The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/25/2008 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WEDNESDAY, June 25, 2008 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4;. Approval of Minutes: a. April 9, 2008 5. Communications 6. Unfinished Business 7. New Business a. Gethsemane Senior Housing Planned Unit Development and TIF Financing Request 8. Date of Next Meeting a. August 13, 2008 9. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Rita Andreoli Commissioner Josh Richter Chairperson Gary Pearson Commissioner Joy Tkachuck Vice-Chairperson Beth Ulrich Present Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Andreoli moved to approve the amended agenda, adding "Update on Code Enforcement Officer" under item 6.a. and "Review of Broadcast and Recording Ordinance" under item7.b. Commissioner Tkachuck seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. February 13, 2008 Commissioner Andreoli moved approval of the February 13, 2008 minutes as presented. Commissioner Richter seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. COMMUNICATIONS None VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS . Update on Code Enforcement Officer City Planner Ekstrand presented the report from Mr. Samuelson, code enforcement officer, for the previous two months. Mr. Ekstrand reported that Mr. Samuelson will be on medical leave for another month. Mr. Ekstrand said that the planning and building inspection staff will deal with critical enforcement issues until his return. Housing and Redevelopment Authority -2- Minutes of 04-09-08 VII. NEW BUSINESS . Review of Broadcast and Recording Ordinance City planner Ekstrand presented a letter with a draft ordinance from city attorney Alan Kantrud regarding the review of the broadcast and recording ordinance for city meetings. Commissioner Tkachuck said residents have rnentioned to her that they watch the broadcasts. Ms. Tkachuck said that televising the meetings is important and is a service the city needs to provide. Commissioner Andreoli suggested that a web cast of the meetings would be helpful and asked whether this could be done. Staff said he would check into this. Commissioner Pearson also favored the televising of meetings and said it is important to keep residents informed. Mr. Pearson said he felt it would be a mistake to go back to the old way. Commissioner Tkachuck moved to approve the changes in the ordinance that city meetings be televised. Commissioner Richter seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all . 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Housing Sections Discussion City Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for the 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Pearson suggested that the word "design" be added on page eight under "Housing Goals." Mr. Ekstrand said that charts, graphs and figures throughout the document will need to be updated with current numbers. It was noted there is a typo on page 23 that refers to a non-existent map on page 28. It was suggested that the map on page 66 needs to be updated with a better depiction. It was also mentioned that the Share-a-Home program referenced on page 56 no longer exists and should be deleted. Commissioner Pearson said the number of manufactured hornes on page 52 needs to be corrected from five to three and with a total of 750 units. VIII. DATE OF NEXT MEETING . The May 14, 2008 meeting will be rescheduled due to conflicts. Staff will notify the commission. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 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 June 17, 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 . Design Plans . TIF (tax increment financing) HRA Should Review . The PUD to consider whether the proposed development is an appropriate "fit" for this area and should be allowed by the city council, and . The TIF request PUD The planning commission considered this proposal on June 3'd. Staff has included the same data in this report relative to land use, the proposed density and the proposed PUD for the HRA's background information. In short, though, staff is asking the HRA to forward a recommendation on the appropriateness of the proposed development for this neighborhood. TIF Mr. Van Slyke is requesting TIF for this development because the project would have 20% (22 units) of affordable housing. TIF would allow them to keep rents down on those 22 units. The city council will hold the public hearing for the TIF proposal which is tentatively scheduled for August 25, 2008. Paul Steinman, of Springsted Incorporated, is the city's financial consultant reviewing the TIF proposal. Mr. Steinman has forwarded a report in which he analyzed the request for TIF. Refertotheattachment. 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. 2 . 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. .'3 . 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. Densitv 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. 3 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 have 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. 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 gave 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 very 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. 4 Parkina The applicant is proposing to provide 108 parking space~1 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. Park Parkina 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 5 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 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: . Averaoe 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. Tax Increment Financing Mr. Steinman has evaluated the affordability component of the applicant's TIF request. Again, this is to allow the applicant TIF financing to keep 20 percent of the units (22 units) offered below market-rate rents. Mr. Steinman has concluded that "it is unlikely the project will go forward without an additional source of funds." Please refer to page 4 of his report. The city relies on Mr. Steinman's analysis to guide us in the review process for considering TIF applications. Staff concurs with his recommendation. As he stated, if the council votes to approve the proposed TIF subsidy at the public hearing, that still 6 does not grant the TIF. It simply allows the council to use TIF if an agreement to do so can be successfully negotiated with the developer. Staff is recommending that the HRA support Mr. Steinman's conclusion that the use of TIF is a viable and necessary financial tool to enable the applicant to develop the Gethsemane Senior Housing development. COMMITTEE ACTIONS June 3, 2008: The planning commission recommended approval of the: comprehensive land use plan amendment, the PUD, the preliminary and final plat and the parking authorization. The TIF proposal will be submitted to them on July 1,2007. June 10,2008: The community design review board recommended approval of the design plans. RECOMMENDATIONS A. 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-living 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. 7. The city engineer shall explore the closure of Bartelmy Lane at Brand Avenue through 7th Street and the posting of Bartelmy Lane to prohibit truck access. B. Approve the use of TIF for the proposed senior housing development. 7 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." 8 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 October 5, 2008. p:sec25\Gethsemane HRA 6 08 Attachments: 1. Land Use Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. 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-PUD 11. Memo from Paul Steinman Dated May 5, 2008 12. Plans date-stamped February 1, 2008 (separate attachments) 9 Attachment 1 -...c. c::tJ - _CA1lEAVC . '" .. ~cfu cb I i:i i:i J D c 0 c "'fJ ~D l::J '" o J!\!!ll1AVE __ -- -- , C I...=.... 11...1..,.1(\11....1101 N I~ I {~!I'!tl 01 LAND USE PLAN MAP \I N Attachment 2 I b I- I- j:l ...u Cb D ,,0 [) . -:::>-i c:b, [0' ,I " ,I ,I .1 :' , i I I I I J I o I I CI\S~AVe: <I> J[) [)tl D " .. tl I .I I I I I - \ j:j \ / ". J " o D D lake :tlOol ; ...-+.-----.---. i , r::J I , i i ! 'iJ1 Z4S>t::J, ::;J 1 ! ~ ~ --'"-. -, , I I I I I I I IilulQ]li co PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP \r N Attachment 3 ~1~~1:: Hajji ~~~. . HHiH H~~~~.. ~ -., $ I !u: ~ Hi l ;'1 _ j ~L ~ _ ~ loll j ~ ~ j~!l~ 'i! 'I ~: ~ ! ~ N:ia ~ .. mink} :I~! ~ q! ; ~ IfJ;f;l.. ~ ~ tilili ~ ~ d I 1< ':!! j I ~ [2lli ,~ ;';i;", ,'. . ;;;'1';.. iL I ~ H . L_ , 1. m~l!~~ ~-' '" "oj' .""~ < ~--j" \' ;. " ;, <'c ,- f . .~ -.~ ,lj ~4 " ~~.l i, I. ~l j j IlU.d 'j!'l Hill ~h i jj i~ I . "h:J 1 i 1 ! ~:fI~1 h ~ ~-i~~U' l ~~!!u i !~i1~~d i F,i 5~s! ~l "I"J jjL ,,_ l~ Hi~~ ~ ~~i #~~ . '.'t:~;t, H -I', ~ti;' f :- i'h;~i'i -;1, .J. ~~~; ! ~11 :'H~,,~,. g. I ~~;~ ~. 1~;I"a~l ~ ~~] ~~~~ . ~. t~~J!~ii !:i h ]3'~ i H ~j"jhh ~~ jh il~; i ;: ;1!i!~li ;~ ~h liH I, !l J "."H h ~M . llll"i'j'j.;j lljb; 1:1 ,hit" ., " , ,. 1 i j i . j f ~ ~ f j . i : i i 1 t ! i -I I 1 !h - III h- ~!L n ~:1 1 ~ j"~ L~ "n J~~ ~. .t~l' ~"! i ~ij ~~t ~!. ;U ( ~ S I = ClO = = ...... - e;. cc Ll.J L.L.. ~ @ ~ ~ >. ~ a.. ...J <( Z - u. - >- 0::: <( Z ~ ...J W 0::: a.. lIilJII . Mi~ . "alO: . ~~d <ill ~ ~_~ ~ ~~! i~ < i~,U U~ u !U! n ~i~l ~~, ~~,i;! UI - -" j~. ~~ ~ -~ ~, ~. ~ '~~. ~ ~li~ i ll~ It -ii." i! li~ i~ ~~~~. :1 n~i q~lq;H!dl!! i~t II nnl~ II l~!~ I <~~~ ii~ ~Hn ~~ Iii i-~! ~~~m h ~ii! I UU i1i !Inl; ii ~i -!)I . jUU hi : ~~, ~ 'i~J !;~ p~; ;~" -':ia -' ~j ,~'..~. _l~' ~llh i hi; !i! I;m m ; lll:.ii Imlllll l'~ ; ~~ .~~~ia'- I ! ~ !~~ ~,~ l~ ~h! ~~il~j )~ ~~~, .. '~l'" .'1 .h~ '~~.l" -I ~ ~i~'~' II ~i;'l'j. ~n! ~~~!~. !~ ~~~ l!~~Jk ;%l ~l! l~ nll ~d!.~ i. .~i hii~~ ",;; ~ J!~ "._ 1'!~!~ il ~~! ~Ii!:~ hi ~ii ~u,- H'I ~Msi' i~l m I" "'I""" ", ',"" I ." . 'il~jll~1 ill i,;li ~m MUi!; ~u ,hl!;1 t;! il! ~ll.h IIU \~!mu d In, . ,"' '1 ... ". ~>.~ dj';'~ .~. j;~~~ h~ :lh .~h ;;h~ h~~~~~ IKt m~ " i j " ! , J t ' 111 j III !l i; ! II I I' -!i,,; h ~ . liHt1~Pi ~ li!'1IlljHd ~ ,,< _ ~ '" ~ J ! "I U Ii ~ ~ .:.: l ~ j ,,:'; ~, 1 ~ j ll" I a:=; :! H! H~H~HHH '; ~ " " ~ HH: 100. jl H 1 J - ~ ,'" ~ '" ,. ~ . - - L... -' L :11 ,}, iil IIi I' Ii t- .\ I""l I';'" j' . illl:! ' 11 '<l' ~ I ill ~ I"' N I' , . l~' !, ~ ," I' " ., 1 . ,- .1 . ~.~, HI Illl !,1~ I Ulfld adlf:lspUWI I\1f.la.l.O 'j' . i h 1 h ntH i !l 1 i ~i i ~~'I~H~ i j I ~ "lH !Bi i I" 'lb''i'ii d"l \; .!~~ ~.I~, r" - c ~ il I, - .' 1 ! ~ ~~l,h;! i!~j~ii id '" ,,}' ~"S.li"- ~ hiiil!I~!11!llhtnl 61Ii~lillij,'llil";ljlm " a .~~~~~~.~ ~ol-~ it ~l'" , ll',;~m~~ ~~Il~ ~~ 1 ~~, !.;;, }~!m~nt;~!nbl~ ..- -.. - . ,;; i ',i .~ ~; Ii ~I ! j' 0;'" _! 'iillll' i ',1'" : 'j ~.~ ~"~ ! o jl 'ls lid j~l~~~~~~ o!q~i-lin ~ ji U,!H i ! ~ ~ o ~~ ti )t 'm" ':-1_ . j: , ,~~~' r- ~~ ~! u1 ~ i . ;.~;rJ ,~. ~'(7 _ \~" ~_'.I:.'!.IJ)fJj.~H}(J! >'j 1iO~ l)' , -ePAQ Ql~~O Gl,o.01iJO<<'llk&1 ", - ~' 0 ~ 0 w ~ e ~'e A '''',0'' \0 0- :0V.~.,Q3...' J' ". :::":;'~~~ 'pO. 'i'l /' H -a lilll ~~b 'Ii ;" ) .."". ~~~''ij'f;m{n ~H , :11, \;:;.\;J;; ..i........."'... 'ie,' ,,0 ,Ii '-~H ~;:h 1ixh!;:,', ~ ~l-!. ;-.'I,~H ',i'9!:~.-'f-\ ~ '111 'f m 'o!D:'O ~~ -~~~ O'j! <: - --6 ;', <.i o-'@ ~." . . " ~.-':'t,-1.-:~ o ~ ~ ~ g o~ ~. ~ . o.~ .~ .g':;; '~ ~ ~3 ~~ '3 a ~M -... ~ ~ ~, 4,.' j" " :--(' . .':-,~~, ~ , ---..' Attachment 4 -, ( ") ~ 00 S = = C"-..l = ,..... ~ <:::> @ CC I.J., I.J., ~ ~ ... In z <( -I 0- c:> Z - 0- <( () en o z <( -I - W I- en i.:; r=J ~ = "" S R. = - "" <n U-' U- Attachment 5 ~~ .5.~ -> ~- ~: ,,~ ~~ JI ~ ,.-'! ~H ~i Q;lo ..,' "'":&~ ." C) w > l- t) W a.. CJ) 0:: w a.. (9 z o ..J :J CD ---- Attachment 6 <W Innovations in Senior Living CommWlities SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS December 10, 2007 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner City of Maplewood 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 111 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 -:+ www.seniorpartners.com+ (651) 631-6300 <- Fax (651) 631-6301-:+ 800-891-9126 Project that only 6 ofthe 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 o1.r-4 v..A.-- Robert VanSlyke Project Manager Gethsemane Senior Housing, Inc. Attachment 7 2010 No-Build 0- UI ra IC JDeratlOns Intersection Level of Service Longest 95'" Percentile Queue (AM / PM) (AM I PM) West Site Access - C/C 40 feet I 40 reet Westbound Approach Stillwater Road! B/A 140 reet (Westbound) I 120 reet (Northbound) Lakewood Drive North Site Access BIB 30 reet I 30 reet Northbound Auoroach East Site Access- AlA 40 feet I 30 reet Eastbound Approach Table 4 2010 N B 'Id T ffi 0 Allleve1s 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 95'" Percentile Queue (AM / PM) (AM I PM) West Site Access - C/C 50 reet I 50 feet Wes!bound Aooroach Stillwater Road! B/A 140 feet (Westbound) I 120 feet (Northbound) Lakewood Drive North Site Access- BIB .. 40 feet I 30 reet Northbound Aporoach East Site Access - AlA 40 reet I 30 reet Eastbound Aooroach 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 queuing. Operations ofBartelmy Lane as monitored in the field indicate the ro~d tVnctions 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 95d\ percentile queues increase only very Trame Impact Study Page 12 Gethsemane Senior Housfng - Maplewoad, 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 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 very minimal 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 - Mapfewood, Minnesota Attachment 8 Maplewood Engineering Comments 2-13-08 Page 1 of 7 Enoineerino 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 /Inspector DATE: PLAN SET: COMPS: 2-13-08 City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings - Dated 1-31-08 Stormwater Computations by Clarlk Engineering - Dated 1-31-08 Gethsemane Lutheran Church is proposing a multi-story senior housing building within the 9.4+/- acre undeveloped property located at the northeast quadrant of the Stillwater and 7'h 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 Hvdroloav and Pondinallnfiltration 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 vicinity 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 inletting 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 overflow 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 natives, 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. Gradina and Drainaae 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 Hoot 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 provided 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 callouts 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 excavation 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 / 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 pavement 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 7'h, 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 sedimentprotection 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 yth 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 servi.ce 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 event 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 Geometries and Layout 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. .;:'" Landscapina/Plantina 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. Aaency Submittals and Permittina 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 "granf' 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. ".J. 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. .sLLs.,.:r Vllt ;:cp.f. e ~ V".../ a~.J "t ~I\"S(~~~ ) '1\ -Here are some ofthe questions asked by residents at the initial proposMWa~~~rtl~ Keld 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 -creating 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 complex 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 h<:lve 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 own 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 & 7th. 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 children? 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 want to! ~ . -.-- .-- .,. 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 our.ool1-sidewalk-equipped roads, espec!ally children? . . p. .-... - . ~ '. 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 harm. 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 emplqyees. 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 begIns, mainly due to construction traffic and increased daily traffic, then who will pay for the renovated i"oads?u 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 formula, but I'll 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 formula 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 permit 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 have about the development: The elimination of a park and open space within walking distance of my home: 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: very much slightly not concerned concerned concerned o o The significant reduction of my Property and Home Value as a direct result of the development AND as a homeowner, f.'--. I will not receive just compensation for this decreased value: t""'- . The project increases the neighborhood size substantially, +66% o o o o o o The burden of an additional 111 households plus the facility itself on the current sewer and water system and possibl.e e- 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 Bartelmy and yth): My kids will need to cross busy roads to access public parks: The concern for the safety of pedestrians and children due to the significant long-term increase in daily traffic: 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 improvernent and maintenance of the neighborhood roads: This commercial building will drastically change the character of this quiet, residential neighborhood: The increased construction traffic through the neighborhood for 12 -15 months and the dirt, noise and other nuisances involved: Additional Comments: V-~ IIL<L./ NAME: 6~ h~~ 55717 o o ~ \ ~{, \\J ~0 ".~ ~ t! o D o o o o o o o o o o (bIf.dKI' 7 '? 'l~1 Y'"5 By )l( i, "-( -i e< ~ )( i P< ~ ~ , 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. We 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 ofthe fact children donot 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 71b. 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 bljild i1111-unit senior housing facility on land owned by Gethsemane ,~ ,south of the church. This is the lane! currently leased to the city for a park. Please refer to the , attached letter imd maps. I would like your opinion to help me prepare a recommendati9n 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 woulc! like further, Information, please call me aI651-249-2302 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. Th.mk you for your comments. I will give them careful ~nsideration. OP--~, TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER I have no comments: llJiJ/jr~:k7iifi!f!i:~t~~% -i'Yl a quy~(A'Vt;.. U...JtL;-t, U!e..~. ({In-C ftJ e..trn..~...u.......' ~"> tl.6LV Lfull.~ - 1+ i.-V1 U ~ tt ~' vvLt?,a.:fruL-- . i'Yl,yue d- PVl ttk. ~~ 4- iJ G-e M.. h,Lv vV-< ~~, - ' ru~ @ ~ U ill ~ I~i !ill OECU,"'7 ~ ~" OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 CITY OF'MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST FAX: 651-249-2319 MAPLEWOOD, 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 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: ~ .....~"..,_. 0 0 The future development of a nursing home and/or senior ~"r~'"'' h(, Ojh., r ~ town homes on the 4-acre lot currently proposed be .~~O.J. Ie. -10/ . . temporarily leased to the City as a park: ... rD' /0 g---'-- The significant reduction of mv Property and Home Value as a direct result of the development AND as a homeowner, I will not receive just compensation for this decreased value: The project increases the neighborhood size substantially, +66% ." ...~~..,...-"''''~..... e( 0 D 8----." 0 D 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: 2"""" ....' o o The proposed "Tot Lot" play area is located in an area which floods frequently (NWC of Bartelmy and ylh): ~. <lO]/ o o My kids will need to cross busy roads to access public parks: [;;1/ ~.-..,'--~ o o The concern for the safety of pedestrians and children due to the significant long-tenm increase in daily traffic: ...,,.,.........-.--. ~. f'T'"'" 0 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: ff""""'....../D o This commercial building will drastically change the character of this quiet, residential neighborhood: -",,4' g..--"'- 0 o The increased construction traffic through the neighborhood for / 12 - 15 months and the dirt, noise and other nuisances involved: . iB"/ 0 0 Additional Comments: ~ rt ~/;'"t?c1r1;/W ~) X:d~/I/j.,~ tU;3/)/ J . ttd d #-. ~. I 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 concerns I have about the development very much sligh~y not concerned concerned concerned The elimination of a park and open space within walking distance of my home: ., D D ,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: . D D The significant reduction of my Property and Home Value as a direct result of the development AND as a homeowner, I will not receive just compensation for this decreased value: lit D D The project increases the neighborhood size substantially, +66% . D D ., 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: r/I D D The proposed "Tot Lot" play area is located in an area which floods frequently (NWC of Bartelmy and yth): . D D My kids will need to cross busy roads to access public parks: it D D The concern for the safety of pedestrians and children due to the significant long-term increase in daily traffic: rl- 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: . D D This commercial building will drastically change the character of this quiet, residential neighborhood: III D D The increased construction traffic through the neighborhood for 12 - 15 months and the dirt, noise and other nuisances involved: "111 D D Additional Comments: 1Ve., F I'f: <5 eh /011 <; 011 () I/xed /n ?d"7nP, J/!' e.. pl'tIpe;rl"v :!t?;Gi!'J) , Iwl/e '{Me ClP oz,-el/1/tltJoo-fie j.f..ci 7ivo vellJ5 J 4ftl35 tt'e !Jj A/lNt" 6'ef'Y d-Ite,;" cosh' hf/ye .fone f/ 'IN, (OG-A yeJ/.J.. hare jess'; less ftl/c-e.-/Jo'J'YJ.e li1y~ / . , " NAME: Z21~ ZkJ,(Jof ADDRESS: tif }kj1 y (> 'f, AI 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 bllild 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 woulq 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 comments. I will give them careful consideration. or ~ azD. TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER I have no comments: . IroJ~@~UW~~ IJ1J DEe 1 2 2007 lJ)j By OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVEL.OPMENT 65 t -249-2300 CITY OF MAPL.EWOOD t 830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST FAX: 65t-249-2319 MAPL.EWOOD, MN 55t09 " 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 Gethsemllne 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 land 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 retum this letter and any attachments on which you have written comments by December 13, 2007. ' If you woulc! like further information, please call me at651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrand@cLmiaplewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Th.mk you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. or~~ TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER I have no comments: , Y\'I/... C\ II\J mlE@~O\!J~Wl UU DEe 12 2007 ~ By c OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST FAX: 651-249-2319 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Attachment 10 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 approve this permit. 2. On June 25, the Housing and RedevelopmentAuthority (HRA) reviewed this request and considered the recommendation of city staff. The HRA recommended that the city council this permit. 3. 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. 10 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. 7. The city engineer shall explore the closure of Bartelmy Lane at Brand Avenue through 7'h Street and the posting of Bartelmy Lane to prohibit truck access. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on July 14, 2008. 11 Attachment 11 Springsted Springsled Incorporated 380 Jackson S1reet, Suite 300 Saint Paul. MN 55101-2887 Tel: 651-223-3000 Fax: 651-223.3002 www.springsted.com MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Paul Steinman, Vice PresidenUConsultant DATE: May 5, 2008 SUBJECT: Gethsemane - Tax Increment Financing Request The purpose of this memo is to provide the results of our analysis of the Gethsemane Senior Housing, Inc. proposal to construct a 111-unit senior housing facility including Independent Living, Assisted Living, and Memory Care units. The development proposal includes a request from the owner for tax increment financing assistance equal to 90% of the tax increment generated through the term of the District, or approximately $5.96M. Our analysis consists of: a) Testing the Developers rate of return both with and without assistance b) Assisting in determining a reasonable level of assistance 1) Development Proposal Analvsis . This section outlines the financial components of the developers proposal to construct the 111-unit senior housing facility on epproximately 6 acres of land immediately south of Gethsemane Lutheran Church and School. Approximately 4 of the 6 acres may be utilized as parkland. The developer estimates the total cost of the project to be $18.6M and has requested $5.96M of tax increment financing assistance. Springsted conducted an analysis to determine the amount of tax increment that would be generated from the project. The annual amount of gross tax increment in the firstlull year oftaxes is projected to be $122,826. This annual tax increment number is based upon a final marl<et value of $14,434,502, which consists of the following value estimates for taxes payable 2011: . Land . Building $1,276,500 $14.434.502 $15,711,002 . Total To calculate tax increment, we are using an assumption that 75% of the value of the project is constructed in 08, and the remaining 25% of the value is constructed in 09 for the first full year of taxes payable in 2011. Our assumptions also include a 3% annual market value inflator, which increases the estimate of tax increment so that in the final 26'h year of the tenn, the annual amount of gross tax increment is estimated to be $370,717. The base value is the value of the land prior to construction of the improvement. This value, when taxed, does not Public Sector Advisors City of Maplewood, Minnesota May 7, 2008 Page 2 generate increment. The property tax dollars generated from the base value of the property are provided to each taxing jurisdiction based upon its respective tax rate. The proposed site is currently tax-exempt, providing no property taxes to the jurisdictions. Upon sale of the property and certification of a TIF District, we assume the base value to be at least equal to the purchase price of $1,276,500. Assuming the applicable residential tax classification rate, and using assess 07/pay 08 tax rates, this value is estimated to generate non-TIF property tax revenues of $5,000 to the City's general fund. This project is proposed to be a housing project under the tax increment iaw in Minnesota. You may be aware there are a multitude of different types of tax increment financing (TIF) districts. In a housing district such as this one being proposed, the Developer is required to meet specific guidelines of afford ability for the units being constructed. In this proposal, the Developer has indicated he will agree to retain a minimum of 20% of the units at rentlincome restricted levels starting at $740/month (2008) for a one bedroom. The Developer requests tax increment in the form of a pay-as-you-go. This concept means that the Developer finances 100% of the project costs to get the project built, then as incrementis annually generated from the project, it is essentially rebated to the developer. This mechanism minimizes the City's exposure because it is not required to sell bonds to provide the assistance. It provides even greater protection to the City because generally the Developer will only get an annual payment of tax increment if such tax increment has been generated, which means the project has to have been constructed and assessed at the expected value. The sources of funds shown in the table below do not show TI F because it is only proposed to be provided annually as the project generates tax increment. The Developer's sources and uses of funds are as follows: Sources of Funds Total Uses of Funds Total First Mortaaae Amount 17,185,650 land Acauisition 1,276,500 Eauity 1,500,000 Hard Costs (Construction \ 13,158,002 Soft Costs 1,989,330 Finance Costs 1,733,595 Develooment Fee 528,223 Total 18,685,650 Total 18,685,650 The Developer has proposed a 'developer paymenf of $8,000 per year through the term of the District, to defray costs that the City may incur related to providing services to the new facility. This developer payment, plus our estimate of approximately $5,000 annually generated from the base value of the property, equals $13,000 per year that the City will receive related to this development, until the TIF District is decertified, at which time 100% of the property taxes will be provided to the taxing jurisdictions. 21 But-For Analvsis The but-for test is used to determine whether or not a project will proceed as proposed without the use of public dollars. To complete this analysis we examined two 10-year rental project pro-formas, one showing a result if the developer receives the subsidy and one showing a result if the developer does not receive a subsidy. The following assumptions and parameters were used in the proformas: ~ Revenues and expenses provided by developer ~ Average monthly rental rates provided by developer ~ 5% vacancy rate provided by developer ~ Equity investment of $1,500,000, or 8% of total project costs ~ Springsted's tax increment numbers Springsted has reviewed the information provided by the developer and finds it generally reasonable for a project of this size and scope in the current market. City of Maplewood, Minnesota May 7, 2008 Page 3 Springsted performed an industry standard analysis using the Internal Rate of Return mechanism to estimate the proposed projecfs rate of return. . Internal Rate of Return (IRRI o measures the average annual yield on an investment, and o considers the time value of money The following table summarizes the results of the IRR analysis: Without Assistance With Assistance Intemal Rate of Return (vear 111 11.28% 20.49% Total assistance throuah vear 11 $0 $1,920,533 Our methodology Is to measure the projecfs financial performance with and without the assistance in order to address the but-for analysis, which tests whether the project will proceed "but-for" the subsidy. Should the IRR lie below a reasonable range without a subsidy, we believe that a Developer, attempting to make a reasonable return on the project, will not proceed without such subsidy. Should the IRR lie within a reasonable range with the subsidy, we believe the amount of subsidy tested is appropriate for the project. The number of current and future variables affecting these estimates and actual results are great. As such, all estimates should be viewed as general indicators of performance and not exact forecasts. Without assistance, the project is estimated to generate an IRR of 11.28% in 2020. Using identical assumptions, with the TIF assistance, we calculated the project would generate an IRR of 20.49% in 2020. The calculation of the IRR includes a hypothetical sale of the building in year 11 (2020), and considers the value of any future tax increment beyond 2020, in order to provide a comprehensive result. The developer assumes the facility will be fully rented (95%) within three years. In the first partial year of operation (2009), we estimate the overall project revenues to be less than expenses, with a negative operating cash flow as a result. However, the margin is projected to be better in the second year, with projected operating cash flows of $140,334 without assistance, and $250,480 with assistance. The operating cash flow, in both scenarios, is projected to be solid and growing through the remaining years of the project. It is important to note that aithough the project has positive cash flow beginning in year 2, it does not provide the necessary Debt SeNice Coverage to attract private financing. . Debt SeNice Coveraae (DSRl o a ratio used to determine the percentage of annual debt payments that are covered by operating income Without assistance, the DSR is as follows: With assistance, the DSR is as follows: City of Maplewood, Minnesota May?,2008 Page 4 It is reasonable to assume that a minimum DSR of 1.35 to 1.40 in the third full year of operation (2012) is necessary in order to attract the private financing to the deal. Put another way, the private financier requires there to be $1.35 to $1.40 of net cash flow available for each $1.00 of debt service. As can be seen in the table showing no assistance, this is not achieved untiI201?/2018, but with assistance is achieved in 2012 and increases substantially beyond the necessary coverage in the following years. 31 Alternative Proposal As the Developer and City staff discussed the results of our initial analysis, it was evident the amount of assistance would need to be reduced to keep the project numbers more in line with what may be considered reasonable in the current market. This alternative proposal differs from the original in the following W&fS: . Reduces the number of years of TIF from 26 to 10 (decertify the District after 10 payments) . Reduces the amount of TIF from $5.96M to $1 M . Maintains a minimum threshold DSC of 1.35 to 1.40 . Gradually reduces the % of annual TIF provided . Developer achieves a reasonable IRR with assistance of 15.13% The table below illustrates the alternative concept: 2008 2010 2Ml 2012 2013 1014 2M! 2M! 2011 ~IB 2019 20~ TIFRelmbufSelDeIll (110,146) (156,035) (161,158) (166,43n (140,000) (110,000) (80,000) (511,000) (15,000) (10,000) %ofAvailableTIF 90% 90% 90% 90% 81% 62% 44% 26% 13% 5% DeblCowllleRalio 1.26 1.31 1.35 1.39 1.40 tA1 tA2 tA2 1.44 tAl IRRCalrolabon 1~13% The Developer generally agrees that this alternative would work for their project. 4) Conclusion We conclude from our analysis that it is unlikely the project will go forward without an additional source of funds. It was suggested to the Developer that additional equity could fill the gap; however, they indicated they are not interested in pursuing that option for the following reasons: 1) The current amount of equity is already in excess of normal equity requirements for similar projects of this size and scope 2) The Developer feels additional equity attracted to this project would only be at the expense of similar projects currently being considered in and around the metropolitan area. Our conclusion is based in part on the financing markets and the fact they are significantly tightening their loan requirements due to market flux. Up to a couple of years ago, this project would likely have had to only reach and sustain a DSC of 1.25% in order to attract private financing. 5\ Next Steps Should the Council elect to move forward with creating a TIF Plan for consideration at a public hearing on July 14 (proposed), it should be noted that tonighfs action is not a vote of approval for the proposed TIF subsidy. Such action only provides authorization to create a TIF Plan, which will be presented at the public hearing. Adopting a TIF Plan after the public hearing also does not grant TIF, it simply provides the Council the authorization to use TIF if an agreement to do so can be successfully negotiated with the Developer. Should the Council move forward with authorizing a TIF Plan in anticipation of a public hearing on July 14, it is recommended they also authorize staff, Mary Ippel of Briggs & Morgan, and Springsted, to begin negotiating the TIF Development Agreement. It is most efficient City of Maplewood, Minnesota May 7, 2008 Page 5 for the Council to consider the TIF Development Agreement at the same time as they are considering the TIF Plan (July 14). Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to the City of Maplewood. Please contact me at (651) 223-3000 or psteinman(a)sprinqsted.com. with any questions or comments.