HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/1993AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
September 14, 1993
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
MAPLEWOOD ROOM
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
a. May 11, 1993
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Communications
6. Unfinished Business
7. New Business
a. Crime Prevention Coalition - Mr. Jeff Bates
b. Volunteers of America (VOA) - Assisted Care Living Facility
(1) Lot Sale
(2) Density Variance
(3) Tax-Exempt Financing
c. Truth-in-Housing Code Amendment
8. Date of Next Meeting
a. October 12, 1993
9. Adjournment
HRAAGEND.MEM
MINLrrES OFTHE
MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHO~
MAY 11, 1993
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Tom Connelly, Gary Pearson, Larry Whitcomb
City Staff: Ken Roberts
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. February 9, 1993
Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of February 9, 1993, as
submitted.
Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Pearson, Whitcomb
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Whitcomb seconded Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Pearson, Whitcomb
5. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Cottages of Maplewood West)
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, gave an update on the status of this project. He told
the HRA that the developer now wanted to build the project in two phases. There
would be 60 units in the first phase and 48 in the second phase. The City had also
applied to Ramsey County for a low-interest loan on behalf of the developer. This
loan would be for $279,000.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. 1992 Annual Report
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, gave an update on the 1992-1993 HRA Annual
Report. The City Council accepted this report on April 12, 1993 with no comment.
Hra Minutes of 5-11-93 -2- .
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Commercial Property Study
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The HRA discussed the
report and was generally in agreement with the specifics of the staff report. The HRA
questioned Number 3. They wondered whether the buffer area should apply to
differing housing types in a PUD.
b. Housing Maintenance Code
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The HRA discussed this
item but took no action on it.
c. Manufactured Home Buying Financing - Gary Pearson
Commissioner Pearson presented information about manufactured housing and
financing to the Commission. The HRA viewed a video tape about manufactured
housing. The HRA discussed the current status of the mobile home industry. It has
been difficult to get financing for mobile homes built before 1976. This is because
HUD rules for manufactured housing began in 1976. These rules require improved
construction and safety features in manufactured homes built since 1976. Thus,
buyers of units built before 1976 cannot get financing for them unless the units have
been updated to meet the current standards.
8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
So
a. June 8, 1993
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Crime Prevention Coalition
August 30, 1993
INTRODUCTION
Councilrnember Carlson is asking the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to
determine if Maplewood should start a Crime Prevention Coalition program. (See his
memo on page 2.) Saint Paul started this program in 1991 to reduce problems
(including crime) in rental housing buildings.
DISCUSSION
To help improve the living conditions in rental properties, the coalition has started a
program of expectation, education and information. The expectation of the program is a
minimum level of civility, respect and fairness by residents and landlords. These
expectations are to help keep the city stable for residents and businesses. (See the
information on page 3.)
Educating community and civic groups about the expectations for living in the city is
the second part of the program. This is so the people affected by the program use it in a
consistent manner.
The third part of the program is information. The coalition has developed a data bank
about renters. Reports from landlords and Ramsey County court records is the basis for
the information in the data bank. The data is to help landlords screen prospective
tenants. The goal of this information is to make people responsible for their actions and
behavior. There is now no cost to landlords to use the program.
Mr. Jeff Bates has agreed to talk to the HRA at their September 14, 1993 meeting
about the coalition. Mr. Bates is the coordinator of the program.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the crime prevention coalition and recommend to the City Council whether
Maplewood should join the coalition.
kr/crime.mem
Attachments:
1. 8-26-93 memo from Dale Carlson
2. Saint Paul Crime Prevention Coalition Information
Attachment 1
~RO~
Maplewood HRA !~~ //~
Dale Carlson, Councilmember
DATE:
August 26, 1993
SUBJECt: CRIME PREVENTION COALITION
I have been receiving complaints recently about some of the
apartment buildings in the city. There is a considerable amount of
friction between single family homes and apartments and also
between renters within a building. Some of the complaints include
people using sheets for window curtains, parking on the boulevard,
disturbing the peace and so forth.
In response, I met with Karen Christofferson of the St. Paul Area
Board of Realtors to get some ideas on how to respond. She stated
that St. Paul has started Crime Prevention Coalitions at apartment
buildings. The program involves apartment owners, tenants and
public authorities meeting to develop specific plans to reduce the
problems in buildings. It places specific responsibilities on owners
and tenants as to expected behavior and so forth. It also involves
doing a more detailed screening process of prospective tenants to
keep the few "bad apples" out. The program is enjoying a good
amount of success as the problem tenants are moving out of St. Paul
and over to Roseville, Maplewood, and other suburbs.
I would like the HRA to review this program and determine if and
how a similar program could be implemented in Maplewood. Staff
can provide the name of the contact person in St. Paul and can
provide some other additional information. I look forward to
hearing your recommendation.
Thank you for your consideration.
'2
SAINT PAUL
CRIME PREVENTION COALITION
2
The St. Paul Crime Prevention Coalition was formed as a tool to aid groups doing work relating to crime
prevention all over the city of St. Paul. We are trying to draw together the groups from different sectors of
the city to share information and expertise. There are many groups with stories of success or failure to tell,
and yet we keep trying to reinvent the wheel. Our aim is to get these groups together to share what works
and what does not for the betterment of all.
In addition to this function, the Coalition has a program of "expectation, education, and information." We
have developed a set of "Codes of Conduct" which we hope all segments of tt~e community will take to
heart. In order to help attain some measure of stability for city residents an~ L~usinesses, we are promoting
the expectation of a minimum level of civility, respect, and fairness necessary ~or the livability of the city;
this is the expectation portion of the effort.
Consistency of application is very important to this effort, so we are meeting with as many community, civic
and business groups as possible to promote the acceptance of these standards. This is the education
portion.
The final portion is "information"; those who refuse to comply with the minimum standards should not be
allowed to rest on the perception of anonymity so common in an urban area. When they are pressured
out of one area they shouldn't feel that they can move on to another part of the c~J and begin "business
as usual." To combat this perception of anonymity we have developed a data bank of renters to help
concerned landlords screen prospective tenants. This bank is based on landlord reports and court
records. These are objective statements of fact, and pose no threat to any innocent person. Their
ultimate goal is to make people responsible for their own actions and behavior. Landlords are not
expected to be social workers or policemen, but they do have a significant investment to protect, and a
similarly significant amount of influence on their tenants.
The costs to a landlord of community instability are many: 1 ) The investment in their properties; 2) the cost
of repairing damage to the units; 3) the cost of filing Unlawful Detainer actions; 4) the lost revenue due to
vacancies; 5) the discomfort to the majority of good tenants due to the actions of the few; 6) aggravation
and burn-out. All of these costs must be borne by the good tenants and work against the attainment of
the goals of safe, comfortable, affordable housing; and a stable business with a decent return on
investment.
We urge all landlords to follow three rules of operation, and stand ready to help them in applying this
program.
1 ) Take an active role in the communities in which your properties are located, and ur,qe your
tenants to do the same. You and your tenants are an important part of the community. Block clubs are not
your enemies, show them that you are not theirs, they will help you keep an eye on your property and help
nip problems in the bud.
2) Screen prospective tenants thorou,qhly. You owe it to yourself and to your other tenants to not
allow cdminal or other disruptive elements into your buildings. Get a release of information authorization
from the tenant to ease this process. Keep good records and share factual information with other
landlords and the authorities.
3) Make your expectations clear to tenants. Provide tenants with house rules. Use a good lease
which spells out expectations and gives them the legal force of a contract. We can provide you with
sample house rules and lease agreements which you can either use as is or customize to your own needs.
3
2169 STILLWATER AVENUE · SUITE #202 · SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA. 55119-3508
Telephone: 612-730-7261. Facsimile (612) 731-0194
2169 ~Ri[h~a[er ^v~, SL Paul, MN 55119
Welcome to the Crime Prevention Coalition's Data Bank!
In order !o help Irack the small percenlage ol lenants who creale mosl o! ihe problems
lor Iheir neighbors, landlords, and lhe police, lhe Coalilion I]as crealed a Dala Bank
accessible to prospeclive landlords and communily crime walch organizalions. The
aim of Ihis lracking is Io lei Ihese individuals know lhal ll~ey will be held responsible
for their aclions, and lhal lhey will be unwelcome in the cily of SI. Paul as long as lhey
bellave irresponsibly.
You have a substantial inveslmenl in your renlal properly, and Io protect that
inveslmenl and the comlorl of your olher lenanls you should screen prospective
lenanls carefully before renling to them. This can save you much expense and
aggravalion in lhe lulure. There are a number of good lenant screening companies
available Io landlords lor a price, and lhis service is nol meanl Io replace lhem; ralher il
is meant Io raise a "red flag" indicaling lhat lurlher scrutiny of lhis person may be in
order. As with all such services, tl~e final decision Io renl or not Io rent lies with yoo.
ll~e landlord, and to make an inlormed decision you need as much inlormalion as
possible. The informalion in ibis bank comes lrom olher landlords, and from lhe
Unlawlul Delainer filings as lisled in lhe St. Paul Legal Ledger. I include some forms
for your use in enlering lhe names ol lenanls Io whom you'd nol rent again. Please
duplicate as necessary. This is an informalion "Bank", and lhe only charge Io you is
lhal you make deposits as well as will~drawals. Tl~e grealer lhe number o! people
using il, lhe grealer ils value will be. In using lhis, or any service, lhere are several
concerns lhal you should be aware oi:
1) The enlries musl be lrulhful; lhey musl be based on public informalion (such
as U.D. filings) or suppoded by documenlation in your records. When you sigl~ lhe
bollom of Ihis form you assed lhat the informalion is lrull~ful, and agree Io indemnify the
Coalilion for any damages incurred through lhe communication of false information,
2) Subjecls have a legal righl to challenge lhis information. Make sure il is
accurale, bul remember thai !.he truth is a complete del'ense in libel actions.
3) All applicanls must be lrealed the same. If you are going to screen some
applicanls, you must screen all ol lhem or you will make yoursell liable for charges ol
engaging in discriminalory practices.
Wilhin II, ese limils we think we can make a dillerence in the quality of lile in St. Paul,
and hope you will join wilh us in making lhis work.
4
AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF
INFORMATION
POLICY STATEMENT
All prospective tenants applying for occupancy of a property owned or managed by
are asked to give authorization for the
release of all information from previous landlords, management companies and governmental
agencies (including Police Departments) concerning the applicant's rental history.
PROCEDURE STATEMENT
All applicants will be screened, and their rental histories will be considered as a part of the approval
process. This information will be used by the authorised agent solely for purposes of assessing
the applicant's suitability for occupancy.
I, and
hereby authorize to obtain any and all
information pertaining to my rental history from governmental agencies and former management
companies or landlords whose properties I have resided in during the last three (3) years for the
purpose of reviewing my rental application.
Dated:
Signature of applicant:
Signature of applicant:
Signature of applicant:
If prospective tenant(s) refuse to sign this form, he or she will still be subject to
the gathering of all information available to the public.
HOUSE RULES
NOTICE TO ALL TENANTS:PLEASE READ
The following is a list of conditions that will be met at all times while occupying these premises. In the
event of an infraction of these rules, termination of one's rental agree-ment may result.
1. In accordance with the St. Paul noise ordinance, there shall be no playing of tele-vision, radios, stereos,
or any other noise generating equipment, and/or loud parties or conversations being carried on, audible
outside of the unit between the hours of
10pm and 7:30 am.
2. Any and all adults are responsible for the actions and whereabouts of their children. As such, any
damage or vandalism caused by their children (whether on the immediate premises or surrounding areas)
will be the direct responsibility of their parents and/or guardians.
3. Please note: St. Paul also has a curfew ordinance that requires all children under the age of 18 be in the
home of their legal guardian no later than 10 pm each and every evening. It is the responsibility of the
parent/guardian to see that this is done.
4. There is a trash receptacle located . This is to be used for all the gaYoage
generated by the tenants of the property. For larger objects than will reasonably fit within this container,
please contact me to make arrangements to have them removed. Please take pride in this property, your
home, and police it as often as is necessary.
5. Please conduct yourself in an orderly and appropriate manner in and around all areas of this property.
Please remember that as tenants of this property you are responsible for the actions of your guests,
friends, and/or relatives when visiting the property.
6. There shall be no mail dropped nor use of this address by anyone other than the registered tenants of
the property. This simply means that no friends, no relatives, no one other than the people who are listed
in the rental agreement shall use this address for any reason, purpose, or means.
7. This is a family building and we ask that all profanity and inappropriate language be curtailed as much as
possible.
8. FKjhting or inappropriate physical contact will not be tolerated on the promises.
I must ask that you cooperate and honor these eight simple rules while occupying these premises. Not
only are they rules of common courtesy, but many of them are Minnesota and St. Paul ordinances or laws.
In the event that you choose not to follow these rules, possible prosecution by the law and possible
termination of your rental of this property may result. We believe in tenants rights and will do everything
within our power to honor these rights and/or defend them in the event that they are questioned. Our
only request to you is that you in tum honor the rights of others who are also occupying these premises.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Maplewood Assisted Care Living Facility
White Bear and Cope Avenues
September 1, 1993
INTRODUCTION
VOA Care Centers of Minnesota (VOA) is proposing to build a 66-unit assisted care
living facility. This facility would be on a 3.1-acre site that is north of the Cope Avenue
right-of-way and east of White Bear Avenue. VOA also plans to build an eight-foot-wide
trail along their south property line. (See the maps on pages 14 and 16 and the site
plan on page 19.) VOA owns the adjacent Maplewood Care Center.
VOA is requesting that the City do the following:
1. Vacate the undeveloped alley between Castle Avenue and the vacated Hazel Street.
(See the map on page 17.)
2. Vacate Cope Avenue between Castle Avenue and Hazel Street. (See the map on
page 17.)
3. Change the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple dwellings).
(See the maps on pages 16 and 17 and VOA's letter on page 22.)
Sell part of the City-owned lot on the comer of Cope Avenue and Van Dyke Street
to VOA. (See the map on page 18.) The VOA wants to buy the north 20 feet of the
City's lot to the south and an adjacent thirty feet of the vacated Cope Avenue for a
total of 50 feet.
5. Approve a variance to the City's density standards. (See their letter on page 23.)
6. Approve up to $12 mi11ion in tax-exempt housing revenue bonds.
The care available at this facility would be between that at a nursing home and that
available at housing for independent seniors. The assisted care living facility would
provide minimal aid for daily living to the residents. This would include help with
housekeeping, laundry, bathing, mobility, medication management, social events,
nutritional or other needs.
BACKGROUND
January 20, 1972: The City Council denied the alley vacation. They intended to review
the alley vacation again after the City resolved the question of emending Cope Avenue.
(At the time, the Council was considering whether to build Cope Avenue to White Bear
Avenue.)
July 11, 1983: The City Council changed the land use plan to delete Cope Avenue as a
collector street from White Bear Avenue to Ariel Street.
August 28, 1989: The Council gave preliminary approval to VOA's request for
$5,300,000 in tax-exempt financing to buy the Maplewood Gar, Genter. This approval
was subject to VOA making the following improvements to the building and site:
1. The remainder of the building must be sprinldered to meet the building code
over a two-year period.
Thirteen additional parking spaces shall be added, subject to the approval of the
CDRB. Concrete curbing shall be provided around the new parking spaces and
the two existing lots.
3. The trash enclosure shall be screened to meet the City Code.
4. Staff to review the address as 1905 Cope Avenue.
The VOA completed these improvements.
September 25, 1989: The Council vacated Sherren Avenue between White Bear Avenue
and the vacated Hazel Street.
December 10, 1990: The Council considered changing the land use plan for the
undeveloped property at the comer of Cope Avenue and Castle Avenue. The change was
from R-3H (high-density residential) to R-1 (low-density residential). The Council
decided not to make this change. The Council gave no reason. The Planning
Commission recommended against a change because noise from White Bear Avenue was
not conducive for single dwellings and the VOA was planning a senior project on this
site. The Council did change the zoning on the Sherren Avenue right-of-way from R-1
to R-3 (multiple dwellings).
2
DISCUSSION
Alley Vacation
Them is no need for the undeveloped alley on this site. VOA owns the property on both
sides of the alley. The alley vacation would allow them to build the proposed care
facility as shown on the site plan. The City should keep an easement over part of the
east end of the alley for existing underground utilities.
Cope Avenue Vacation
The Cope Avenue fight-of-way between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street has utilities,
but the City has not paved it. VOA is requesting the vacation because they feel it would:
1. Prevent through traffic and further congestion to the neighborhood to the east.
2. Prevent traffic congestion at the intersection of Cope Avenue and Van Dyke Street.
3. Allow the City to sell their property to the southwest or use it for a small park.
4. Give VOA more land to build more units.
We received a mixed reaction from the neighbors about vacating Cope Avenue. Of the
neighbors we surveyed, two said they wanted Cope Avenue vacated and two wanted the
street put through. The owners of the undeveloped lot that is west of 2271 Hazel
Avenue object to the vacation. They object because it would land-lock their property.
(See their letter on page 26.) In 1988, the City held a public hearing to put Cope
Avenue through. The hearing notices went to a larger area than our recent survey. Most
of the neighbors then opposed the street. The neighbors thought that putting Cope
Avenue through would increase traffic through their neighborhood.
There are three options for Cope Avenue: (I put them in order of preference.)
Vacate all the right-of-way, except the south half of the fight-of-way next to 2271
Hazel Street. The south half of the vacated fight-of-way would become part of the
two lots to the south. The north half would go to the VOA site. The remaining 30-
foot-wide right-of-way would maintain access for the lot that is west of 2271 Hazel
Street. (I have shown this option on page 18.) The City Council would have to
approve a private driveway to this lot, since it would not front on a public street.
The City Code does not allow us to issue a building permit on a lot that does not
front on an improved public street. This option would end the option of building
this section of Cope Avenue.
3
Vacate all of Cope Avenue between Van Dyke and Hazel Streets. Make the vacation
subject to VOA giving a driveway easement to the owners of the lot that is west of
2271 Hazel Street. This option also would end the option of building this section of
Cope Avenue.
Take no action. This option would allow for a future street. There are some
residents who want this street built. This option would reduce the VOA site by 0.18
acres. This would lower the maximum allowed density of the project by four one-
bedroom units. VOA would have to buy more land from the City or drop four units.
Deny the vacation and build a street now. A 1988 study by the City Engineer
showed that building this part of Cope Avenue was feasible. The City could
probably not sustain assessments to all the adjacent properties. The only property
that would receive direct benefit from a street is the lot behind 2271 Hazel Street.
If the Council chooses this option, they should order a new feasibility study
With Options One and Two above, the City should keep an easement for the existing
utilities.
Zoning Map Change
Rezoning the VOA site to R-3 would be consistent with the City's R-3(H) (residential
high density) land use plan designation (page 15). It also would be consistent with the
proposed assisted care living facility.
Land Purchase or Density Variance
VOA's project would exceed the City's density standards for senior housing. They
would have 78 residents, based on the proposed mix of housing units and the City's
density standards. The proposed mix includes 10 studio units (11 people), SO one-
bedroom units (55 people) and 6 two-bedroom units (12 people). The Comprehensive
Plan limits the 3.11-acre site to a maximum of 71 people.
VOA has three options. They could reduce the number of units, buy additional land or
the City could approve a variance to the density standards. The VOA told us that their
preference is to buy additional land for their site. This would avoid having the City
setting a precedent for other senior housing projects.
Land Purchase
The City originally bought the lot on the southeast comer of Cope Avenue and Van
Dyke Street for additional street right-of-way. (See the intersection plan on page 21.)
The City would need this right-of-way if the City were to rebuild the Cope Avenue/Van
Dyke Street/Caste Avenue intersection. The City would not need the this property if
the City vacates Cope Avenue between Van Dyke and Hazel Streets. The City would
keep the south 114.32 feet. The City could sell the remaining property for a single
dwelling.
If the VOA would add 0.3 acres of property to their site, the project's 66 units would
meet the City's density standards. VOA could buy the undeveloped lot that is west of
2271 Hazel Street or a 50-foot-w/de piece of the City-owned lot at the comer of Van
Dyke Street and Cope Avenue. On July 19, 1993, the Parks Commission reviewed the
idea of developing the City's lot into a park. The Parks Commission recommended that
the City sell the lot to VOA. (See their minutes on page 43.) Having VOA buy this site
would be consistent with some of the neighbors' requests for open space at this cornex
An appraiser estimated the value of a 50-foot-wide piece of this lot at $14,865. If the
Gity vacates Cope Avenue and sells this fifty-foot strip to the VOA, it would leave a
ll4-foot-wide lot for a single dwelling. This size lot would fit the character of the
neighborhood. The other lots on the east side of Van Dyke Street are 82 to 134 feet
wide.
Density Variance
If the VOA cannot buy additional land, they are requesting that the City approve a
density variance. This would allow them to build all 66 units. They give several reasons
in their letter on page 23 for their request. These include not hav/ng density standards
specifically for assisted living facilities (the City has one set of density standards for all
senior housing), and that the one-bedroom units always have one resident. (The City's
density standards for senior housing use 1.1 person per unit.) VOA also states that the
typical resident in the project would have less impact on City services than those in
other types of senior housing.
Tax-exempt Rnancing
Tax-exempt financing reduces the interest rate for the developer's financing. The City is
not liable for this financing. There is no loss of money to the City. This money normally
would have gone to the Federal treasur~ Tax-exempt financing is for the expansion or
new construction of businesses that would provide a needed service, create new jobs or
provide additional tax revenue. This project would provide a service for the area and
create about 30 new full- and part-time jobs. There also would be a public benefit since
the City would receive an administrative fee at the bond dosing. The City has approved
tax-exempt financing for at least eight other housing projects in recent years, including
the adjacent VOA Care Center. (See the list of projects on page 11.)
The City has special design requirements for projects using tax-exempt bonds. A project
using tax-exempt financing must include three mandatory design requirements and at
5
least 8 of 21 optional design requirements. The VOA project meets all three of the
mandatory design requirements and at least 10 of the 21 optional design requirements.
The City does not have to approve the tax-exempt financing. As such, the City can
negotiate conditions of approval. The City should require the developer to buy
additional property as part of the tax-exempt financing approval. This is so the
development would not need a variance from the City's density standards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Aw
Approve the resolution on page 28. This resolution vacates the undeveloped alley
north of Cope Avenue, between White Bear Avenue and the Maplewood Care
Center. This vacation is subject to the City keeping a drainage and utility easement
over the south 10 feet of the east 30 feet. The City should vacate this alley because
it is in the public interest. It is in the public interest because:
1. There is no need for this alley.
2. The City does not build alleys.
3. The City has a policy of vacating unneeded alleys.
Bo
Adopt the resolution on page 29. This resolution vacates part of the Cope Avenue
right-of-way between Caste Avenue and Hazel Streets. This vacation is subject to
the City keeping a public utility and trail easement over the right-of-way. The City
should vacate this street because it is in the public interest. It is in the public
interest because:
1. There is no need for this right-of-way.
2. The adjacent properties have adequate street access.
3. The vacation will prevent through traffic from going through the neighborhood
to the east.
Ce
Approve the resolution on page 31. This resolution changes the zoning of this
property from R-1 (single-dwelling residential) to R-3 (multiple-family residential).
The City bases this rezoning on the findings required by the City Code and that the
R-3 zoning is consistent with the City's land use plan.
Do
Approve the sale of the north fifty feet (with Cope Avenue vacated) of the
undeveloped lot on the southeast comer of Cope Avenue and Van Dyke Street for
$14,865. The City declares this land as excess property because:
1. The City obtained this lot to build Cope Avenue.
2. The City does not now need this property for a street.
3. It is not in the public interest to construct Cope Avenue.
6
Adopt the resolution on page 32 and the Housing Finance Program on page 39.
This resolution approves tax-exempt mortgage revenue financing for up to $12
m~lHon to construct the Volunteers of America assisted living facility. Approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1. Meeting the City's requirements for tax-exempt mortgage revenue note
financing.
2. The VOA buying enough additional property to meet the City' s density
standards.
E Take no action on the density variance request.
7
CmZEN COMMENTS
We asked the surrounding property owners for their opinion of these requests. The staff
sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 31 properties,
we received 14 replies. Seven were for the proposals, five were against and two had no
comment.
Those for the requests had the following comments:
It vacates Cope Avenue. Putting the street through would not be in the best
interest of the neighborhood. Also want to know how the lot behind will have
access - from Hazel or Van Dyke? They mentioned using the City property on Van
Dyke and Cope for a park. Is this in the planning? Nice idea for a small green space
set in kind of a park. I object to any idea of having access to the parking lot on the
south end of the nursing home from Cope Avenue. At the time the nursing home
was built, it was stated that the home would have no access this way We do not
want delivery trucks using the neighborhood streets, nor any other traffic to or
from the home or the new building using it. They should change the south parking
lot of the home to green space and have all parking on the north end. Move the
dumpster out of the south lot also. Make all deliveries from the north side.
(Niezgocki - 2271 Hazel Street)
2. I do not want the traffic Cope Avenue would bring to our street if it were to go
through. (Garry - 2261 Hazel Street)
3. It would be a good buffer zone for Highway 36. (Lockery - 2256 Hazel Street)
4. I would like to see Cope Avenue extended to White Bear Avenue. (Lindgren - 2250
Hazel Street)
5. The assisted living facility would be the most desirable use of the property.
(Anderson - 2249 Craig Place)
Those against the requests had the following comments:
When, oh when, is the nursing home going to quit making us a "buffer"? We are
not against senior housing per se - against being squeezed out and a lower value of
home - we have realtors proof! The frontage road - cannot hold more traffic - or
for that matter more noise - (from trucks, etc.). Their wood fence is not a noise
barrier!! Right now we have a vacant HUD home at 1922 Castle - another to the
east of us is going soon! Why not have them take the three of us - and put in a
courtyard - and underground tunnel to connect them?? makes more sensei We will
protest loud and clear. (Th,tomes - 1928 Castle Avenue)
8
0
Added traffic on Hazel Street North. (Cl'd¢onis - 2264 Hazel Street)
We still would like to see single-dwelling homes in this area. If that is impossible,
we cannot comment on any plans that the VOA might have without seeing what
they have in mind. Besides, they really haven't been very good neighbors in that
they have not taken very good care of their property and fence along Cope Avenue
and our property line to the point of it being an eyesore in our neighborhood.
What's to stop them from bringing down our neighborhood even more? (Gehrke -
1917 Cope Avenue)
I want Cope Avenue to go through to White Bear Avenue. (Bambach - 2256 Craig
Place)
5. See the letter on page 26.
9
SITE DESCRIPTION
Area: 3.11 acres
Existing land use:
Property Owner:
REFERENCE
Undeveloped
Volunteers of America Care Facilities and Care Centers, Minnesota
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Existing parking lots for Maplewood Care Center
East: Maplewood Care Center and houses on Cope and Castle Avenues. The
Maplewood Care Center is a three-story 156-bed nursing home.
South: Cope Avenue right-of-way. South of the right-of-way is a sing]e-family home,
an undeveloped lot (privately owned) and City-owned lot on the comer of
Cope Avenue and Van Dyke Street.
West: Castle Avenue (frontage road) and White Bear Avenue
PLANNING
Proposed Unit Mix: 10 studio units, 50 one-bedroom units and 6 two-bedroom units for
a total of 66 units.
Proposed Density: 21.2 units per acre.
Section 412.851of State Statutes states that no vacation shall be made unless it appears
in the interest of the public to do so.
SITE HISTORY
February 1, 1968: The City Council vacated Hazel Street from Cope to Castle Avenues.
June 26, 1969: The City Council approved building and site plans for the Maplewood
Care Center.
COPE AVENUE HISTORY
October 1985: The City Engineering Department prepared a feasibility study for
building Cope Avenue between Hazel and Ariel Streets. This study also determined the
alignment of Cope Avenue from White Bear Avenue to Hazel Street.
l0
June 1988: The City Engineering Department updated the feasibility study for Cope
Avenue.
June 27, 1988: The City Council ordered the construction of Cope Avenue (street and
utilities) from Hazel Street to Ariel Street. The City built this project in 1989.
PAST CITY ACTIONS ON OTHER TAX-EXEMPT HOUSING BONDS
10-8-84:
The Council gave preliminary approval for $3.8 million of tax-exempt bonds
for the Maple Ridge Apartments at 1695 East County Road D.
1-14-85:
The Council gave prelimin~ approval for $5.8 million of tax-exempt bonds
for up to 100 units for the Hazel Ridge Seniors Residence at 2696
Hazelwood Avenue.
2-11-85:
The Council gave preliminary approval for $8.5 mi11ion of tax-exempt bonds
for the 180-unit Beaver Creek (Pondview) Apartments at 2565 and 2585 Ivy
Avenue.
11-25-85:
The Council gave preliminary approval for $6.5 mi11ion of tax-exempt bonds
for the 116-unit Harmony School (Casey Lake) Seniors Residence (County
Road C and White Bear Avenue). This was subject to construction beginning
within one year. (The developers never built this project.)
12-31-85: The City issued $4.8 million of tax-exempt bonds to build the Silver Ridge
Apartments.
June 1986: The Council gave final approval of $2.9 mi11ion in tax-exempt bonds for
the Century Ridge Apartments at 89 North Century Avenue.
1987-88:
The Council approved $2,448,100 of tax-exempt bonds for the 60-unit
Village on Woodlynn project. The Council also approved $275,000 of tax-
increment financing.
8-28-89: The Council approved $5,300,000 of tax-exempt bonds for the VOA Care
Cente~:
12-30-91: The Council gave preliminary approval of $5.2 milllon of tax-exempt bonds
for the 108-unit Carefree Cottages of Maplewood.
SENIOR HOUSING NEED
The current demand looks good for senior housing in the Maplewood area. The waiting
lists for the Village on Woodlynn, the Cottages of North St. Paul and the Carefree
T--'T~T
Cottages of Maplewood total more than 300 people. As the baby boom generation ages,
there should be a growing need for senior housing. The developer had Health Planning
and Management Resources, Inc. of Edina do a market feasibility study in 1992 for the
potential development of assisted living facility. This study showed a need for at least
111 assisted living units in the northeast Saint Paul area (Maplewood, North Saint Paul
and White Bear Lake) by 1996.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSISTED CARE MVING FACILrrY
The assisted care living environment respects the individual's right to privac~ It also
works to relieve the stress of the threat of institutionalization by providing a home-like
(residential) setting. The proposed facility would be for seniors who now are living
with, or getting help from, family members (being the care givers). It also is for seniors
who are living in their own home with no services. Such people often have their health
deteriorate because they do not get the services or help they need. The proposed facility
would not have the extensive regimentation and health professional supervision that a
skilled care nursing facility would provide.
The physical setting of the building includes private space and common space. The
private space would typically be in one-bedroom apartments. This would include
individual sleeping space, full baths, kitchen space, lockable doors, individual
temperature controls and personal furnishings. There also would be community space
including a dining room, laundry, living rooms, library and a television lounge. The
developer is proposing rents of $1,400 per month for an alcove (studio) unit to $1,800
per month for a two-bedroom unit.
COMPETrTIVENESS WITH EXISTING SENIOR RESIDENCES
The proposed project would not directly compete with the Cottages, Archer Heights or
Concordia Arms residences. This is because the VOA facility would have more services
available and the VOA intends it for less mobile older persons. The design of this
development would most likely attract persons similar to those living at Hazel Ridge.
Hazel Ridge's rents range from $755 to $995 for one bedroom and $915 to $1,300 for
two-bedroom units. These rents include a laundry on each floor. Health aids and dining
are available at Hazel Ridge for additional costs. Hazel Ridge has 16 parties on their
waiting list. Since the City approved tax-exempt financing for Hazel Ridge, it is
reasonable to approve similar financing for the VOA project.
12
go:b-5:voa2.mem (11)
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Property Line/Zoning Map (Existing)
4. Property Line/Zoning Map (Proposed)
5. Property Line Map (Cope Avenue Street Vacation)
6. Proposed Site Plan
7. Proposed Landscape Plan
8. 1985 Feasibility Study Street Map
9. VOA Zone Change Statement
10. VOA Density Variance Letter
11. Letter from Jeffrey Fenske
12. Alley Vacation Resolution
13. Cope Avenue Street Vacation Resolution
14. Zoning Map Change Resolution
15. Tax-exempt Financing Resolution
16. Housing Program
17. Density Variance Resolution
18. Parks Commission Minutes
13
........... ~ 'r-' 'T
Attachment 1
AV.
AVE.
ROSEWO00 AV~...
AV~. $.
1700' O'
:.. NORTH S,
~.~'.. ® . ,. ,..
~ :~ .'.-.....:::::.1:., ~:.~..'..j,.'~ .: ,, ~.'..:<3.........::~:
'._~'"' ~"~" 'i" ~.~o,;^~,1 A,'/';E".,
LOCATION MAP
14
Attachment.~
R-3(H
-~--r-o s t
LAND USE MAP
15
N
Attachment 3
·
·
·
·
·
·
L
HIGHWAY 36 r ...... -I " ..... ·
,~"'n n n n ~t'n n n n n I G nnt
I I ., · ! I '
, .o,, I[. H _~!_,~.
1922
BALI-HAl
R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
COPE AVENUE
2272: 2271;
~ ,' 2263
.-~2256 L' 225~
R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS NC = NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY LINE / ZONINGMAP
-- (EXISTING)
PROPOSED ZONING MAP CHANGE (R1 TO R3)
:nt
· , t~~,o/,t
· /
I / ~ .~)~ ~ .'-~IPI, ~1~sq193311941I
I I ~-~ I ''~ · ~'1 ' ' -~~'~
I
I ..... I ............
I
, _ .,~.w..,~ ~ ....... ~ ,~ ..,..,., ~
I ~ l'II I I i I I I I / il, l~l~]o~ tIII
! I ~ '..~ .... ', I, i ~ U :i ~l~.~-
I I ~ ~-~~[--' I~-;- -~ ...... ~:- ~-~ ....
...... ~~"'~. ~':-' ['f~3~eE ~ - !~'~
~1~ '% ~ ,- .......~ ...... .;~'~ ~:LILL~ %'~2~1'~
~ iii Ifl:~ ~:::~~I I ~COPE AVENU
..' ~ ..o~s.o, s=~=_. .- v.c.=,O.- ~ ~= Z_2~t_ · '
! ~AYCAR~ CENTER X V' I ~'.J -
, ~~ ~1~ n 2242~ II ~ 2241 0 ~I
R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS NC = NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
F
k
PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP
(PROPOSED)
17
N
Attachment 5
HIGHWAY 36
PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION~%,.
/ .-' .,'
~, ~ ' 2271~
,'- -- CITY LOT
2260. ~.~ ~ (~J (2261 ~
~ ~ C~?) " '.
1927 1937
PROPERTY LINE MAP
STAFF PROPOSED VACATION FOR COPE AVENUE
18
Attachment 6
Lantz-BogBio Architects. P.C.
~ rITC' Pad~w..~. f~l~, '110. flqlll~w~, (',$fl, l,, liONS
SITE MAP
l 19 _
N
................... -T ................. --T--T---"T r
Attachment 7
PROPOSED_ LANDSCAPE PLAN '~~
?n
Attachment 8
TRUNK
COPE
I
HIGHWAY
',~"'C-/,.o,oszo
C;TF OF
MAPLE'Y/OOD STORM SEW. [SM'T.~
LARK AVE.
/ AVE.
/
· ~ AVENUE
RD.
LAURIE
-N-
SCALE: I" = 2C0'
1985 FEASIBILITY STUDY
L 21 __
N
VOLUNTEERS OF
AMERICA
HEALTH SERVICES
7530 Market Place Drive · Eden Prairie, MN 55344 - (612) 941-0305
Attachment 9
1.) a. No proposed development at this time
b. No new construction
2.)
The proposed re-zoning would be consistent with the neighborhood Land Use
Plan (see attachment #1). The property is designated in the neighborhood
plan R-3 or multi-dwelling. There is an existing Care Center on the property
north and east of the proposed re-zone areas. To the west is Van Dyke and
White Bear Avenue; to the south is Cope Street and three property owners
adjacent to the south edge of Cope. The western most 29th ft. of the property
is owned by the City of Maplewood and the east 197 ft by private owners.
R-3 re-zoning will enhance and protect the character of the adjacent
residential and commercial properties by providing a "noise and visual buffer"
between the high speed and volume of vehicles passing on White Bear
Avenue and Highway #36, as well as, the commercial development to the
west and southwest of the property.
There are adequate public facilities to service the site; and egress to Van
Dyke; storm sewer in Van Dyke; water services in Van Dyke. Any project at
this time would be senior's oriented and would not require any school or park
impact consideration.
Additionally, the property as it is developed can and would address any
existing issues of traffic and parking problems caused by the adjacent
Maplewood Care Center.
The existing property would be extremely difficult to develop as R-1 and by
re-zoning to R-3, development will be encouraged and therefore an unsightly
and hazardous property will be developed to improve the "quality of life" in
the neighborhood.
22
Attachment 10
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA HEALTH SERVICES
7530 Market Place Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-3692
(612) 941-0305
Fax (612) 941-0428
August 11, 1993
Delivered
Mr. Geoff Olson
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Geoff:
I appreciate the effort and good communication you and your staff have provided
with regard to the approval of Volunteers of America's proposed "Assisted Living Facility"
in Maplewood.
We are applying for a variance relative to density, as shown in your zoning standards.
I refer to Table 5 "Estimated Persons per Dwelling Unit and Planned Maximum Density of
Dwelling Units".
Per your explanation, the project would potentially be categorized as senior
apartments, therefor the people limit would be for alcove 1.0, one-bedroom 1.1 and two-
Bedroom 2.0. With the existing acreage in the site (3.'1) the approximate people on the site
could be 71. With our present mix of units, we have 10 Studios, 50 one-bedrooms, and 6
two-bedrooms or by your count 77 people on the site.
We ask for consideration of variance to allow 77 people on the site. Our reasoning
follows:
Your zoning standards and Table 5 does not address Assisted Living Facilities
specifically.
We submit to you that Assisted LMng Residents profiles are different than
Independent Living Senior Residents (Apartments).
23
Attachment 10, #2
Mr. Geoff Olson
August 11, 1993
Page 2
The profile of residents in one-bedroom units is:
Average 82 years old
85% Female
40% with some physical problem
Living alone
It is our experience that the one-bedroom units only have one occupant,
therefore the constant should be 1.0 for Assisted Living Facilities for one-
bedrooms.
It is our experience that the two-bedroom units average 25 - 30% double
occupancy, therefore the constant should be 1.3 for Assisted Living Facilities
for two-bedrooms.
There is a hardship created by the 1.1 constant being applied at this site due
to the fact the units do not return revenue at 1.1 but rather at a 1.0 rate.
Further there are no negative impacts to the City of Maplewood with regard
to traffic, services, precedent, or other factors. The project has minimal
traffic, minimal utility (water, sewer, etc.) and because of internal care,
minimal emergency responses as compared to other multi-unit or multi-family
uses.
There is no alteration of essential character of the area, rather an
improvement to the area.
The site is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
The project is consistent with the ordinance in that the number of units
and types of units for this type of project, Assisted Living, is not
addressed specifically by the Ordinance and;
One-bedroom units in an Assisted Living Facility have only one
occupant in actual use.
24
Mr. Geoff Olson
August 11, 1993
Page 3
Attachment 10, #3
Therefore, the spirit of the Ordinance is being met in that actual use is generating
people/acre and the total count allowable on this site.
ff/~/ffrpy I~. Andersen
~'FYick President - Finance
25
........... --'-F T'-T- '1
JEROME A. RITTER
JEFFREY J. FENSKE
RITTER ~ FENSKE, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
461 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55103
Attachment 11
(612) 222-6700
FAX 222-1263
June 2, 1993
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
City of Maplewood
Office of Community Development
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re:
Neighborhood Survey for Proposed Zoning Changes
for Maplewood Care Center
Our File No. 1450-1
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Please be advised that I have been retained to represent Jerome and
Maureen Dalnes regarding real estate located on Cope Avenue that would
be affected by the proposed zoning changes requested by the owners of
the Maplewood Care Center. Please allow this letter to be the response
of my clients to the neighborhood survey that you sent to them dated
May 24, 1998.
My clients own property that fronts Cope Avenue in the middle of the
block between Van Dyke and Hazel Streets and is legally described as:
Except the East 150 feet, the North 110 feet of the East Half
of Lot One (1), Block Three (8), Smith and Taylor's Addition.
Approving application no. 8, the vacation of the street right-of-way
for undeveloped Cope Avenue between Van Dyke and Hazel Streets, would
result in my clients' parcel of real estate being land locked. This
interference with my clients' property right, the right of access, would
result, in effect, in this property being taken by the City. The
implementation of this proposed street right-of-way vacation would so
interfere with my clients' use of their land so as to constitute a
taking. Implementation of this vacation would substantially reduce the
value of my clients' property.
As a result, my clients object to the applications of the owners of the
Maplewood Care Center unless my clients would be adequately compensated
for this interference by the City with their use of their real estate.
My clients would certainly entertain proposals to compensate them for
this interference; but, absent such compensation, my clients would
strenuously object to the applications.
26
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
June 2, 1993
Page 2
If the City has any proposals that they wish for us to entertain to deal
with the issue raised in this objection, please forward those proposals
to us for consideration as soon as possible. Thank you.
Bincerely,
HITTER & FEN~3KE, LTD.
J®ffre¥ J. Fensk®
JJF:lh
cc: Jerome and Maureen Dalnes
27
Attachment 12
A~ FY VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America (VOA) is requesting that the City vacate the
following described alley:
Ail the alley between Lots 1-12 and Lots 18-27 in Block 9, Dearborn Park between
the vacated Hazel Street and the east line of the right-of-way for White Bear Avenue.
WHEREAS, the history of thls vacation is as follows:
1. A majority of the property owners abutting this alley signed a petition for this
vacation;
2. On September 8, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve this vacation.
The City Council held a public hearing on ,1993. City
staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the
abutting property owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to
speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and
recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, after the City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will
go to the following abutting properties:
Lots 1-9, Block 9 (including vacated Hazel Street accruing) and Lots 18-27,
Block 9 (including vacated Hazel Street accruing), Dearborn Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described vacation for the following reasons:
1. There is no need for this alley.
2. The City does not build alleys.
3. The City has a policy of vacating unneeded alleys.
This vacation is subject to the retention of a drainage and utility easement over the
south 10 feet of the east 30 feet.
Adopted on September__, 1993.
28
Attachment
STREET VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America is requesting that the City vacate the following
described street:
The Cope Avenue fight-of-way between Lots 13-27 in Block 9, Dearborn Park and
Block 3, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North Saint Paul that is between the west
line of Hazel Street extended and the east line of Van Dyke Street extended and the
fight-of-way for White Bear Avenue, except the south 30 feet of the east 150 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
1. A majority of the property owners abutting this street fight-of-way signed a
petition for this vacation;
2. On September 8, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve this vacation.
The City Council held a public hearing on ,1993. City
staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the
abutting property owners. The Gouncil gave everyone at the hearing a chance to
speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and
recommendations from the Gity staff and Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, after the City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will
go to the following abutting properties:
Lots 13-27, Block 9 (including vacated Hazel Street accruing), Dearborn Park, (Pin
11-29-22-32-0011); the west one-half of Lot 1, Block 3, Smith and Taylor's Addition
to North Saint Paul (Pin 11-29-22-33-0022); except the east 150 feet, the north 110
feet of the east one-half of Lot 1, Block 3, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North Saint
Paul (Pin 11-29-22-33-0023) and; the east 1S0 feet of the north 110 feet of Lot 1,
Block 3, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North Saint Paul (Pin 11-29-22-33-0024).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described vacation because it is in the public interest. It is in the public interest
because:
1. There is no need for this fight-of-way.
2. The adjacent properties have adequate street access.
3. The vacation will prevent through traffic from going through the neighborhood
to the east.
29
This vacation is subject to the retention of a public trail and utility easement over the
right-of-way.
Adopted on September__, 1993.
3O
Attachment 14
RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America (VOA) applied for a change in the zoning map
from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located east of White Bear Avenue and
between the vacated Sherren and Gope Avenues. The legal description is:
Lots 1-27, Block 9, Dearborn Park (including streets and alleys accruing thereto).
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On September 8, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Gouncil approve the change.
The City Council held a public hearing on ,1993. City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and
present written statements. The Gouncil also considered reports and
recommendations from the City staff and Planning Gommission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described change in the zoning map for the following reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the
zoning code.
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the
use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan
is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,
and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public war,x;
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
5. The proposed change would be consistent with the existing land use plan
designation for this property.
Adopted on September__, 1993.
3!
Attachment 15
Extract of Minutes of a Meeting of the
City Council of the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting
of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, was duly
held at the City Hall in said City on , the
day of , 1993, at P.M.
The following members were present.:
and the following were absent:
Member
introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL
FOR A FINANCING PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT
AND THE PROGRAM PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF HEALTH CARE FACILITY
REVENUE BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AND PROGRAM
(VOA CARE CENTERS, MINNESOTA PROJECT)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by member
and, after full
discussion thereof and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL
FOR A FINANCING PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT
AND THE PROGRAM PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF HEALTH CARE FACILITY
REVENUE BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AND PROGRAM
(VOA CARE CENTERS, MINNESOTA PROJECT)
(a) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"),
confers upon cities the power to issue revenue bonds to finance a
program for the purposes of planning, administering, making or
purchasing loans with respect to one or more multifamily housing
developments within the boundaries of the city; and
(b) WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"),
has received from the VOA Care Centers, Minnesota, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the "Company"), a proposal that the City
undertake a program to finance a Project hereinafter described,
through the issuance of revenue bonds or obligations in one or
more series (the "Bonds") pursuant to the Act; and
(c) WHEREAS, the City desires to: facilitate the
development of rental housing and an existing health care
facility within the community; encourage the development of
affordable housing opportunities for residents of the City;
encourage the development of housing facilities designed for
occupancy primarily by elderly persons; and encourage the
development of underutilized land within the boundaries of the
City; and the Project will assist the City in achieving these
objectives; and
(d) WHEREAS, the Company is currently engaged in the
business of operating a nursing home; the Project to be financed
by the Bonds is the refunding of the City's outstanding Health
Care Facility Revenue Bonds (VOA Care Centers, Minnesota
Project), Series 1989, rehabilitation of an existing health care
facility (being an existing nursing home of the Company), a
multipurpose addition to the nursing home, and construction of 66
new multifamily rental housing units for occupancy primarily by
the elderly, connected by a link to the existing nursing home,
located at 1900 Sherren Avenue in the City (the "Project"), and
will result in the provision of additional rental housing
opportunities to persons within the community; and
(e) WHEREAS, the City has been advised by representatives
of the Company that conventional, commercial financing to pay the
capital costs of the Project is available only on a limited basis
and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility
245749
33
of operating the Project would be significantly reduced; and the
Company has also advised the City that with the aid of municipal
financing, and resulting low borrowing costs, the Project is
economically more feasible; and
(f) WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Project and the
financing program therefor was also held on the date hereof,
after notice was published, all as required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 462C.05, Subdivision 5, at which public hearing
all those appearing who desired to speak were heard and written
comments, if any, were accepted; and
(g) WHEREAS, no public official of the City has either a
direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any
public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially
from the Project:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Maplewood,. Minnesota, as follows:
1. Preliminary Approvals. The City hereby gives
preliminary approval to the proposal of the Company that the City
undertake the Project described above, and the program of
financing therefo~ in the form presented to the City Council,
consisting of the acquisition, construction, equipping and
refinancing of a development consisting of a combination of
multifamily housing and an existing health care facility within
the City pursuant to the Company's specifications and pursuant to
a revenue agreement between the City and Company containing such
terms and conditions (with provisions for revision from time to
time as necessary) as may be necessary to produce income and
revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the principal and interest
on the Bonds in a total principal amount not to exceed
$12,000,000, to be issued pursuant to the Act to finance the
acquisition, construction, equipping and refinancing of the
Project. Said revenue agreement may also provide for the entire
interest of the Company therein to be mortgaged to the purchasers
of the Bonds, or to a trustee for the holder(s) of the Bonds.
The City hereby undertakes preliminarily to issue its Bonds in
accordance with such terms and conditions.
2. Financinq Structure. At the option of the Company, the
financing may be structured so as to take advantage of whatever
means are available and are permitted by law to enhance the
security for, or marketability of, the Bonds; provided that any
such financing structure must be consented to by the City.
3. ~. On the basis of information available to the
City it appears, and the City hereby finds, determines and
declares: (1) that the Project constitutes a multifamily housing
development within the meaning of Subdivision 7 of Section
462C.05 of the Act and consists of a combination of a multifamily
34
245749
housing development and a new or existing health care facility,
as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.153; (2) that the
multifamily housing development is designed and intended to be
used for rental occupancy; (3) that the multifamily housing
development is designed and intended to bemused primarily by
elderly or physically handicapped persons; (4) that nursing,
medical care, and other health related assisted living services
will be available on a 24-hour basis in the development to the
residents; (5) that the Project will be primarily occupied by
elderly persons; (6) that the availability of the financing under
the Act and the willingness of the City to furnish such financing
will be a substantial inducement to the Company to undertake the
Project; and (7) that the effect of the Project, if undertaken,
will be to encourage the provision of additional multifamily
rental housing opportunities to residents of the City, and to
promote more intensive development and use of land within the
City.
4. Company to Pay Costs..The Company has agreed, and it
is hereby determined that, any and all costs incurred by the City
in connection with the financing of the Project, whether or not
the Project is carried to completion, will be paid by the
Company.
5. Assistance with Documents. Briggs and Morgan,
Professional Association, acting as bond counsel, and Dougherty,
Dawkins, Strand and Bigelow Inc., acting as investment bankers
selected by the City with the consent of the Company, are
authorized to assist in the preparation and review of necessary
documents relating to the Project and the financing program
therefor, to consult with the City Attorney, Company and
purchasers of the Bonds (or the trustee for the purchasers of the
Bonds) as to the maturities, interest rates and other terms and
provisions of the Bonds and as to the covenants and other
provisions of the necessary documents and to submit such
documents to the City for final approval.
6. Revenue Obligations. Nothing'in this Resolution or the
documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the
expenditures of any municipal funds on the Project other than the
revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the
City for this purpose. The Bonds shall not constitute a charge,
lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or
funds of the City except the revenue and proceeds pledged to the
payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability
thereon. The holder of the Bonds shall never have the right to
compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the
outstanding principal of the Bonds or the interest thereon, or to
enforce payment thereon against any property of the City. The
Bonds shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including the
interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenue and
proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds shall not
2~5749
35
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitution or statutory limitation.
7. Authorization for Expenditures. In anticipation of the
issuance of the Bonds to finance all or a portion of the Project,
and in order that completion of the Project will not be unduly
delayed when approved, the Company is hereby authorized to make
such expenditures and advances toward payment of that portion of
the costs of the Project to be financed from the proceeds of the
Bonds as the Company considers necessary, including the use of
interim short-term financing, subject to reimbursement from the
proceeds of the Bonds if and when delivered but otherwise without
liability on the part of the City.
8. The actions of the City Council and staff in causing
public notice of the public hearing and in describing the general
nature of the Project and estimating the principal amount of the
Revenue Bonds to be issued to finance the Project and in
preparing a draft of the proposed application to the Minnesota
Department of Trade and Economic Development for approval of the
Project, which has been available for inspection by the public in
the offices of the Planning Director of the City from and after
the publication of notice of the hearing, are in all respects
ratified and confirmed.
9. The Company shall enter into various agreements with
the City which shall impose the following restrictions on the
Company and the Project:
(a) Construction must begin by August 10, 1994. The
City Council may grant a time extension if just cause is
shown.
(b) Contracts entered into with Contractors doing work
on the Project shall provide that:
(i) the contractor shall not discriminate in the
hiring or firing of employees.on the basis of race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital
status, status with regard to public assistance,
disability or age.
(ii) the contractor shall compensate employees
with wages and financial remuneration as provided under
the United States Code, Section 276A, as amended
through June 23, 1986, and under Minnesota Statutes
1985, Sections 177.41-177.44.
(iii) the contractor shall be required to employ
Minnesota residents in at least 80% of the jobs created
by the project; and, at least 60% of the group shall be
residents of the seven-county metropolitan area.
245749
Resident status under both of the above categories
shall be determined as of the date of this resolution.
However, if the contractor can show that these quotas
are not feasible because of a shortage of qualified
personnel in specific skills, the contractor may
request the City Council for a release from the two
residency requirements. The requirements shall
continue for the duration of the construction project.
(iv) the contractor shall be an active participant
in a State of Minnesota apprentice program, approved by
the Department of Labor and Industry.
(v) all provisions of these tax-exempt finance
requirements shall apply to all subcontractors working
on the Project.
(c) The Company shall pay the administrative fee to
the City determined in accordance with the City's guidelines
at closing.
(d) The Company shall comply with the City's tax-
exempt revenue requirements, including the optional design
requirements.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, this day of , 1993.
ATTEST
Mayor
City Clerk
2457&9
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed
Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of
minutes, with the original on file in my office, and the same is
a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the
same relates to the issuance of revenue bonds.
Witness my hand and the seal of the City this day of
, 1993.
(SEAL)
Clerk
245749
38
Attachment 16
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM
VOA CARE CENTERS, MINNESOTA PROJECT
This housing finance program (the "Program") is undertaken
by the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City") to finance a
Project (as defined and desc-~-ibed in this document) to be owned
and operated by VOA Care Centers, Minnesota, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the "Company"). The Project consists
primarily of the construction and equipping of an assisted living
senior housing facility of approximately 66 units (the
"Project"), to be constructed at 1900 Sherren Avenue, Maplewood
adjacent to the Maplewood Care Center in the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, improvements to the Maplewood Care Center and the
refunding of the City of Maplewood Health Care Facility Revenue
Bonds, Series 1989 (VOA Care Centers, Minnesota Project). The
Project will be operated as an elderly multifamily rental housing
development within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section
462C.05, Subd. 4. The City will issue multifamily housing revenue
bonds (the "Bonds") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
462C.07, Subd. 1, and loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the
Company to 'finance the Project.
The City will issue the Bonds to finance the Project in the
principal amount not to exceed $12,000,000. The City will loan
the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds to the company pursuant
244241
39
to a revenue agreement (the "Loan Agreement") by and between the
City and the Company. The Company will be required, pursuant to
the Loan Agreement, to make payments sufficient to pay when due
the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on all the Bonds.
The Bonds may be structured so as to take advantage of whatever
means are available or necessary and are permitted by law to
enhance the security for and marketability of the Bonds.
Substantially all of the net proceeds of the Bonds (the initial
principal amount thereof, less amounts deposited in a reasonably
required reserve or paid out as costs of issuance of the Bonds)
will be used to pay the costs of the Project, including any
functionally related and subordinate facilities.
The Project will be undertaken to further the policies and
goals stated in the City's Housing Plan, under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 462C and is consistent with the City's Housing
Plan. The City has adequate existing capacity to administer,
monitor and supervise the Project in order to insure that the
Project will be consistent with the City's Housing Plan. The
Company will construct the Project in compliance with all
applicable development restrictions, and all new construction and
rehabilitation of the existing buildings is subject to applicable
state and local building codes. The Company will be required to
operate the Project in accordance with state and local
anti-discrimination laws and ordinances.
4O
The costs of the Project and the Program undertaken to
finance the Project, including specifically the costs to the
City, will be paid or reimbursed by the Company.
41
Attachment 17
DENSITY VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America applied for a variance from the density
requirements in the Gity's Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property east of White Bear Avenue and
between the vacated Sherren and Gope Avenues. The legal description is:
Lots 1-27, Block 9, Dearborn Park (including streets and alleys ac~g thereto).
WHEREAS, Table 5 of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan limits RH (residential
high density) areas to 22.8 people per gross acre.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing an assisted care living facility with 25.1 people
per gross acre.
WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 2.3 people per gross acre.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On September 8, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council this variance.
The City Council held a public hearing on ,1993. City staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an
opportunity to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered
reports and recommendations from the Gity staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described variance for the following reasons:
Adopted on September __, 1993.
42
7)
8)
9)
Attachment 18
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) SIGNS FOR PARK~
Director Odegard stated the park sign information that will be sent
to the City Council was in the packet. The Con~aission had no sign
changes mt this t~me.
~)
pA..~X PROJECTS
Director Odegard distributed a "System Develola~ent' memo that will
be on the July 26th City Council agenda. The list of improvements
was reviewed and their order revised. A recommendation will be made
to authorize $52,725 from the PAC Commercial Fund for
velop~ent' items to be placed in the Park Development Fund.
NEW BUSINESS
A) HOI~E NEXT TO NATURE CENTER
Director Odegard stated the white house next to the Maplewood Nature
Center (2669 Seventh Street East) is for sale. Mrs. Basler has been
moved to a nursing home. An appraisal will be made of the proper~y
(approximately ?5'x 200').
Commissioner Fischer ~OVED that the Park and Recreation Commission
reaffirms their desire to pursue the possibility of acquiring tbs
Bassler property and include it as part of the Maplewood Nature
Center~ second by Qualley~ Ayes~ AIl.
B)
~ROPERTY EAST OF HAZELWOOD PARK (KENNARD & COUNTY ROAD C)
Director Odegard stated that property has been purchased east of
Hazelwood Park and the party is requesting permission to build
a single family dwelling. To gain access to the property, it would
be necessary to construct a driveway off County Road C using the
unimproved Kennard Street right-of-way. The City Council will
address this issue.
Director Odegard stated that it is questionable about what happens
to the next 2.6 acres adjacent to this property that is owned
y (the owner of that property would also need access).
C)
pROPOSAL AT VAN DYKE ~ND COpe
Director Odegard stated that the Volunteers of America own a Care
Center near this site. They are proposing an addition of a 66 unit
Assisted Living Facility. They would like Cope Street closed off
for & through street, add a tra£1, and develop a small park on the
adjacent south property line. The city owns a lot where Van Dyke and
Cope Streets come together (300' long x 125' deep). Their proposal
states that the YeA would Jointly develop the ems11 park, but the
city would be responsible for maintenance ofthe park and tr&ll.
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the city lot be
mold to VOA.
Commissioner Chrimtianson inquired about the weekend activity at Hazelwood
Park. Ne noticed the large crowd.
(Director Odegard stated that United Way rented the soccer facilities).
Comissioner Fischer reviewed the Haplewood Comprehensive Plan and noticed
the Neighborhood Park Study Aream. There is considerable developmcnt in
the Kohlman Lake area at this time~ he questioned whether there was ~ny
park land available.
(Director Odegard had talked to Mr. Frattalone regarding the purchese of
land, but the developer only indicated that he would think about .it).
43
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Truth-in-Housing Ordinance Amendment
August 19, 1993
INTRODUCTION
On May 24, 1993, the City Council requested that the staff review the truth-in-housing
ordinance. The Council wanted staff to include penalties for non-compliance.
Councilmember Juker requested this change after she heard of two violations of the
truth-in-housing ordinance. (See the Council minutes on page 2.)
BACKGROUND
July 9, 1990: The City Council adopted the Maplewood Truth-in-Housing Ordinance.
This ordinance went into effect on January 1, 1991 and had a sunset clause that ended
the program on June 30, 1992.
June 8, 1992: The City Council readopted the truth-in-housing ordinance.
DISCUSSION
This ordinance amendment adds a new section about violations. This additional
language would clearly identify what could happen to a person if they do not have a
truth-in-housing evaluation done. The amendment also should help reinforce the need
and importance of the truth-in-housing ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached ordinance.
kr/memo88b.mem (5.1)
Attachments:
1. 5-24-93 Council minutes
2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
'1 T i
ATTACHMENT 1
Truth-in-Sale-of-Housing Ordinance
a. Councilmember Juker stated she had heard of two recent
violations of the Truth-In-Sale-of-Housing Ordinance; one in
which an inspection had not been prepared and another'in which
the homeowner had prepared his own report.
b. Councilmember Juker oved to d'r tar r v w
ordinance with a view to inc udin na ' o -
and re oft back to Coun '
Seconded by Councilmember Zappa
Ayes - all
2
ATTACHMENT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A VIOLATION SECTION TO THE TRUTH-IN-HOUSING
ORDINANCE
THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE:
(I crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions.)
Section 1. This section adds Section 9-243, Violations, by adding the following:
Section 9-243. Violations.
Any person fnillng to meet and follow the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be subiect to prosecution.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after publication.
Passed by the Maplewood City Council on
,1993.
kr/memo88b.mem (5.1)
3
............. ---r 'r T I