~~~~!h~ '" --0 $ :1: " l 'i Wi ~\ I I I " I Li "\ I . A' 'i"L , , ~~ ~ :l! ~ I;! I Al j ~ u ~ ill! d ;LJ t! f~~ I .' 1 'I'd! , j"I." i~ d II 3l lH l ~~ !~ , . ""~.a i ~ ! ji~~i 1 Ii i !:L~n; i ~it !hl i m;~H! i j;; !~i! j !m31g~ ~ !ei ~~~~ . :: :AJ>;l~h ~~ ii" !ii~ ] : h~.e".~ ~l:, '~"; ; ~.i ;~l.m~: ~i: g~i ~~~i ! ~! ~d:!i"! ~~ ,Ai :~~. 'I I] i"'~':i~ ~,~ "I: .l.l~! ~ ; , IHI' ~<<'II)H '-. ii!il~1 d 1 ~ 1m t Ii "l~~"ll~I:t ~~ h~" .. ~i jl.ltHt~~ ~t. ~H l J h i !-iii.l.to :- ';i 7 ~ ~ "'~.t. ..,~.. O"'j ....~ '. " ,- '- (j, ';, -"CT' 1 I ! i j ! i I J i ~ i i : i I t ! _! _!, oj, ~~~'~U~ii ;~~, ~i ~1i {;t I ~H ~!! ;u ;1" '...., ; 'I = QO = = ..... .-I <:> cc w u... ~ @ ~ ~ >- ~ 0.. ...J <( Z u. - >- 0:: <( z :2 ...J W 0:: 0.. Attachment 4 -, II"'" f I II "'l i I! l ~1 I! ( ~Il:HJ I',''' I N ~~~t; I' . . U~~~ "'" .' . . , ;!~ o~. , ii: " .,..; ~ ~~~ ] !j! ~wl , - I ,. , ;\,i . ..~.. I ;. ~ I itl!:n ~ , I' l.. ill:! S . " -~': lrnld ;)dll~spull'I Ull~;)"'O ! : , !I ~ ~i " ;: ,~. ~ = i~~i --~! ~ H l ~ I'i ~~ ' ~~u !,~~ !11 ~~~~ i~ ll~ ~, h1h i1 ~h~ ~~ ~ ~j..! l~ n j~ H~~; !~ lt~l ~ h1 it ~i!l "l~ ~~. Ii ~.~~~ ~i ~~h i ~~h i~~ ~. d l~ i~~ l~ ~h~. ~~ ll!l. ! 1111 III III!\ It ~!t ~I! jlll\llll I.m ~ ..~, d .J.!. ... InM It i.",. 1,1 '" I Iii I '.'~~ t'~. .. H ji ,.,~,'~e {".(li~ j" .l ,; j; ~s r'1' ~l!' ~ t i i n~ i~ .!t ~!~i ~~~i~~ ~i ~~~ ~d~li., ~~~ ~~I 'I~~ i~l~ )Il~fi ~i ~~,; "~" . ' _~~;.l .~ ~i~~"~ .'1< ,i ., h~ii.l hi ~Ii ~ii ~~<l~ iiin! ~! m J~~~~~ ~~~ ~~3 '~i ~i ~ hl.~i~ ~I ]!~; IJ~,' ;~r IIi, ~~~ b~.~ d~~, ',~..J~~!;, ~ll! l." ,- ",. "'. >_ - .hlll \;~ l1! nn U~I iin!~~ d iiI, '~hn il~ m ~m ~h~ ii~~1h n~ ~m II i ~ , J i lId 1] in ~ ! h" ij 11 H U J ~ ~ ~H~j H.~ ~ ! ~.nHhH~ ~ ~,~,~.:.:.,'~I. HHHHHH ~~~ _ ~H~!!~U Hng~HH~ !Hn .. I 0" " II iL~~~~~~~..~ iL~~" . dll!l\1 I ~ I' l<;~t .~ l~ , t l! "i ~h ~! i~ i ill i! ,';! 'inn' ~ h ~bi~hi nm~~ ~ ~\'; ~~l~ ~11l ~n~. ~l .~ ~~!diU~~~;~ !j~i~U ~- ~ ,,~,~, !~l ,II" ~,.f,"., >-- . ,..~ ~"ll . ~ .. 0 !!., g~ m'l~~JI~ h~;mH " ~ ~,"ih,~'i~,',l!i ~~,ii !i~ n ~ ~ ilnmii !h~; ~~ !i~ ~i ~ @) ~ ~ . , >--; I! ~~ i I hd! I ~d ~~n~l ~ ~ i~~ "\iU 5 h "~. ~I' ~~~mij,~ () U I~l-U~ I '" ~~ &~, !H 1 i l ~ o " ~~ ",I,". ' i~" +11" ~(~ ~-~ ;~1 < 3jW7 ''1;]1<>';0 'iF ~ ,,1_--._1 ';.."! --' ___.J1'!..7.3!,;I:{'Ifl ~OQ(~'~0Gli8.(.'J7iJ08ik9 ' It 'k ~ ~e 8 t ,P!~"i~ .. \0 il \ " '",')il;),.':". .8. 'I'l ~. h." '~". '" ,.,~. 't (l-~ Q. ~tjH ~:" '. .,lb ' '. .-"l ~. , ) .".. ~~;~l~i":: Pi;:" ',- .~p ''I, \'":""'i"".!"~, ,',8 ,,; ".1" ~'H,' "ill;'" t;.j" ~Uf- ~i"ni '"."::~~f"@ AT' ,H; O"!;f<li'.".".",tJ?~ 0.. ";,,,,j IY", ~ . " "A e " ~ , g1! ~ " ~:g .g";; .5 :;,; gJ 3~ 3 , 0" ~ 0 . ~~ f:,,- :1\\: . :L~ I !"@ r " oj', ! ,<ON ~ ,\ :'~I Ii ~'m..:!H! tB ,. ~ lU . , __: Hi .. i Q ;,Ui o ,O!'.;"::".~H! ;'.' " % 1 ~ ~~~ > -- ."",,' ,"'1'>"-., V '~ -....." ./J!,~/~,".",> :::. ':~" "". , , -...~" L .J II 00 = = "" ..... <=> cr. LL LL tii' z <( ....I Q. (9 Z Q. <( () CJ) o z <( ....I - W I- CJ) Attachment 5 r=J ~ = =~ s = == = ~ ';::u ='- = - "'''' ~ = ~= >:l~ @ ro ~'" uc ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ ,..,g w !!i ~i ~~ , '"ii'~ <>J 0 ill > l- t) ill D- C/) 0::: ill D- C) Z o ....J ::::> CD Attachment 6 <W Innovations in Senior Living Communities SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS December 10, 2007 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner City of Maple wood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN. 55109 Re: Gethsemane Senior Housing Project Parking Variance Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Gethsemane Senior Housing, Inc. has submitted applications to the City of Maplewood for a III Unit Senior Housing Project. The project will consist of 61 Independent Apartments, 32 Assisted Living Apartments, and 18 Memory Care Apartments. We are requesting a variance to the current City of Maplewood parking standard which would require 222 parking spaces for the Project to 108 parking spaces per our site plan . submission. Below is our rational for the reduced parking requirement. The proposed project is a partnership between Gethsemane Lutheran Church and Presbyterian Homes and Services. The average age in Presbyterian Home's senior housing complexes in the Twin Cities is approximately 82 for both Independent and Assisted Living residents. Many of these residents are single occupants and thus the number of vehicles is significantly less than a typical multi-family apartment complex. The percentage of underground parking usage is typically around 70% of the total number of Independent Apartments in our complexes. This would equate to around 43 of the 61 underground stalls being occupied. The percentage of surface stalls utilized for parking is typically about 10% of the number of Independent Apartments. This would amount to 6 outside spaces being utilized. In Assisted Living and Memory Care, only 1 or 2 people at the most will have a vehicle at the complex. Thus, the total resident parking usage at the Gethsemane site will be approximately 51 parking spaces out of the Project total of 108. At full occupancy, the Project pro-forma projects approximately 27 Full Time employees per day working 3 shifts at the complex. The highest number of these would be during the day shift and we estimate this could be around 18 employees. We will first use the excess spaces in the underground garage (estimated at 18) and then the surface stalls furthest away from the main entrance for employee parking. It is entirely possible at this 2845 North Hamline Ave.';+ Suite 100 -:- Roseville, Minnesota.;. 55113 {o www.seniorpartners.com';, (651) 631-63000) Fax (651) 631-6301.;+ 800~891~9126 Project that only 6 of the outside stalls would be used at any given time by both residents and staff thus leaving 41 stalls for visitors. The Project will also enter into a Reciprocal Parking Easement Agreement with Gethsemane Lutheran Church whereby the Project may use some of the Church's parking spaces in the event we ever needed additional parking spaces at the Project. Sincerely, f2~~ t/~ Robert VanSlyke Project Manager Gethsemane Senior Housing, Inc. Attachment 7 2010 No-Build 20 0 0- UI ra Ie lPeratlOns Intersection Level of Service Longest 95"' Percentile Queue (AM I PM) (AM I PM) West Site Access - C/C 40 feet I 40 feet Westbound Anproach Stillwater Road! B/A 140 feel (Westbound) I 120 feel (Northbound) Lakewood Drive North Site Access- BIB 30 feet I 30 teel Northbound Approach East Site Access AlA 40 feel I 30 feel Eastbound Anoroach Table 4 1 N B 'Id T ffi 0 All levels of service remain unchanged from 2008 Existing conditions. 95th percentile queues similar as well. No mitigation is suggested as operations remain well within acceptable limits. 2010 Build Results for the 2011 Build scenario, post-site redevelopment, are summarized in Table 8. An optimized signal timing plan was assumed. Intersection Level of Service Longest 95th Percentile Queue (AM I PM) (AM I PM) West Site Access- C/C 50 feet I 50 feel Wes!bound Approach Stillwater Road! B/A 140 feet (Westbound) 1120 feet (Northbound) Lakewood Drive North Site Access- BIB 40 feet I 30 feet Northbound Approach East Site Access - AlA 40 feet I 30 feet Eastbound Approach . Table 5 2010 Build Traffic Operations All intersections remain at acceptable levels of service and nearly unchanged from No-Build conditions. All 95th percentile queues remain moderate and nearly unchanged from the No-Build scenario. CONCLUSIONS . Results for 2008 Existing conditions show that all studied intersections operate at acceptable levels of service and with acceptable 95th percentile queuU:lg. Operations ofBartelmy Lane as mouitored in the field indicate the ro~d f1!nctions as a typical local residential roadway. . Results for the 2010 No-Build scenario, or future conditions without the development in place, remain similar to those for Existing conditions. Levels of service remain constant and 95th percentile queues increase only very Traffic Impact Study Page 12 Gethsemane Senior Housing - Map/awnod, Minnesota slightly. No appreciable changes to the character ofBartelmy Lane would be expected to occur. . Results of the operational analysis with the added trips (2010 Build scenario) show that levels of service and queues remain unchanged, or very similar to, those for the No-Build scenario. No appreciable impact to Bartelmy Lane operations is anticipated. . Average Daily traffic (ADT) on Bartelmy lane is expected to rise by approximately 17% of220 trips, or 37 trips per day with completion of the site. Compared with the anticipated 2010 No-Build ADT of390 trips, this amounts to less than a 10% increase. The anticipated 2010 BuildADT of 427 falls well within the acceptable range for a local residential street. . Despite the very minim" 1 increase anticipated for traffic on Bartelmy Lane, in order to best minimize the any potential impacts, it is suggested that the Shuttle Bus and any delivery or service trucks be instructed to use only the west and north site accesses. Placement of appropriate "No Trucks" or similar signage near the Bartelmy Lane driveway could be considered to reinforce this message, if necessary. . Tn summary, senior housing complexes are typically low traffic generators that do not appreciably impact the surrounding roadway network. The little traffic that is generated typically occurs during off-peak times. The proposed Gethsemane Senior Housing development is no exception. Traffic Impact study Page 13 Gethsemane Senior Housing - Maplewood, Minnesota Attachment 8 Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 1 of7 Enaineerino Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: REVIEWERS: Gethsemane Senior Housing; PIN 252922310032 07-29 Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer Michael Thompson, P.E. - Civil Engineer II Virginia Gaynor - Staff Naturalist DuWayne Konewko - Environmental Manager Mark Maruska - Parks Maintenance Superintendent John DuCharme - Senior Technician 1 Inspector DATE: PLAN SET: COMPS: 2-13-08 City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings - Dated 1-31-08 Stormwater Computations by Clark Engineering - Dated 1-31-08 Gethsemane Lutheran Church is proposing a multi-story senior housing building within the 9.4+1- acre undeveloped property located at the northeast quadrant of the Stillwater and ih Street E intersection, just south of the existing Church. Gethsemane Park is currently located on the site. The proposed layout would maintain a park area to the east of the proposed 111- unit senior housing building. Storm Water Hydrolooy and Pondino/lnfiltration Basins 1. While the use of the infiltration basins on the site exceeds the 1-inch volume control requirement for the site, several design modifications shall be considered for Infiltration Basins 1 and 2: a. The grading configuration of Infiltration Basin #1 is unacceptable and shall be modified. Based on the design computations, the basin accepts 3.08 acres of drainage - 2.14 acres of which is hard surface. The basin impounds 1,041 cubic feet between the 1005.0 and 1006.3 contours. The infiltration requirement for the church lot is 6,985 cubic feet. With the flows that are proposed to enter the basin - even for a 2-year storm - the volumes and velocities of water entering and leaving the basin will present a long-term scour and maintenance problem. The following recommendations are suggested: i. The elevation below the CB outlet intended for infiltration should be expanded such that the inflow and outflow velocities are limited to 1 ftIsec or less and such that the depth of the ponding area is at least 18 inches but not more than 24 inches deep. ii. The infiltration volume should be expanded to meet as close as possible the 1-inch volume of runoff from the existing parking lot (6,985 cubic feet). The full one-inch may not be achieved in the space available, but it is recommended that the area north of the trail crossing be maximized and that a portion of the area south of the trail be considered for additional ponding and infiltration - especially in the Yicinity of Catch Basin B. A culvert connection under the trail is acceptable. Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 2 of 7 iii. The size of the Infiltration Basin #2 can be adjusted (presumably, decreased) with the increase in volume allotted to Infiltration Basin #1. b. The curb cut from the existing church parking lot in letting to Infiltration Basin #1 (north of Catch Basin J) is not acceptable and shall be replaced with a curb-inlet catch basin with a sump and pipe outlet to the bottom contour of the basin. The curb along the south edge of the parking lot shall be a barrier (B) type curb. Energy dissipation may be accomplished with rip-rap, but other forms of energy dissipation that is more aesthetic to the infiltration basin may be utilized. c. The infiltration storage below the outlet invert of Infiltration Basin #2 shall be limited to a depth of 24 inches. 2. A shallow infiltration trench shall be graded between the proposed park property to the east and the trail bisecting the property between the park property and the building. The trench shall be the length of the soccer field to intercept runoff from the soccer field. The swale should outlet with a culvert or area drain transporting the drainage under the trail. 3. Overflow routes and elevations shall be shown on every defined ponding and infiltration basin. The oyerflow route on Infiltration Pond #2 and the Stormwater Pond shall be lined with a heavy-duty erosion control mat such as an Enkamat or equivalent. 4. The project engineer shall provide the city with soil boring information at the proposed infiltration basin locations. Prior to establishing the landscaping for the ponding areas, the owner shall provide the city with a split-ring infiltrometer test on the proposed infiltration areas. 5. The engineer shall provide computations showing the change in flow rates to the Stillwater Road ditch comparing existing vs. proposed conditions. 6. The plans indicate native plants are used around the perimeter of the pond and infiltration basins. A detailed planting plan for the pond and infiltration basin shall be submitted. Plan should delineate area with natiyes, species to be used, plant spacing, approximate number of plants, size of plants, mulch type and depth. Infiltration basin should have plants throughout, not just on perimeter. 7. The project engineer shall add a note to the plans indicating that the infiltration basins shall be protected from construction traffic. The plans shall show orange construction fence along the top contours of each infiltration area to keep construction traffic out of those areas. Gradino and Drainaoe 1. More defined grades shall be shown around the building to show conveyance of roof water away from the building. 2. Drainage across area trails should be avoided wherever possible - especially in drainage area "D". Area drains or catch basins on the north side of the "circle" area just southeast of the proposed patio shall be installed to convey runoff into culverts under trails. Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 3 of 7 3. Catch basin pickups shall be provided at the driveway entrance and connected into the storm sewer system discharging into the Highway 5 ditch. 4. Flat landings shall be provided at all trail intersections. All trails shall meet ADA requirements for design. 5. The emergency vehicle access trail running along the ponding areas shall have a minimum 5-foot wide flat bench graded off the pond-side of the trail. Other walking trails in the area shall have a minimum 1-foot flat bench off the edge of trail where slopes drop off into ditches or ponding areas. 6. A split-rail fence or shrub hedge between the trails and pond shall be installed. A shrub hedge should also be proposed for the south end of the soccer field. 7. A railing or fence shall be proyided along all retaining walls with a maximum height greater than 30 inches. A rail or fence shall be provided along the entire length of retaining wall on the east side of the soccer field fronting Bartelmy Lane. 8. Retaining wall systems greater than 4 feet in height (including tiered-wall systems with a total height greater than 4 feet) shall be designed and certified by a professional engineer and will require building permits from the City. Signed plans shall be provided to the City. 9. Retaining wall top and bottom elevations shall be clearly marked on the plan with call outs legible. 10. A salt corrosion-resistant coating or agent shall be specified for the retaining wall fronting Bartelmy Lane. 11. A drainage and utility easement is required for the trunk sewer running between the soccer field and the building and for the drainage runoff from both the park area and the church. The easement shall be wide enough to accommodate OSHA safety requirements for trench excayation in the event that excavation needs to occur within the easement. It is recommended that the storm sewer be realigned closer to the soccer field to accommodate this easement location. 12. A drainage and utility easement will be required for the northwestem storm sewer run discharging into the Mn/DOT ditch since drainage from the church parking lot is piped across the senior living facility property. 13. The contours along the south side of the soccer field shall be adjusted and maximized to accommodate a roughly rectangular flat area. Grades across the area should be a minimum of 2%. Construction Site Sediment and Erosion Control Plan I SWPPP Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 4 of 7 1. The plans shall have a separate erosion control and SWPP plan that is separate from the grading plan. All erosion control details should conform to the City of Maplewood standard plates. 2. A Wimco catch basin insert or approved equal shall be provided for all curb-inlet catch basins, proposed or existing. A corresponding installation detail shall be provided. 3. Ditch checks with a corresponding installation detail shall be provided for the Stillwater Road ditch. 4. A note shall be placed on the plans indicating that the existing payement at the driveway entrance from Stillwater Road shall remain in place during construction and until the parking area is to be paved. 5. A note shall be placed on the plans indicating that construction traffic is not allowed on the bordering City streets (i.e. Bartelmy, East Th, Meyer). All construction traffic shall enter off Stillwater Road. 6. The plans shall clearly identify disturbed area by delineation and they shall provide a numerical value of disturbed acreage. Any disturbance of one acre or more necessitates a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The approved grading and erosion & sediment control plans shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 7. Locations of onsite storage of topsoil, backfill and borrow material shall be shown on the SWPPP. The plans shall also indicate the methods of erosion and sediment protection on slopes and stockpiles (i.e. seed/blanket, silt fence, straw wattles, etc.) 8. The project plans shall identify the locations for equipment/material storage, debris stockpiles, vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. The plans also must show the contain area and specify that all materials stored on site shall have proper enclosures and/or coverings. 9. The project plans shall identify the locations and provide details for concrete truck washout areas. 10. Identify (on the plans) the quantity of materials that the contractor will be importing to or exporting from the site (cu-yd) along with site cut and fill quantities. 11. The project plans or their details shall describe the measures (e.g... temporary sediment basin, etc) the contractor will use during the rough grading process to intercept and detain sediment-laden run-off to allow the sediment to settle. They also must describe how the contractor will dewater the settled storm water and how it will be introduced to the public drainage system. 12. The plans shall describe the measures the contractor will use for onsite dust control (i.e.... water as needed). The plans also shall provide call out a street sweeping plan for adjacent streets. Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 5 of 7 13. The erosion and sediment control plans should refer to Maplewood Plate NO.350 for approved methods of erosion and sediment control. 14. A temporary sedimentation basin shall be called out at the southeast corner of the site near the intersection of Bartelmy and 7th Streets. 15. Temporary and permanent seed mixtures shall be indicated on the SWPP plan. 16. Rip-rap at all pond outlets shall be shown to the bottom of the pond. 17. All slopes 4:1 and greater shall be covered with a straw erosion control blanket- preferably a degradable type that can be mown over at a later date when the seed has established. An installation detail shall be shown on sheet C5. Utilities 1. The sanitary sewer pipe extending from the proposed building to the public system in Seventh Street should reflect PVC SDR-35 as consistent with Maplewood Standards. 2. The invert of the sanitary sewer manhole for which the 8-inch sewer service is entering shall be finished such that the benches and troughs inside the manhole funnel toward the outflow invert. A note or detail shall be indicated on the plan. 3. The applicant shall also submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services (Richelle Nicosia) for review and approval of all water main service installation. a. Verify that a combined 8" domestic/fire protection service is acceptable. b. Verify that the 90-degree bend to connect into Bartelmy Street is acceptable and will not need to be changed to two 45-degree bends. c. Verify flow rates and pressure for fire protection to the building. 4. The existing warming shelter on the south side of the site has existing electrical and gas utilities. No water or sewer is currently supplied to the shelter. 5. Trash guards are not allowed on flared-end sections with a diameter of 18 inches or less. 6. An easement for the sanitary sewer and water main service between the soccer field and the building will be required and shall be shown on the plans. The easement shall be wide enough to accommodate OSHA safety requirements for trench excavation in the eyent that excavation needs to occur within the easement. 7. An exterior fire hydrant on site may be required. The project engineer shall confirm this with Fire Marshall Butch Gervais (651) 249-2804. Site Geometrics and Lavout Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 6 of 7 1. Typical width dimensions of area trails shall be shown on the plan. Minimum trail width will be 6 feet. 2. Ball diamond and soccer field dimensions shall be shown. Show distances from the nearest corner of the buildings to the soccer fields and the edge of the trails. 3. Show retaining wall heights on the geometric plan. 4. Crosswalk striping and signage shall be shown for the crossing over the loading dock access and the north-south trail crossing across the driveway entrance. 5. The owner shall conduct a traffic study regarding the impacts of the site on Stillwater Road. Sight distances from the driveway entrances and traffic volumes should be considered in the report. Landscapino/Plantino Plans (City Naturalist) 1. Slopes 4: 1 or greater bordering trail edges shall be planted with a native seed mix or native flowers. 2. A rain water garden shall be established around catch basin B. Trees 1. All trees shall be darkened in plan view and not screened on the L 1.1 plan sheet. 2. Refer to Tree Preservation Plan Review comments by Shann Finwall. Aoency Submittals and Permittino 1. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (Tina Carstens) for review and approval. 2. The applicant shall submit plans to Mn/DOT for review and approval. The proposed development entrance is off of the Mn/DOT Trunk Highway and drainage is being piped into Mn/DOT right of way. 3. Agency submittals are not necessarily limited to those mentioned above. The owner and project engineer shall get all necessary permits and shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Miscellaneous 1. The Owner shall enter into a developer's agreement with the City of Maplewood for the completion of all private site and proposed park area improvements. As part of the Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 7 of 7 developer's agreement, the owner shall provide a letter of credit or cash escrow for 150% of the cost for all private site improvements as mentioned in the developer's agreement. An estimate of the total cost of improvements shall be provided to engineering staff. 2. The project engineer shall provide a benchmark elevation and location description on each civil plan sheet. Plans shall also be signed and dated by the professional engineer. 3. A dedicated driveway or access easement needs to be dedicated to the development property from the Church property in order to "grant" access to the senior living facility property to the south. This needs to be shown on the plans along with the required drainage and utility easements. 4. Drainage and utility easements are required over all ponding and infiltration areas and shall be shown on the plan. 5. The owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for all stormwater treatment devices (list devices i.e....sumps, basins, ponds, etc). The city shall prepare this agreement. This document would have to be signed prior to the building department issuing a certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall submit 8.5 x 11 exhibits with all on-site storm water treatment measures shown individually. 6. The project plans shall show all easements within the development site, both existing and proposed. ~... vet :;r;..,f. e. ~......./ a~ ",J lot O~I\"S T~'~) 4\ -Here are some of the questions asked by residents at the initial propos~t w.~~'"irtj~ ~eld at the church in September. Tile questions were answered by the representative from Presbyterian Homes, the developer and business partner of Gethsemane Church: Q: Why is this development the best use for this property? What abOut single-family homes? A: This is the best use of the land from our perspective, as it will increase the value of the church property, <:Idding a lot of members to the church and <:reating a faith-based community. NOTE: A local resident is a Real Estate Appraiser and stated that this development will actually LOWER the property values of the homes that are in the area. A large apartment building <:omplex placed so close will "significantly cjecrease property values.>> Q: Do you know that there are already 2 senior housing facilities within a half a mile from this location? Why do you think there is a need for another complex so close? A: There is a huge demand for senior housing in Maplewood. Those other places are co-ops where the residents must own their apartment. This is rental only, which is much more desirable by seniors. We have done a market study. NOTE: Presbyterian Homes already operates a senior facility in Maplewood. Also, there are already 15 senior housing facilities in Maplewood and 3 nursing homes, with 3 new large independent living complexes about to be built. Q: Will the 4-acre grassy area be granted to the city as a permanent city park? A: No. Gethsemane will still owli that parcel of land, but allow its use by the public. We think ifs a sufficient "buffer zone" for those residents who own homes along Bartelmy & ih. Q: Will you ever decide to develop that land? A: Probably... .we have plans for a second ph~se of development which will include either a large nursing home or Senior town homes there. That may not be for a few years. Q: The small area designated as "Tot Corner" is in an area that routinely is flooded. What are you going to do to make that actually utilizable by <:hildren? A: We have to see about that. We didn't know that. Maybe the city will have an idea. Q: Are you going to install playground equipment for the children to play on? A: No, but maybe the city will install something. Q: 3 stories (plus the roofing) is a major visual obstruction for those residents living along Bartelmy. Why does the Independent Living side need to be 3 stories tall? A: We need that much rent money to pay for the expense of building the place! Plus, there's a 3 story apartment complex acrosS McKnight Road. Why don't you complain about thc;lt? You know, we could make it 4 stories if we wantto! ~ . Q: How will the increased traffic impact the road conditions on Bartelmy, 7th, MarY & Bush? I . A: It won't be much different than it is already. A slight increase of residents' traffic, that's all. There are only 61 underground parking stalls available to the 61 Independent Living apartments. Q: What about the employees? With 61 Independent units and 50 Assisted Living and Memory Care units, won't that size of a facility require numerous employees? A: NO! There will be no more that 15-20 employees at the complex at any given time of the day. There's no need for that many employees. Q: What's to prevent the residents and employees from using the parking lot entrance off of Bartelmy as a short-cut to and from work or home, adding to the already dangerous conditions for anyone walking Or riding bicycles on ouroon-sidewalk-equipped rQads,especiallychildren? , . ". -""." ~ "<.,' . A: Everyone will be told to use the main entrance off of McKnight. Q: How long will the area be under construction? A: Anywhere from 12 to 15 months, full-time. Q: How will the "12-15 months of construction" traffic affect the condition of the already deteriorating roads (Bartelmy, Mary, Meyer, 7th & Bush?) A: They're already in bad shape, I doubt if the construction trucks will do much more hal1T1. Q: Once the roads have become so damaged from at least a year's worth of construction traffic and an increase of 61 residents' cars and several employees, plus visitors and constant delivery tucks... ..who will be paying for new roads? A: Well, if the City requires us to improve the roads as part of the development agreement, then we will pay for it, along with a sidewalk, if that's what the city requires us to do. Q: And if the roads become deteriorated after the project begjn$, mainlY due to construction traffic and increased daily traffic, then who will pay for the renovated roads? A: As homeowners, I assume that you will be assessed that fee. That's why you pay property taxes, isn't it? Q: As a non-profit organization, will this complex be paying any property taxes? A: It's a complicated fonnula, but \'11 try to simplify it for you. For the first 15 years, the city of Maplewood will rebate us 90% of our property taxes in exchange for providing a certain number of efficiency apartments at an affordable price, like $1200/month. The fonnula gets changed at that time, depending on when we start Phase 2 of construction (nursing home.) Q: When do you intend to begin construction? A: We need to apply for a building pennit and do the re-zoning, which should be done by December, 2007. .. ~ TO: Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner - Community Development Department, City of Maplewood ., As a resident of the neighborhood affected by the Gethsemane Senior Housing proposal, please consider the following concerns I haye about the deyelopment: very much slightly not concerned concerned concerned The elimination of a park and open space within walking distance of my home: 0 0 )j<( The future development of a nursing home and/or senior town homes on the 4-acre lot currently proposed be temporarily leased to the City as a park: 0 0 ~ The significant reduction of mv Property and Home Value as a direct result of the development AND as a homeowner, ~. ~ I will not receiye just compensation for this decreased value: 0 0 The project increases the neighborhood size substantially, +66% 0 0 ~ The burden of an additional 111 households plus the facility itself on the current sewer and water system and possible e- special assessments on my home to improve the infrastructure: ~ 0 0 r.< The proposed "Tot Lot" play area is located in an area which ~i ~ floods frequently (NWC of Barlelmy and ih): 0 0 My kids will need to cross busy roads to access public parks: ~0 0 0 )l( The concern for the safety of pedestrians and children due to '" ~ the significant long-term increase in daily traffic: 0 0 The rapid deterioration of the roads due to the 60-70% ~ increase in daily traffic through the neighborhood and the i' probable special assessments on my home to pay for the P< improvement and maintenance of the neighborhood roads: 0 0 This commercial building will drastically change the character / of this quiet, residential neighborhood: 0 0 )\ The increased construction traffic through the neighborhood for 12 - 15 months and the dirt, noise and other nuisances involved: 0 0 ~ u Additional Comments: lII..<2.-J V-~ ~ 1f;"{ , - , ~~R".rZ4<> NAME: 6atz1~ '71~~ 55717 (Z/~ 7'?f~/Y'"5 W~ ~ By , December 10, 2007 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Community Development Department City of Maple wood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Gethsemane Senior Housing Proposal Dear Mr. Ekstrand: We are voicing our strong support for the senior housing proposal at Gethsemane. For many years Gethsemane has provided the community with needed services, church, school, playground and now the need of senior housing. For the past year we have been going through the very trying experience of fmding quality housing for a senior parent. Vole were fortunate enough to secure an apartment in a Presbyterian Homes Assisted Living Facility in Woodbury. This experience has led us to believe there is an apparent need for quality senior housing in this area. There are some good neighbors that have a long list of reasons why this proposal shouldn't come to fruition. We believe the bottom line is, they are selfish, and'don't want their world to change. They need to realize that for almost 50 years Gethsemane has supplied a place for recreation and asked for nothing in return. Looking at their proposal, Gethsemane and Presbyterian Homes are doing everything they can to build much needed senior housing and still retain play fields. It would be sad that a few neighbors would object to the many seniors in need of quality housing. Their objections appear to be as follows: Increased traffic will ruin Bartelmy. The roads in this area have been in poor condition for 20+ years. Not all seniors drive. Increased traffic will endanger the neighborhood children. We drive these streets ,everyday and seldom see any small children to say nothing of the fact children do not belong playing in the street. Losing their green space. These neighbors seem to forget the land belongs to Gethsemane, and that the church will still be providing play fields. There is a nature center one block away. This area offers far more recreational space than most neighborhoods. The proposal will lower their property values. These neighbors should be far more concerned with the pipeline running though the community than a senior housing proposal. Many have the pipeline in their front yard. There could be a potential for the senior housing to increase the property values by folks believing if senior housing is built close to the pipeline it must be a safe place to live. Thank you for listening to our comments. We have been residents of this community for over 20 years and will continue to support this proposal as we deem it to be an asset not a drawback. Sincerely, ~ 1:~:YDO~ 2471 7"' St E Maplewood,MN 55119 ~ ;/ '" Together We Can December 4, 2007 GETHSEMANE SENIOR HOUSiNG PROPOSAL , ' This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal by Gethsemane Lutheran Church and Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota to bllild a 111-unit senior housing facilityon land owned by Gethsemane .south of the church. This is the lancJ currently leased to the city for a park. Please refer to the attacheo letter and maps. I woulo like your opinion to help me prepare a recommendati9n to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and COTnments below and return this letter and any attachments on which you have written comments by December 13, 2007. If you would like further information, please call me at651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@cLmaplewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give thern careful consideration. or~~. TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER I have no comments: I~~~i:!ft!!~i~ -iVL tl.. ~4(h)J~ U)~<...{, uJe..~. C{tn-L ft> t...f}Vl4Jd....t...v ~':> {l.6l..Vlfuil..lJ - Ii- w..n'U t~ tt ~. Vv(~tl;f1l.JL- . tVI""W cJ- PVl #-. ~'.'0i 4 11 e.e tvL. P1A-v 1M--< 1f'v~, , . m[E @ [E U ill [E r~ W DECl 2 1007 & ~.' OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVEL.OPMENT 651-249-2300 CITY OF'MAPL.EWOoD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST . FAX: 65 1 -249-2319 MAPL.EWOOD, MN 55109 TO: Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner - Community Development Department, City of Maplewood """ As a resident of the neighborhood affected by the Gethsemane Senior Housing proposal, please consider the foilowing concerns I haye about the deyelopment: very much slightly not concerned concerned concerned The elimination of a park and open space within walking . /"... distance of my home: * l<V~'" D D The future development of a nursing home and/or senior ~"r'1I"" j,t, o-rh., r ~ town homes on the 4-acre lot currently proposed be .~~O.J. Ie. -I t/ . temporarily leased to the City as a park: ... r' D. / D g.-'-'''-' The significant reduction of my Property and Home Value as a direct result of the development AND as a homeowner, I will not receiye just compensation for this decreased value: ." ,..' .~,~...., e:r/ D D _/ IB""'" D D The project increases the neighborhood size substantially, +66% The burden of an additional 111 households plus the facility itself on the current sewer and water system and possible special assessments on my home to improve the infrastructure: The proposed 'Tot Lot" play area is located in an area which floods frequently (NWC of Barlelmy and 7th): 2'"", D D ,g/'''' D D My kids will need to cross busy roads to access public parks: ~.~.. ~~~. . D D The concern for the safety of pedestrians and children due to the significant long-term increase in daily traffic: --~. ....... -" ff"'" D D The rapid deterioration of the roads due to the 60-70% increase in daily traffic through the neighborhood and the probable special assessments on my home to pay for the improvement and maintenance of the neighborhood roads: ,.' ...... B .... D D This commercial building will drastically change the character of this quiet, residential neighborhood: ..' B-""" D D ,,' ....",.- D D I TO: Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner - Community Development Department, City of Maplewood "- \ As a resident of the neighborhood affected by the Gethsemane Senior Housing proposal, please consider the following concems I have about the development: very much slightly not concerned concerned concerned The elimination of a park and open space within walking distance of my home: ,. o o The future development of a nursing home and/or senior town homes on the 4-acre lot currently proposed be temporarily leased to the City as a park: . o o The significant reduction of mv Property and Home Value as a direct result of the deyelopment AND as a homeowner, I will not receive just compensation for this decreased value: lit o o The project increases the neighborhood size substantially, +66% fI o o The burden of an additional 111 households plus the facility itself on the current sewer and water system and possible special assessments on my home to improve the infrastructure: " o o The proposed 'Tot Lot" play area is located in an area which floods frequently (NWC of Barlelmy and th): . o o My kids will need to cross busy roads to access public parks: It o o The concem for the safety of pedestrians and children due to the significant long-term increase in daily traffic: ". o o The rapid deterioration of the roads due to the 60-70% increase in daily traffic through the neighborhood and the probable special assessments on my home to pay for the improvement and maintenance of the neighborhood roads: . o o This commercial building will drastically change the character of this quiet, residential neighborhood: &! o o The increased construction traffic through the neighborhood for 12 - 15 months and the dirt, noise and other nuisances involved: fJ 0 0 Additional Comments: lie. 6'1'(: $ 8/1 /()J1 <; on ,rflJxe! /n ctJ>>Je > AI e.. fJI'PPe/'iy ftF;ctf'J) 1t1J?'e fone tiP {)~e)1!/1ftl(/()f'e jJ'Jf7it/o ye8J3', 4#1 is It'e l1j A/fNt/ b't.'ry d-Ite/ cost;' h !lye -tone v fl)//, ()yG-h ye;;/ -'- ItOi"e Jess G less 7-11A:r:.- hN>>e I'ily~ / . , 1 NAME: Uti /]kirtlo! ADDRESS: 7%f JK?;f7V b #, AI I 1 .~. Together We Can December 4, 2007 CATHERINE E CARLSON 2490 7TH ST E MAPLEWOOD MN 55119-3818 GETHSEMANE SENIOR HOUSING PROPOSAL This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal by Gethsemane Lutheran Church and Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota to b4ild a 111-unit senior housing facility on land owned by Gethsemane .south of the church. ThiS is the lanQ currently leased to the city for a park. Please refer to the attached letter and maps. . I would like your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter and any attachnients on which you have written comments by December 13,2007. ' If you would like further information, please call me at651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your cornments. I will give them careful consideration. or -- &D. TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER I have no comments: Comments: 1~~@~D\Yl~m IJIJ . DEe 1 2 2007 ~I. By OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST FAX: 651-249-2319 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 ~ Together We Can December 4, 2007 JEFF & CHRISTY KLEVE 822 MEYER ST N ST PAUL MN 55119-3831 GETHSEMANE SENIOR HOUSiNG PROPOSAL This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal by GethsemClne Lutheran Church and Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota to build a 111-unit. senior housing facility on land owned by Gethsemane .south of the church. This is the lancj currently leased to the city for a park. Please refer to the attached letter and maps. I would like your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter and any attachments on which you have written comments by December 13, 2007. If you would like further information, please call me at651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@cLmaplewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. or -- aD TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER I have no comments: CO!):!D1ents: ...2 "0 VI'\' tJ~ ~~ @ ~ G \!J ~\i1\1 i~~ DEe 12 2007 . ~ By OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST FAX: 651-249-2319 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Attachment 10 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gethsemane Lutheran Church and Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota have applied for a change to the City of Maplewood's land use plan from P (park) to R3H (high density residential) for a proposed 111-unit senior-housing development. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located south of Gethsemane Lutheran Church, 2410 Stillwater Road. The legal description is: Lot 1, Block 1, Gethsemane Addition WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 3, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the land use plan change. 2. On July 14, 2008, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council above described change for the following reasons: the 1. Development with the proposed senior housing project would promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 2. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this neighborhood. 3. The proposed development would be a similar type of use to the apartments across Stillwater Road and would also provide a transitional, buffer use between those abutting apartments and the single family homes to the south and east. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2008. Attachment 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gethsemane Lutheran Church and Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to build a 111-unit senior-housing development. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located south of Gethsemane Lutheran Church at 2410 Stillwater Road. The legal description is: Lot 1, Block 1, Gethsemane Addition WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 3, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. On July 14, 2008, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council described conditional use permit, because: the above- 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The planning staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The proposed senior housing development shall remain for use as senior housing unless the city council approves a change in use. 5. The owner/operator of the senior housing development shall obtain a cross easement from Gethsemane Lutheran Church for access and overflow parking before the city will issue a building permit for this development. 6. Compliance with the city's engineering report by Steve Kummer dated February 13,2008. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on July 14, 2008.