Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/16/2004
1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 16, 2004, 7:00 pM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 19, 2004 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Summerhill Senior Housing Cooperative (935 Femdale Street North) Land Use Plan Change - S (school) to R-3(H) Zoning Map Change - R-1 (single dwelling) to R-3 (multiple-family residential) Conditional Use Permit (for building over 3 stories in height) 7:30 Cottages at Legacy Village (Hazelwood Street) Land Use Plan Change - BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat New Business a. Hillside Estates (Springside Drive) Preliminary Plat Zoning Map Change - F (farm residence) to R-1 (single dwellings) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. July 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler b. August 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Bartol c. August 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller d. September 13 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Mr. Bartol) 10. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule September 6 meeting (Labor Day) - Tuesday 9-7 or Wednesday 9-8? b. Annual Tour Follow-up 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 19, 2004 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Tonight's meeting was delayed hour due to attendance issues. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Daniel Lee Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Absent Present Present at 7:40 p.m. Present Absent Absent Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 21, 2004. Commissioner Dierich requested changes to the minutes on page 3, in the first and second paragraph, and on page 7 in the first paragraph. Commissioner Dierich asked Commissioner Bartol to clarify what he meant to say on page 3, in the first paragraph, in the third sentence. Commissioner Bartol said he would recommend the wording be changed to read: He askedifthe creek was of concern to this property and the answer was, no it was not, other than its proximity to the property. Commissioner Dierich had another correction on page 3, second paragraph, first sentence should read Mr. Roberts said a-previeus planning commissioner previously had much discussion about what the correct definition of a creek or a stream was. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-19-04 -2- Commissioner Dierich had another correction on page 7, in letter a., in the third line, it should read: Trout Land Development west of Highway 61 and the new County Road D is being reworked because of the planning commission's desire to have a decrease in density and that the developer had a specific builder interested in the townhomes and wanted to bring the plan back in a completed form. Commissioner Bartol moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 21,2004, as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit- Commercial Equipment Parking (65 Larpenteur Avenue) Mr. Roberts said Mr. David Conover is requesting that the city approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 65 Larpenteur Avenue East. This request is to park and store three commercial vehicles (two dump trucks and a bobcat loader) on this property. His sons live at this property and want to keep the commercial equipment there as part of their business. The city code requires city council approval of a conditional use permit to keep a heavy commercial vehicle (more than 1 ton) on a residential property. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant is aware of condition number 7.? It states that this permit shall end in five years. If the applicant is aware of this condition is he agreeable to the condition? Mr. Roberts said he hopes the applicant is aware of that condition. However, Mr. Conover was out of town and just received a copy of the staff report a few minutes ago. Commissioner Bartol said he understands that this CUP will be reviewed in 1 year and if it passes it will remain in effect for four years with no additional review? Mr. Roberts said typically CUP's are reviewed once a year unless the city staff receives a complaint regarding that particular address. Then the city would require the applicant to come back to the city council for review. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Roberts to clarify what he was referring to in condition 1. b. regarding parking the equipment in an enclosed structure? Mr. Roberts said if the applicant were to build something on that piece of property it would have to be a large garage. Mr. Roberts said without speaking to the applicant he would only guess that the applicant may not want to invest the money into a large garage if they can only have the equipment on the property for five years. They could use the garage to park cars and other things in but as the condition is written the garage structure is not required. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-19-04 -3- Commissioner Dierich asked what kind of dump trucks and loader staff was referring to? Mr. Roberts said he understood the loader to be a typical bobcat with a front bucket. However, the applicant could better answer that question. Commissioner Trippler asked staff what the code was for commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood? Mr. Roberts said there are two parts to that question, the size of the vehicle and the type of vehicle that it is. Any truck or vehicle that is more than 1 ton, by definition, is a commercial vehicle. Also within the commercial vehicle definition there is a list of commercial equipment such as backhoes, diggers and bobcats that fall under that category as well. The code says you can have 1 light commercial vehicle, which is less than 1 ton that is used commercially, or heavy commercial vehicles, which are more than 1 ton and require a CUP and city approval to park in residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Trippler said the reason he asked that question was he and Commissioner Bartol were at the site on Sunday afternoon and noticed across the street from 1702 Abel at 1705 Abel Street there was a commercial truck which was about 3 or 4 tons parked in the driveway. He asked if the city staff was aware of a CUP permit to park in residential at that address? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't aware of a permit at that address so they are probably not parking there legally. He visited the site about three weeks ago during the day and didn't see the truck there but if Commissioner Bartol and Trippler were there during the weekend chances are they do not have permission from the city to park there. Commissioner Bartol asked if it was correct that commercial vehicles should not be parked on public streets and should only be parked on your own driveway or on your own property with city approval? Mr. Roberts said there is no overnight parking anywhere in the city and the vehicles need to be on a driveway or a parking pad. Commissioner Bartol asked what harm would be done if the commercial vehicles are parked on a gravel surface in your yard? Mr. Roberts said the reason the city requires a hard surface driveway or parking pad that meets the applicable city code requirements is to make sure the surface is something that will last and not wash away and turn into a muddy hole. Commissioner Bartol said he was interested to read that the city allows vehicles to idle for 30 minutes in any one-hour period as shown in condition number 2. In his opinion, 30 minutes for a large piece of machinery to remain idling seems extensive. If he were a neighbor he would find that noise offensive and asked if it's really necessary to run the vehicles that long? Mr. Roberts said it's necessary to idle large trucks for 30 minutes in the winter to keep the fuel from gelling. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-19-04 Commissioner Bartol said he read condition number 3. stating no dumping or storage of materials on the property. When he was at the site he noticed there was a large pile of dirt and some equipment stored on the east side of the site. Mr. Roberts said when he was at the site he saw three long charcoal grills on trailers along with some other trailers. He did not see any dirt piles on the site when he visited the site. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the city was allowing any commercial signage on this property? She is "gun shy" so to speak after allowing the revision to the Schlomka's permit for their property in south Maplewood. They parked a rusty old tractor with signage on it and then down the street there are two more trucks, which are a real eye sore. Mr. Roberts said the city is not allowing any commercial signage but if the commission wanted to add additional language to the condition and resolution to ensure that didn't happen they could do that. Commissioner Dierich asked if maintenance included washing the vehicles or should the commission include separate language to accomplish that? She was concerned about the neighbor that wrote in stating a concern about her well getting contaminated. She would like the commission to add language to keep that from happening. Mr. Roberts said he was more concerned about oil changes and lube jobs contaminating the soil. He said people wash their vehicles everywhere and soap and water runs onto property without causing contamination. Commissioner Trippler asked if the engineering department had looked at whether ground water moves in a northerly direction or not? Mr. Roberts said no. His guess is that the ground water would go east towards the existing hole near Jackson Street. Commissioner Trippler said if they were following the rules and regulations, anybody hauling off a hazardous waste site the vehicles would have to be deconed before being allowed to leave the project site. He is more concerned about working on the trucks and the soil being contaminated. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. David Conover, 1702 Abel Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said his sons are starting a new business and there are quite a few expenses to start a new business and are trying to cut corners anywhere they can. His sons don't know how to service these large trucks and equipment and would have to be brought off site to a shop be serviced. He is concerned about condition number 2, regarding the hours their vehicles can start. Sometimes a contractor may require their trucks to be at a site at 7:00 a.m. so they would have to start the trucks before 6:30 a.m. He said the trucks are no louder than his lawn mower and shouldn't cause a disturbance. The reason you run the trucks for 30 minutes is to build up air pressure in the brake lines. Without doing that you could cause a real problem on the road. He said he and his sons are willing to do what they have to comply with the city's conditions. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-19-04 -5- Commissioner Trippler asked approximately how long the trucks had been parked on the property before they were required to apply for the conditional use permit? Mr. Conover said the vehicles were parked on the property all last winter until someone called and complained to the city they didn't think they needed a special permit from the city. He admitted there is a pile of dirt on the property. He was on vacation and has not had a chance to get the dirt moved. The dirt is to fill in a Iow spot on the property. Commissioner Trippler said the reason he asked was he wanted to see if the neighbors had a chance to get used to seeing the vehicles running, idling and being stored on the property. Mr. Conover said yes they have. Commissioner Dierich asked how large the trucks were? Mr. Conover said the trucks are 16 yards. Commissioner Bartol asked if the trucks left in the morning and didn't return until the evening hours? Mr. Conover said correct. Commissioner Grover asked if the permit as it reads is for two trucks and a loader or does the city need to be more specific with exact language? Mr. Conover said this is a new business and there isn't any additional money to buy more equipment. Mr. Roberts said to clarify at the bottom of page 1 in the staff report in the introduction of the resolution, it states up to three heavy commercial vehicles (two trucks and a loader) so the intent was to limit the number of vehicles on the site. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on page 12 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Mr. David Conover to store or park up to three heavy commercial vehicles (two trucks and loader) on the property at 65 Larpenteur Avenue East. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the trucks and equipment doing the following: a. Residing on the property. b. Parking the trucks and equipment in an enclosed structure or on a hard surface driveway or parking pad that meets the applicable city code requirements. The parking location for the vehicles shall be as close to the existing driveway and the house as possible. c. Not parking the trucks or commercial equipment on a public street. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-19-04 -6- The owner or operator shall not let the truck's engine idle for more than thirty (30) minutes in any one (1) hour period. In no circumstances may the owner or operator idle the engine for more than two periods, lasting thirty (30) minutes each, in one twenty-four (24) hour period. There shall not be any engine idling that disturbs the neighbors between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. There shall be no dumping or storage of construction or building materials or supplies on the property. 4. The owners or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of the trucks or commercial equipment on the property. 5. The owners or operators shall not load or unload the trucks on the property or on adjacent properties. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. This permit shall end in five years (August 2009). At that time, the owner or operator shall remove from the property the heavy commercial vehicles, trucks and equipment and shall no longer store or park such commercial equipment on the property. Commissioner Lee seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 9, 2004. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the June 28, 2004, city council meeting. Ms. Fischer said items to be discussed were the appointments of the chairs, public hearings and Legacy Village. The city council decided not to appoint the chairs and to leave things as they were. The public hearing ordinance amendment passed. The concern was that the city council has a city attorney present to guide them at their meeting and the planning commission doesn't. To have a city attorney present at the planning commission public hearings would be an additional cost and the city probably doesn't have that in the budget. The commission had asked if they would be receiving some in-service training and Mr. Roberts said he believed that would happen. The Legacy Village items were pulled because of some changes to the parking plan so that would be discussed during a later city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-19-04 -7- b. Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the July 12, 2004, city council meeting. Because he was absent from tonight's meeting Mr. Roberts gave the report. Mr. Roberts said the city council meeting went until almost 1:00 a.m. Mr. Roberts stayed until 12:00 a.m. The Cahannes Estates preliminary plat off Minnehaha Avenue for 10 single-family homes was approved. The Maple Tree Townhomes on Southlawn Avenue was denied on a 3-2 vote. The city council was concerned about the design and the amount of impervious surface. Mr. Brandt, the developer, is working with the city council to try and bring a revised plan back to the city council for reconsideration. Mr. Roberts said the Trout Land Development off Highway 61 and the new County Road D was approved for the comprehensive plan amendment to have medium density on the west side and for commercial land uses on the east side. They approved a collector street designation for County Road D. Instead of a conditional use permit for a PUD the city council approved a rezoning for the west side to R-3 so it doesn't tie the city to any specific site plan or development plan. The M-1 zoning on the east side remained. They also approved the preliminary plat, which dedicates the right-of-way for County Road D and outlines the lots that will have to come back for individual site design approvals. There was a public hearing regarding Highway 1-94 by 3M. MnDot is proposing to expand the road to three lanes and need local approval. MnDot had already been to Oakdale and Woodbury for approval. One of the neighbors wants more sound walls built as part of the project and MnDot said they don't have money in the budget. Tests show that 3 or 4 homes would have noise decibels lowered 1 or 2 decibels at a cost of $300,000 and MnDot felt that the cost wasn't justified. Chuck Ahl said an alternative plan would be for the city to sign off on the plans with the understanding that MnDot would work with the city on a berming and landscaping plan to help with the sound deadening. The city and MnDot would form some type of work neighborhood plan to further work on this. The city council authorized Chuck Ahl to hire a consultant to do some sound testing for the city because some of the neighbors were skeptical of the MnDot results. Olivia Gardens, the 14 townhomes off Stillwater Road had been tabled by the city council a month before. The developer came back with a better plan changing the design of the road, the positioning of the townhomes, and the placement of the garages, and then it passed. Lastly, the second reading of the code amendment for the public hearings was approved. Once this is published the planning commission will hold the public hearings, which would be SOOR. c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the July 26, 2004, city council meeting. The only item to discuss would be the Heritage Square II addition at Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Ekstrand would review this information with Mr. Trippler and he would send an updated copy in the mail tomorrow. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-19-04 -8- d. Mr. Desai was to be the planning commission representative at the August 9, 2004, city council meeting however, he wasn't present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Bartol volunteered to switch places with Mr. Desai. Items to discuss include the CUP-Commercial Equipment Parking at 65 Larpenteur Avenue. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Mr. Roberts reminded commissioners of the Wednesday, August 11,2004, annual tour at 5:30 p.m. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Planner Summerhill Senior Cooperative Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC 935 Ferndale Street August 11, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Transfiguration Church proposes to construct an addition to their church and middle school site located at 6133 North 15th Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. Because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church would like to sell the elementary school site. Transfiguration Church wants to support senior housing in the community. As such, they interviewed several senior housing developers for the purchase of their elementary school site. After several months of interviewing potential developers, the church selected Nichols Development, LLC, to purchase and develop the site as a senior cooperative housing development. Nichols Development is proposing a 52-unit senior cooperative building for the site called Summerhill of Maplewood. The proposed building will have four stories, 61 underground parking stalls and 26 surface parking stalls. The units would be sold as a cooperative in which residents buy a share of the building and pay a monthly carrying fee, until the eventual sale of their unit. (Refer to the developer's narrative and project maps attached on pages 14 through 16.) Requests To build this development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. Comprehensive plan change from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). Zoning map change from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3). Conditional use permit for a multiple dwelling building with four stories. City code requires all multiple dwelling buildings to maintain a height of 35 feet or three stories. The city council can approve multiple dwelling buildings with additional height with a conditional use permit. 4. Design review. DISCUSSION Land Use and Zoning With the current land use designation the property can only be used as a school. Under its current zoning destination, with a land use change, the property could be developed with up to eight single-family houses or used for some other form of public or governmental use with a conditional use permit, i.e., church or library. In order to construct a multiple-dwelling building as proposed by the applicants, the property must be rezoned to multiple dwelling residential. The city's comprehensive plan allows for three levels of densities within a multiple dwelling zoning district including Iow, medium, and high. Densities for senior-only housing within each of these levels is slightly higher due to the fact that seniors tend to have less people living within one dwelling unit. In addition, the city's multiple-dwelling zoning district allows for density bonuses for such things as underground parking, green space, and landscaping allowances. The applicants' proposed 52-senior-housing units is based on the high multiple-dwelling residential land use designation as well as density bonuses for constructing 61 underground parking spaces, maintaining up to 25 percent of the lot as green space, and allocating at least I percent of the overall construction cost on trees. For comparison, staff has calculated the allowable densities for a variety of multiple-dwelling proposals on the 2.2-acre site: Type of Housing Land Use Possible Number of Units Apartment Building~ R-3 High 31 Senior Building2 R-3 High 46 Senior Building2 R-3 Medium 27 Senior Building2 R-3 Low 23 ~Based on zero density bonuses. ~Based on one-bedroom units and zero density bonuses. The developer proposes to finance this project through a 40-year housing and urban development (HUD) insured mortgage. HUD does not require a minimum number of units to be in a development; however, they do require a senior cooperative to be financially viable over the long term through the collection of monthly carrying charges that cover mortgage, taxes, utilities, fixed building and maintenance costs. More units allow these costs to be spread across a larger base and keep the monthly carrying charges lower and more affordable. The developer claims if they did fewer than the 52 senior housing units allowed on the site (based on the hi.qh multiple-dwelling land use designation, the proposed bedroom mix, and density bonuses) the monthly carrying charge would be higher and would very likely prove to be too expensive for many seniors to afford. Therefore, the applicants are requesting that the property be reguided to hi.qh density in order to help ensure affordability of the units. Summerhill of Maplewood 2 August 11, 2004 Senior Housing As the baby boomers enter the age 55 to 64 age group, it will become the fastest-growing age group in the city, and the country as a whole. This represents an increasing market potential for multiple-dwelling senior housing. The city has an estimated overall housing unit number of 13,758. Of these housing units the city has developed or proposed for development 1,192 (8.6 percent) specifically designated "senior" housing units. The nearest designated senior housing development within the city to the proposed Summerhill of Maplewood development is Lakewood Estates of Maplewood on the corner of Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive. This development has 100 assisted-living apartments for seniors. Part of Transfiguration Church's mission statement is to help provide senior housing in their community. They believe this represents the circle of life where seniors in the community are able to moVe to a more carefree environment, opening up their single-family houses for new families with children, in turn creating new enrollment within their church and school. They chose to sell their school to a senior housing developer in order to leave a legacy for the community and the church. Parking One concern raised about the city's approval of yet another senior housing development is the fact that most senior housing developments do not supply the city-required number of parking stalls. This is due to the fact that there are less people living in one unit than a regular single or multiple- family dwelling, creating less of a parking demand. The city's approval of these developments with a reduction in the number of parking stalls could be a problem in the future if the market no longer supported senior housing, and the developments were converted to regular housing. City code requires two parking stalls per household. These parking stalls can be either within a garage, underground, or on the surface. The applicants are proposing 61 underground, 26 surface, and 22 proof of parking stalls, for an overall parking stall count of 109. Summerhill of Maplewood will actually exceed the city parking requirements (52 units x 2 parking stalls = 104 required parking stalls). Neighborhood Concern City staff received several responses to a neighborhood survey regarding the proposed senior housing development. (Refer to the Citizen Comments on pages 7 through 10.) Ingeneral many neighbors supported the use of the property as senior housing, but had strong concerns about the added traffic and the proposed height of the building. I will address both issues below: Traffic: The developer states that the senior housing development will result in less traffic for the neighborhood than the property's current use as a school. They claim this is due to the fact that the number of daily trips resulting from school staff, school buses, and parents driving students to and from school as well as visitors attending the school will far outweigh the traffic generated by a senior housing development. Summerhill of Maplewood 3 August 11, 2004 The Institute of Transportation Engineers reports the average number of trips per day for a retirement community to be 3.3 in comparison to the average number of trips per day for an elementary school to be 1 per student. There are 274 students currently attending the Transfiguration Elementary School. The traffic comparison, therefore, is 171 trips per day for the proposed 52-unit senior housing development to 274 trips per day for the school. As the neighbors point out, however, the school's traffic is concentrated in the morning and evening hours during the school-year only. Height of Building: Most of the neighbors responding to the city's survey were concerned about the proposed four-story height of the building. They felt this design would take away from the privacy of their homes, may block sunlight, and would not be compatible to the surrounding one and two-story houses. The developers state that they proposed the four-story building to create as much green space on the property as possible. Currently the Transfiguration School site is covered by approximately 95 percent impervious surface including the school, various outbuildings, and the parking lot. The developers also feel that developing the building with four stories will allow the building to be constructed with as much distance from the existing single-family houses as possible. Currently the City of Maplewood only has one other four-story multiple-family development. This is the Parkview Court Apartments located at 1800 East Shore Drive. These apartments are located on the north side of Phalen Lake, and are not surrounded by single-family houses, as is the case at the Transfiguration School site. During initial discussions with church and various developers, city staff embraced the idea of senior housing on the Transfiguration School site. However, it wasn't until the developers submitted their land use applications that city staff was aware of the proposed four-story building. At that point city staff was concerned about the four-story height, but reserved judgment until neighborhood responses were received. Because of the overwhelming opposition to the four-story height by the neighbors, city staff is now prepared to recommend denial of the conditional use permit to allow the four-story building. City staff is very supportive, however, of a high-density senior housing project on the site. Design Review Because of staff's recommendation of denial for the four-story building, it is difficult to review the site for design. The community design review board will discuss these items during their review of the project. In general, however, staff would like to briefly discuss a few site plan issues. Staff recommends that sidewalks be installed around the entire development including along Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, and Glendon Street. Interior sidewalk access to these exterior sidewalks should be accommodated for as well. Staff finds the proposed play area on the southwest corner of the site to be an asset to the development (grandchildren) and the community. Staff further will recommend the relocation of the driveway from Ferndale Street, which is a local street, to Harvester Avenue, which is a collector street. Again, these items will be discussed at length during the community design review board meeting. Summerhill of Maplewood 4 August 11, 2004 OTHER COMMENTS Lieutenant David Kvam, Maplewood Police Department: While underground parking provides a measure of security, once a thief gains entrance, he/she typically has free reign. The developer should consider installing security cameras or other measures intended to dissuade or identify potential thieves at the entrance and in the underground parking area. With a 52-unit building of senior residents, the developer's assertion that there will probably be a reduction in traffic moving through the neighborhood might be correct. Even if it is not, what it should do is help spread the level of traffic out, as many residents would probably not be arriving and leaving at the same time as is the case with the school. Regarding concerns about additional emergency medical services to a senior building: While it is true that elderly people generally require more medical responses, Summerhill of Maplewood will not be a nursing home or assisted living facility, but a facility for individuals who are 55 years or older. Seniors as young as 55 years old should be reasonably healthy, with no added burden to the emergency medical system. The city does not have the resources currently to handle the medical responses we need to cover now. Summerhill of Maplewood may technically be able to pay for their share of the emergency medical response use with the added tax base, but the truth is that the city simply needs more paramedics to cover the number of medical calls we receive each year. Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department: (Refer to Ms. Laberee's memorandum attached on page 27 and 28.) Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: (Refer to Mr. Gervais' memorandum attached on page 29.) Dave Fisher, Building Official: (Refer to Mr. Fisher's memorandum attached on page 30.) Ann Hutchinson, Lead Naturalist, Maplewood Nature Center: (Refer to Ms. Hutchinson's memorandum attached on page 31 and 32.) RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the comprehensive land use change resolution on page 47. This resolution changes the land use plan from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) for the property at 935 Ferndale Street. The city bases these changes on the following findings: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: 1) Having a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Summerhill of Maplewood 5 August 11, 2004 2) Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. 3) The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 4) The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. 5) It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street, parks and open space. Adopt the rezoning resolution on page 48. This resolution changes the zoning map from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) for the property located at 935 Ferndale Street. The city is making this change because: ao 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. 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 water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The owner plans to develop this property for multiple-dwelling senior housing. Deny Transfiguration Church's and Nichols Development's request for a conditional use permit to construct a multiple-dwelling building (Summerhill of Maplewood) with four stories at 935 Ferndale Street. The city is denying this request because the proposed four-story building would change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area and would not be compatible to the surrounding one and two-story single-family houses. Summerhill of Maplewood 6 August 11, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of properties within 500 feet of this site as well as properties outside of the 500-foot area if requested. Of the 68 surveys sent, 19 were received, of which 4 were in favor of the senior housing project, 11 were in favor of senior housing but had concerns about the project, and 4 were opposed the project. (Refer to the neighborhood response map on page 33.) In Favor Alvin & Dorothy Geerdes, 987 Glendon Street North: We have been retired for 10 years and have lived in the same house for 40 years. We have a strong attachment to the area because it is so close to everything, 3M, schools, churches, shopping, freeways, etc. Our house is not too large and we're ready to rid ourselves of the maintenance requirements. We attended the June 17th meeting at Transfiguration and are excited about the proposed development. The units seem to be adequate for our needs and somewhat reasonable in price. We hope the project will proceed as scheduled and we believe the building will be a plus for the community. We intend to be at the council meeting to monitor the progress. William & Marlene Fye, 973 Glendon Street North: We are firmly in favor of this project and highly recommend Maplewood to okay its plans. This is a very attractive and meaningful addition to the neighborhood. We look forward to meeting many new seniors to our neighborhood. Jean Hoffer, 973 Ferndale Street North: I received the notice over the weekend that the Transfiguration school might be sold and a senior cooperative building would be constructed. How would I get information on this senior building as to how much a unit would cost and how to get signed up for a unit? My folks are elderly and might be interested. R.E. and Renee Sauerbrey, 1000 Ferndale Street North: This is such a great thing for our neighborhood. My husband has lived here since he was 7 years old. He is now 63 years old and we have been in our home for 38 years. It would be so nice for us to move into a place like this and stay in our neighborhood. In Favor with Concerns Luis Lopez, 2523 Harvester Avenue East: I have a few concerns, first of all, special assessments and property taxes. In the flier I received there was no mention of assessments (so far) or whether property taxes would increase. I would like this issue clarified. Secondly I live at 2523 Harvester Avenue and I do not want the increased traffic. The flier mentions that the development will result in less traffic. For one, I don't believe it and I'm sure there are no studies that say it would be true. It bases it results from when the school is open, not in the evenings or the weekends or during the summer when school is out. I see very few cars during these times and that cannot be said when there is an apartment complex in the neighborhood. Lastly, if this development comes to pass, why must it be a four floor building? I would rather look at a two or three story building. 0 Kate Lopez: I would like to express my families concern over the proposed building of the Summerhill of Maplewood Development on Harvester Avenue. We are relatively new to Summerhill of Maplewood 7 August 11,2004 Harvester Avenue and one of the reasons we chose to move to this area of Maplewood was for the quiet area. I know your assessment of the street traffic will not increase the traffic. The bus traffic was during off times of the day, I am not home during school hours and my two young kids were at daycare. Now with this increased traffic and our daughter starting kindergarten this year she is going to be more at risk with the increased car volume. Nothing against older people. Some day it's going to be me but some of them should not have a driver's license. I don't want to have to worry every day she gets on the bus, if someone is going to forget to stop for the bus and not see her cross the street. If you have ever spend time on Harvester Avenue, we have so many people using it as a short cut to get to Century Avenue because they do not want to have to wait at the stoplight at Stillwater and Century. People don't drive slow on Harvester Avenue, everyone is in a hurry to get somewhere. There are young kids who live in the area and it's just a matter of time before someone gets hit because of the increased traffic. We are not opposed to the building but we would like to see it in a smaller scaled back version. David Schultz, 2651 Midvale Place East: Too many times once a project like this is complete the landscapes are allowed to deteriorate. Management must be held accountable to maintaining the grounds as proposed. Dead plant material and weeds cannot be tolerated. Gail Zaun, 2658 Harvester Avenue: I live at 2658 Harvester and was unable to make the June meeting regarding this project. Maybe my question was answered then, but I will ask it again. My concern is the rezoning. How much of this area is going to be rezoned? I wouldn't want to see the whole neighborhood rezoned and have it fill up with multi-family dwellings, which seems to be the new trend. And how will this affect our property taxes? Your letter said the question was asked but it doesn't include the answer. Sue Forrest, 2515 Harvester Avenue East: I am for the proposal, but would like to share a couple of concerns I have... I live very near the proposal site on Harvester.. so I am concerned about the traffic all year long... I know there is more traffic now during the school year, however, this will be all year long... But what I do oppose is the height of the building for this area... I feel that 3 stories would be tall enough... I am totally against 4 stories.., especially for the neighbors who live across the street from this building. They would be without any sunshine half of the day. And I would like to know how this would effect my property value...We just built our house 3 years ago on Harvester, and I am very concerned about what this will do to our property value in this area... I would also like to attend the city council meeting however, I fail to see when or where it would be... Please let me know when it would be. Thank you. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East: After several conversations with my neighbors I have come to the conclusion that the project is favored if the height of the building was not four stories tall and mature trees were used in the landscaping. Jeff & Elizabeth Kringle, 910 Ferndale Street North: We received your survey, dated July 30, 2004. We wish to be included in the information about the upcoming city meeting that discusses this issue. We have two issues with the proposed development of the 935 Ferndale Street North property. 1. We are not in favor of the four-story construction. We feel four stories is too tall large and will detract from the natural beauty and general elevation of the neighborhood. It will stick out too much. We would be amenable with a Summerhill of Maplewood 8 August 11, 2004 three-story structure. A two-story structure would be optimal and fit best into the neighborhood. 2. We are not in favor of the main entrance to the facility being on Ferndale Street North. We propose that the main entrance be on Harvester Avenue for the following reasons: 1. Harvester Avenue is a direct link to and from Century and Stillwater Road/Highway 5. Ferndale is not a direct link. 2. Harvester Avenue @ Century Avenue has the stop/go lights, which control the flow of traffic into the neighborhood. 3. We don't agree that the traffic to and from this facility will be minimal. 4. Our understanding when the roads in this area were resurfaced a few years ago, that more federal/state funding were received for the resurfacing of Harvester Avenue because it is a thoroughfare to and from the school and into the neighborhood. During the resurface project Harvester Avenue was widened and more sophisticated curbing was installed with the intention of having it bear the majority of traffic into the neighborhood. For the resurfacing project all residents were assessed some $4,000 however, the residents on Harvester Avenue received $8,000 worth of work done on the street fronting their homes. Harvester Avenue is literally twice the street Ferndale Street is. As such, the same reasoning should be applied to the building of this structure, so that it fronts Harvester Avenue. We understand and are in agreement that this survey response becomes public information. We agree that this is the right type of development for this neighborhood, with the exceptions noted above. 7. Abigail Bour, 957 Edith Street: (Refer to Ms. Bour's e-mail attached on page 34.) Chris Reeves, 2654 Brand Street: (Refer to Mr. Reeves' correspondence attached on pages 35 through 39.) J.M. and Zoe Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Hruby's e-mail attached on page 40.) 10. 11. Janel and John Heroff, 940 Ferndaie Street North: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Heroff's correspondence attached on pages 41 and 42.) Mark McKenzie, 2676 Harvester Avenue: (Refer to Mr. McKenzie's e-mail attached on page 43.) Opposed Peter Feist, 950 Ferndale Street North: As owner of 950 Ferndale Street North, I am not in favor of a four-story building proposed at 935 Ferndale Street North. This does not belong in this single-family home neighborhood. I am especially opposed to having balconies overlooking my property restricting my privacy. Margaret Kunde, 937 Giendon Street North: Do not approve this please! This would change the neighborhood from a quiet family dwelling to a busy commercial type of street of which there are already too many! This large building belongs in a different type of neighborhood than this. This area is unique and there are too few spots left for normal families to live in peace & quiet. There should be family homes built here instead. I am opposed to this because of the height. The height would block out the sight of sunrise for some and sunset for others. It would darken all surrounding homes and be an Summerhill of Maplewood 9 August 11, 2004 unacceptable sight from the nature center that shows us the beauty of nature. Not the way humans are robbing us of the beauty of nature. I am opposed to the water run off into the nature ponds that are able to stop run off from homes but not such a large building with so many occupants. The sewer system hardly handles homes here as we needed to have drainage spots put in all lots with wild flowers to cover up the large drains. The cost to all surrounding homeowners would be too high as we just had all our roads redone at a large expense and the equipment needed to build this building would certainly damage them. Even to the need to repair or resurface them and all the other unseen so called needed things by all these people the curbing and etc. We simply cannot afford any more raise in any type of taxes or unseen expenses! Our loss of privacy which is why we all love living here now would be overwhelming with traffic alone both cars and people walking by and driving constantly. The upper floors will all be able to see into our back yards, even and much more! Who among you would want this enormous building with numerous people no matter what their age across from your house? Think of that or even in your neighborhood! Thank you for reading this and I hope you will consider all of these comments. Joe and Mary Erickson, 932 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Erickson's correspondence attached on page 44 and 45.) Dan Zschokke, 924 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. Zschokke's correspondence attached on page 46.) Summerhill of Maplewood 10 August 11, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 2.2 Acres Existing Land Use: School SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Single Family Houses Maplewood Nature Center Single Family Houses Single Family Houses PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Land Use Plan: Proposed Zoning: School Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Land Use Plan Change: There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project including: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development including: Summerhill of Maplewood 11 August 11, 2004 Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Rezonin,q: Section 44-1165 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 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. 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 water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Conditional Use Permit: ,Article V, Sections 44-1091 through 44-1105 states that the city council may grant a conditional use permit subject to the nine standards for approval: 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. 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 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. 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. Summerhill of Maplewood 12 August 11, 2004 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 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. Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this development on July 23, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete land use applications. As such, city action is required on this proposal by September 21, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. Attachments: 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Existing Conditions 6. Site Plan 7. Grading Plan 8. Erosion Control Plan 9. Utility Plan 10. Landscape Plan 11. Building Elevations 12. Engineering Plan Review 13. Fire Marshal Project Review 14. Building Official Project Review 15. Nature Center Project Review 16. Neighborhood Response Map 17, Neighborhood Responses (7) 18. Land Use Resolution 19. Rezoning Resolution Summerhill of Maplewood 13 August 11, 2004 Attachment 1 PROPOSED SUMMERHILL OF MAPLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT Background Quite some time ago, Transfiguration Church began experiencing over capacity and operational issues relating to their school. The school operations are divided between two campuses with students in grades K-4 going to class at the building located at 935 Femdale and grades 5-8 attending class in the facility adjacent to the church itself. It became evident that the two campuses needed to be combined into one for a number of reasons all relating to a positive and effective educational experience for the students as well as the long-term feasibility of this educational opportunity that has proven to be such a strong value to the community. In response to this need, the Church established an Expansion Committee to review the situation and to identify and explore various options, with an emphasis on finding a buyer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for the parcel as well as providing a benefit to the overall community. After several months of hard work and diligence and hearing from and interviewing several potential developers, this group of volunteers recommended to Farther Bob Hart and the Church Council that Nichols Development, LLC should be selected as the purchaser so that they could build a senior cooperative building. Nichols Development, LLC was chosen by the Church for their quality work, experience (they have financed over 27 senior cooperatives and personally developed three others), and their willingness to adapt their concept to a smaller redevelopment/in-fill site. Nichols Development, LLC, formed in March 2000, is a developer with a broader perspective and a deep understanding of both the development and financing sides of the business and operates in the following areas: · Land and site location and acquisition; · Demographics, research and marketing; · Site planning and development; · Innovative and effective negotiations with municipalities; · Overall project management and direction; and · Management The Church and its leadership are very excited to be able to be a part of adding to the number of senior housing units to the community and Nichols Development are pleased with the opportunity to be part of the Maplewood community. Proposed Project Nichols Development is proposing to build a four-story, 52-unit senior cooperative building that would be restricted to individuals age 55 and older. A cooperative is ownership housing that provides maintenance-free living, while guaranteeing a well-maintained building (inside and out). It is financed through a 40-year HUD-insured mortgage. The insurance by HUD allows for a lower interest rate that benefits the seniors purchasing homes in the development by making it even more affordable to them. Cooperatives also become increasingly affordable over time (individual units will appreciate at a pre-established rate - 2.5% per year in the case of their Summerhill of Apple Valley cooperative - compared to recent 20% annual appreciation in single family homes in the neighborhood). The reality from other cooperatives in similar areas of the metro is that seniors from the neighborhood move in to these cooperatives and free up more single family housing stock for families. Applicant Narrative 14 The development will have a strong team of experience bringing this cooperative to reality, including the architects at Miller Hanson Parmers and the general contractor will be Frana and Sons, Inc. Furthermore, once the building is open for occupants, Ebenezer, who have been working in the field of senior services since 1917, will be the designated building management company. In order to bring this high-quality, yet affordable, senior housing to this unique site in Maplewood, a few actions by the City will be necessary, including a change in zoning as well as the designated land use. This development of senior ownership housing and will provide great value to this neighborhood and the City as a whole. The building would feature: 1 and 2 bedroom homes, including many with dens; featuring full kitchens with standard equipment as well as dishwashers, disposals and microwave ovens, large bedrooms and living areas. · Amenity areas for cooperative residents, such as a community room, woodshop, library, game room, exercise room, etc. · Underground parking. · As well the exterior will be created of handsome and low maintenance materials of brick and James Hardie cementitious siding, and metal facia and will be enhanced by extensive high-quality landscaping. The exterior design will have a human scale and will fit well into the surrounding neighborhood. This project would provide: · an alternative living arrangement for seniors who want to remain in the neighborhood · ownership housing · housing that is affordable over the long-term · multi-family senior housing on one of the few sites in the neighborhood that is appropriate for such a development Parking and Traffic This proposed senior cooperative development would have 61 underground parking spaces for use by the owners as well as 26 surface parking spaces in the front of the building and proof of parking for at least another 22 spaces. In regards to traffic, this senior housing development will likely result in less traffic than the property's current use as a school when you take into consideration the number of daily trips resulting from school staff, school buses, parents driving students to and from school as well as visitors. Action Requested In order to bring this quality senior cooperative housing development to fruition, Nichols Development, LLC has submitted the following applications to the City of Maplewood for review and consideration: · Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land use classification from School to Multi-Family 15 Applicant Narrative · Rezoning to change zoning from School to Senior Housing Cooperative/Multi- Family · Conditional Use to allow for the construction of a 4th floor of owner-occupied units. · Community Design Review Board for review of project design details · Project Sign Placement to promote this development in the City of Maplewood. Community Input On Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., Transfiguration Church hosted a meeting, at the school site itself, of the neighbors residing around this property. Written notification was sent to all the property owners within 500 feet of the parcel. At that meeting, of which approximately 20 - 25 people attended, Father Bob Hart described the process of why the Church has chosen to sell the property and why they selected Nichols Development to build a senior cooperative on the site. Tim Nichols, President and CEO, and Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development described the history of Nichols Development and their work and explained the nuances of a senior cooperative. They were assisted by their architect, Link Wilson, from Miller Hanson Partners. The meeting went very well and a great number of questions were raised from which interactive dialog resulted. With the exception of concerns that this development would unfairly increase property taxes for the neighboring homes as well as if this would result in any assessments, of which there would be none, the meeting was very positive and at least two of the attendees later contacted Nichols Development and inquired about purchasing a unit in the proposed building. Since that time, one residence has raised questions regarding what is being proposed and why a multi-family building is being considered for the site rather than single- family homes. Staff of Nichols Development met with these neighbors and discussed their concerns and both sides agreed to maintain an ongoing dialog as the project proceeds through the review and approval process. 16 Applicant Narrative 25462550 53,2 2541 2551 1060 2588 258O 2552 t~..~ 2566L' ~1009 998 z o Attachment 2 2648 2628 2642 1047 - 987 ~ -988 9Bl~ o ~982 98]' 256125672573 L_ :~.. 973 973 260~ 958 9~7 '954~ iL' 957 m ' 950 9~g ~ ~0 9~49 -4 T ~ 934 925; ~_j 926 ¢~V t.~ ~CB ~ 2634 1037 2602 ~2610 1040 2689 ~1~24- :T~5 ~ 10~0 2681 ~ _ 2677 ~ 2675 1018 1~17 ~ 2671 - z ~ .r~010 2663 ~ . ~_= ~ 2655~ !1¢02' li00~ 2651 -- 2649 996 - 99~ lO80, 2641' 2686 9B7 2676 935. L Nature Center 2697 2703 2715 ..... 1 ~2708 2712 995 1029 1019 2698 ~\Oq ~'x'~ 2668 985 ,2658 977 2650 2677- 268:/ 2695 2709 2713 2633 2659 2667 967 HARVESTER AVE 9,5026 i 2~8 ', J264226~0[-2658 2672 2676 2684 2700 943' 2641 910 2669 9551 26~0 2654 2668 925: ' i , 915 '- 2687 2695 '26¢9 ~ ~:: 2701 '~707 895 _ BRAND ST " ] : , : L 2712 : 2690 ~ 2694 885 875 865 2659 ~ ; 2669 2677 268,7 26~.5 851 i "' ' 2'r7037707 SEVENTH ST N S Location Map 17 m z c -< )> Fn T R 1 1060 2628 , 2588 ~ ~ ~8 987 ~ 9~ 98~ S ~82 98~, 2551 256125672573'" '-~ : ~'~ 973 , [9.3 :260~: ~541 1040 1 ci~oi Nature Center 2634 2642 R1 Attachment 3 1047 2681 2677 2675 2671 2665 2655 ~ 2651 2649 264~ 2633 ~\Oq~v~?v ' 2676 2668 ,2658 2650 2667 2677 2659 , ;' HARVESTER AVE 2689 R2 1037 2697 27O3 2715 1029 1019 2698 2686 '2708 2712 - '- 995 985 R1 . . 977 2687 2695 2709' 2~713 967; .... ' i~4226~0-2658 2672 2676 26¢84: 2700 943 i 940 L J 924~ 2641 910 R1 26~ 2654 2669 ~2687 2695 915 BRAND ST 2712 2668 "2690 L2694 875 2659 2669 2~77 2687 2695 851 , 270,~2 [u'/ .... '; ~,:~': 271~, 2725 SEVENTH ST m z ._~ m N S Zoning Map 18 \~.k.xt4 P-'~V' ' 2602 2610 1040 2588 2580 ~1'~)24 10~§ u~ 1030 Iii 981:1 ~ 'i'9~82 98.;I.1; 256125672573 ': 2541 2551 :::~: ' ~] 97~ 2634 2681 2677 2675 2671 2663 2655- {~ttachment 4 2689 2651 2649 1080 2641 1037 Zbb~ ~2658 1029 2697 2703 2715 1019 2686 1003 ,. _.. '_2708 2712- 2698 995 985 977 2650 2677 2687 2695 2709 2~13 2633 2659 2667 .~ 967 HARVESTER AVE '-; r~ 2888 ...... , ~J~B4226~oL--2658 2672 2676 26=8A" 2700 943i 92~ .~i',,] ,2651 2669 2641 ' ~ ~ ~ 910 '~ 26~ 2654 2668 ~ 2690 ~-2694 9i5 2687 2695 '2679 ":: ~¢01 '~70T, L895 BRAND ST 2712 i ~' 't -I b 11, 9,75 , ~'"'-'~ 77 268~' 26~~ : i 851 2659 ,-J 2669 26 :] .... ' SEVENTH ST 8~: ~ -- ::' ~:"~ ~ 831 82~ ( % N S Land Use Map 19 Attachment 5 ~ PERI(INDS VIEW HARVESTER AVE. / / / / I I / / / / \ l \ I 5 \ i / I I I I // J I N Existing Conditions 2O T T f Attachment 6 I ! PERKtNDS VIEW HARVESTER AVE. N Site Plan 21 Attachment 7 I I / I I I I ~' ~ '" ~ ~ PERKIND~; VIEW .... ~ ~ \ HARVESTER AVE. <,, .,. ! t, / I I I I I I \1 N Grading Plan 22 T T Attachment 8 PERKiNDS VIEW _-____2-_-_-_ ..... HARVESTER AVE. ~ ! ~ I I I I I \t N Erosion Control Plan 23 Attachment 9 PERKINDS ViEW HARVESTER AVE. Tt 1030~ I I I I I I I lq Utility Plan 24 I ! I I I ! --- ~ P...E~RKIND S VIEW HARVESTER AVE. Attachment 10 PLANT lIST: Site I I I I I I N Landscape Plan 25 I T Attachment 11 EAST 1:40 SOUTH NORTH WEST Building Elevations 26 Enl~ineering Plan Review PROJECT: Summerhill of Maplewood PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: August 6, 2004 Attachment 12 Nichols Financial Development and Transfiguration Church are proposing to develop 935 Ferndale into a senior building with 52 units and 61 underground parking stalls. The Maplewood Nature Center is located directly south of the proposed development. Currently, there is no storm sewer or ponding on site and a majority of the site is impervious surface (parking lot and buildings). The developer is proposing to construct a pond to treat runoff from the site. The following issues shall be addressed: Drainage Runoff from a portion of the driveway is proposed to outlet into the nature center, via storm sewer. There is an existing erosion problem on the north slope of the nature center property. The engineer shall revise the plans to avoid direct discharge of storm water runoff into the nature center property. No pipe outlet will be permitted on Nature Center property. The proposed pond outlet is shown to connect into an existing manhole at the corner of Glendon Street and Harvester Ave. The proposed storm sewer should connect into the existing catch basin on Glendon St. to eliminate disruption of the street. The drainage calculations show that the post development runoff rate and the volume of runoff discharged from the site are greater than predevelopment conditions. The engineer must design the storage and treatment facilities to reduce the runoff rate and the volume of runoff discharged to be less than the predevelopment conditions for the 1 O-year and 100-year storm events. Infiltration basins or other best management practices are recommended to meet this requirement. If additional Best Management Practices are not used and the NURP pond remains the only treatment for storm water runoff, it must be designed to meet NURP standards. The pond must include a 1 O-foot safety bench around the entire pond. The pond must meet NURP removal rate requirements. The NURP pond must remove 80% of the total suspended solids and 60% of the total phosphorus. 4. The engineer shall provide a detail for the pond outlet. 27 5. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed. The overflow swale shall be lined with a permanent soil stabilization blanket, (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal). Indicate emergency overflow elevations on the drawing. 6. Note the NWL and HWL on the plans. Gradim, 1. The developer must contain the grading within the property limits. There shall be no grading allowed on the Maplewood Nature Center property. The engineer shall note the top and bottom elevations of the proposed retaining walls. A building permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall greater than four feet high. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. Landscauin~ 1. The engineer shall specify a native seed mix and planting plan to be used around the pond. Misc 1. The developer shall provide sidewalk connections from the building to the proposed sidewalk along Glendon St. and Harvester Avenue. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. A NPDES construction permit will also be required from the MPCA. 28 Attachment 13 Project Review Comments Date: From: Project: Building: Planner: August 4, 2004 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Sr. Apartment Complex (935 Ferndale) Apartment Shann Finwall Comments: 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system will be required 2. Maintain 20 foot emergency access clearance to the building for emergency vehicles 3. Installation of fire protection system (NFPA 13) 4. Installation of fire alarm system (NFPA 72) 5. Location of fire protection needs to be accessible and clearly marked 6. Standpipes for fire department use only placed in stairwells from garage to top floor 7. Fire Department lockbox required to be mounted on the building the form for the lockbox can be obtained from the Fire Marshal Any questions or concerns please contact me. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal City of Maplewood (651)-249-2804 29 T Attachment 14 Memo Date: July 30, 2004 r~~ To: Shann Finwall, Assoc. Planne From: David Fisher, Building Official Re: Transfiguration Church, 935 Femdale Street An architect will be required to provide a detailed code analysis to verify the type of construction, occupant load, exit width, bathroom counts and other information required by code. The building will be required to be 100 percent in compliance with the 2000 IBC and the Minnesota State Building Code. This building will be required to be 100 percem in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 Accessibility. Provide Fire Department access around building. Van accessible parking may be required in the under ground parking. The building is required to be sprinklered per NFPA 13 and to have a fire alarm system per NFPA 72. 30 T T Attachment 15 Memo To~ R,.~ Shann Finwall Ann Hutchinson Nature Center Staff 8/9/2004 Proposed Summerhill of Maplewood Development Shann, here are our comments and concems regarding the proposed development on the Transfiguration property adjacent to the Maplewood Nature Center. Our first choice would be to have someone use the existing building; and landscape to reduce the impervious surfaces( parking lot). Second choice, would be to see the area use as single family housing as it is currently zoned- why not small one --two story starter homes for either seniors or singles. Third choice would be this collective housing but only at two or at most three stodes high. I think that four stodes is too high for the neighborhood. Three would be better- but not in the c-shape section they propose - keep it to the existing shape to reduce impervious surfaces. Things we like about the plan: Retuming the parking lot to green space. The rock construction entrance (on erosion control plan). Using their own land to take care of the storm water run off - especially in the form of rain gardens using Minnesota na~e plants. (This should be designated as such on the landscaping plan-see comment 13 below.) Concerns about the plan: 1. The building is too high. However, it would be better to retain the existing shape rather than create more impervious surfaces for water to run off. Can the building be three stodes high and retain ils shape or something close to it?. 2. The underground parking entrance we believe would better protect the nature center if it were on the north side rather than the south side. This would also protect the view for residents looking to the nature center. 3. It would be helpful to have the engineers do a volume calculation of the water that will come off the site down Femdale. We already have a problem with excess water flowing down the hillside on the street to the raingarden, then wa~ing over and eroding the bails. We want insurance that this problem will not be exacerbated by the parking lot- another reason to move the parking lot to the north. Another option would be to move the whole building including the drive to the north several feet. 31 4. The Landscaping plan shows a pipe draining storm water from the perking lot grate to the nature center hillside. This is completely unacceptable. We suggest the runoff from the grate be directed to a rain garden on the developments own property, not the nature center's property. It would be even better if this ddveway were not so close to the nature center property line. 5. I have questions about Michael lane - has it been formally vacated by the city?. If so how much does the nature center retain, and how much does the development retain? We may need to do a more accurate survey of the property line. The fence is not actually on the property line - I believe the city owns several feet on the norlh side of the fence. This needs to be determined. 6. Where exactly are the storm water down spouts for the building and where is that water being directed? This should be noted on the plan. Hopefully all are being directed into grass, or vegetated areas, not pavement or the nature center. Would the development consider the use of rain barrels or cistern? 7. Although the legends indicate that there are tree lines none are actually shown on the plans. Please show them. We also suggest a tree locate along our fence line to delineate existing mature trees. How will the company protect the trees dudng construction? How will digging for underground parking affect the trees? This is another reason to move the drive farther from the property line; preferably to the north east comer of the lot. These trees are crucial to aesthetically buffer the proposed structure. 8. It would be wonderful if wa could extend the Oak forest a few feet onto the property es pert of the landscaping plan. This would allow extra buffering of the building from the view of folks on the opposite side of the pond. And would also be extra protection incase any of the existing trees would succumb to disease or construction damage. The trees should be tall trees like red or white oak or basswood. 9. Will the existing parking lot be replaced? Can all the new construction be done with out affecting the fence or spilling over onto nature center property?. The current erosion control plan shows the fence line being disturbed due to the pipe from the driveway grate. We would prefer no disturbance of the nature center property. 10. Consider offedng an alternative to open decks on the apartments facing the nature center. The nature center allows little or no control of mosquitoes. Screen porches might be a good option. 11. Currently there exists an old storm water drainage system from the school to the nature center hillside (similar to the one proposed ) Can the city arrange some kind of clean up of the old cement culvert, and officially close up that pipe? City engineers have seen that area. 12. We ask that barberry be eliminated from the landscaping plan. I believe Ginny sent their landscaper a list of invaslve species not to use, but am not sure if that was on the list. Consider adding a Native Prairie Butterfly garden to the plan. 13. We hope that the storm water ponds will be planted as rain gardens, or with deep rooted native plants, as this will fit in better with the neighborhood, and provide better infiltration. The nature center will be happy to help plant the gardens with school children as part of our educational storm water program. I hope this helps, and please call should you or anyone have any questions! ANN · Page 2 Attachment 16 ;UsCn~erl~l Cent. rl __ --- Maplewood Nature ~!~ ~~~ In Favor 11 In Favor of Senior Housing with Concerns / Opposed N Neighborhood Response 33 Shann Finwall Page 1 of 1 Attachment 17 From: It Figures of Maplewood, Inc. [iffiguresofmaplewood@worldnetattnet] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 11:32 AM To: Shann Finwall Subject: Transfiguration School Comments Hello I have read through the information that you sent regarding a senior coop being built in our neighborhood. First and foremost, I do not object to the Senior coop. I do not believe that this building will have any negative effects on us financially. If we can achieve no tax increases as a result along with a higher value home due to the new construction, then I would welcome this coop. However, putting financial values aside, I don't necessarily want to look at a 4 story building in my neighborhood. I do not want any type of apartment, coop, 4-plexes, condos or any of that. I would rather have the developer purchase the lot and sub-divide it and put new homes on it instead. I feel the neighborhood would be a great place for new homes. I would think that this type of use for the lot would also increase the values on our homes. Another alternative would be for the city to purchase the lot and create a park for our children to play at. Currently, this is where they go to play. Our children would not have a neighborhood park if the one at Transfiguration is tom down. We do not allow our children to cross the busy Stillwater or McKnight to get to the parks across the way and as the nature center is a wonderful, peaceful, place to visit. It is not a place for our children to play. I understand an undertaking like this is probably not financially possible and it would certainly create more assessments. Before the senior coop is approved, I would hope that some alternatives such as these were looked at for a park or a few more homes on the lot would more asthetically pleasing than a 4 story building. Abigail Bour 957 Edith Street Maplewood, MN 55119 (651) 739-1415 FREE Emoficons for your emaJll Click Here! 8/3/2004 34 f Dear Shann, 03 August, 2004 My name is Chris Reeves, my wife Tina and I live at 2654 Brand Street along with our four children ages 11, 9, 7, and 3. I would like to give you a quick history of myself. I grew up at 2566 Stillwater Road, attended Transfiguration School as a child in the same classes as City Council member Jackie Monahan-Junek and currently live only feet away from this proposed project. As you can understand, I along with my family love this neighborhood and the Nature Center which our property abuts. My entire life of 42 years has been spent within a one block radius of Transfiguration School. This will be a big change for all involved and implore you and all others with the Community Design Review Board will take our opinions and/or suggestions seriously as we in the neighborhood will have to continue living with the decisions that are made, the developers will have moved on to the next project. In reading the Proposed Development Summary there are a few points I would like clarified. I quote: 1) "finding a buyer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for the parcel" What do we mean by reasonable. Relative to what, the size of the project? 2) "providing a benefit to the community" "provide great value to this neighborhood and the City as a whole." Please quantify these statements, because I also believe 8-10 single family homes qualify just as well. The concept as a whole we feel is a sound and good use for the property with some reservations. It is much better than Multi-Family low income alternatives. We understand the existing school, convent, and parking lot can not be razed and cost effectively build only 8 single family homes. That said, the scale of the project seems excessive. A four story complex is much too much. We would not be in favor of approval of the conditional use permit. Although the rezoning from R-1 to Multi-Family is acceptable. There are also concerns related to the claims that a 52 unit housing complex with support staff will have LESS TRAFFIC than an underutilized school which operates only nine months per year. I'm sorry but B.S. When planning for 109 parking spaces we find it hard to compare to an Elementary school with maybe a dozen teachers who drive, bus service for most students, some 35 parents driving, and visitors. Let us compare, 52units- not every resident will drive, but most will, some may have more than one car (husband, wife), service and support staff, deliveries and visitors. Our main concern revolve around these traffic claims, the impact on the Nature Center water quality and the traffic on Brand Street. currently the school traffic via Harvester Avenue which was built with curb and gutter, striped shoulders for pedestrians and bicyclists, and a stop light at Century Avenue. Harvester is a main artery meant to handle traffic volume and dispersal. SAFETY The design plan shows the entrance for the entire facility on Femdale street. This means all traffic coming and going to the south and east will be utilizing Brand Street which is not as safe as Harvester Avenue. Femdale turns into Brand Street at a 90 degree angle at the bottom of a hill, the comer is posted at 15 MPH, but many have gone through the comer, most at night, many in icy conditions, and one young girl last year actually smashed through the fence of the Nature Center. Currently only school busses with pick-ups on Brand Street use Brand Street. If the schools entrance was on Femdale as the Summerhill proposal is we are sure traffic patterns would be totally different. ENVIRONMENTAL Femdale and Brand Streets were reconstructed about four years ago without curb and gutter, preferring the rain water gardens to handle nmoff. The unplanned increase in traffic to this corridor will have adverse affects to the water quality of the Nature Center that is the focus of the neighborhood. We all know most vehicles leak fluids of some sort, be it oil, antifreeze, and other toxic liquids that will eventually end up in the rainwater gardens. Our proposed solutions for both safety and environmental issues would be as follows. Change the vehicle entrance for the parking garage to the north side, the same as the current use for the school. The underground parking would enter from north and the surface parking could be moved to the northeast comer of the property with the southeast comer held for reserve surface use. We know that Harvester was built as an arterial road with a wider right of way, curb and gutter, and is much safer to move traffic. At the west end of Harvester Avenue at Sterling Street the city constructed a large holding/filtering pond designed specifically to take road runoff and deal with the volume that curb and gutter can generate. The rainwater gardens do the same thing only on a smaller scale, but the Sterling/Harvester pond is perfectly suited to take the excess pollutants. 36 We are attaching revised site plans so you, the Planning Commission, and the Community Design Review Board can visualize our suggestions. We are looking forward to hearing from you and discussing this further. Sincerely, Chris and Tina Reeves 2654 Brand Street Maplewood, MN 55119 Chris Home: 651-738-2503 til 2 P.M. Work: 651-490-4470 3 P.M. til 11 P.M. 37 N I I I I ! ! HAEVESTER AVE. 3 / I Site Plan 38 I ! N S PER~':IHOS WEW HAEVESTER AYE. I Site Plan 39 Page 1 of 1 Shann Finwall From: J. Hruby [jhruby@fredcomm.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:40 PM To: Shann Finwall Subject: Proposed Development Comments - 935 Ferndale Street Ms. Finwall, I would like to voice my concerns about the proposed development at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. My wife Zoe and I own a house just down the block at 2659 Harvester Avenue. Specifically, our concems are: Height of the proposed building - A four-story building is massively out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. There is good reason for the three-story limit in the current planning restrictions-to keep buildings to a scale that is reasonable for the existing neighborhood. This concern is amplified by the fact that this four-story dwelling would sit on a hill above the Maplewood Nature Reserve. In my view, the height of this proposed building will impose on the peace of the Nature Reserve. Number of units - Again, 52 units are simply out of scale with the current neighborhood. Traffic - I do not agree that the proposed development will result in "less traffic than the property's current use as a school." Adding 50-80 cars to the neighborhood will result in a significant increase in traffic. Currently there is effectively no traffic for the four months of the year that the school is in recess. The traffic when school is in session amounts to only 10-15 cars per day on the average day, plus a few bus drop-offs per day. Obviously, traffic would increase dramatically were the restrictions to be lifted for this project. Only five years ago, the City of Maplewood closed the west end of Harvester Avenue with a cul-de-sac to solve the exact traffic problem that this large proposed development would now re-introduce to the neighborhood. As you know, the residents were assessed for the cost of this project and many of us were happy to pay because of the promise of calming what had become a significant traffic problem. Overall, I think there are positive aspects to this proposed development. It would supply housing to an important population. I simply think the scale of the development needs to be reduced to fit within the current zoning restrictions regarding height and the number of units needs to be lowered to reduce traffic congestion. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns, Jason Hruby J.M. and Zoe Hruby 2659 Harvester Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 Home: 651-578-0649 Mobile: 651-387-1233 8/5/2004 40 August 5, 2004 Dear Ms. Finwall, We received your information regarding the Transfiguration School proposed development and have significant concerns with the proposed project. We live at 940 Ferndale Street N. We are directly across from the proposed entrance to the project so this project has significant impact on our home and property. We have the following reservations related to the proposed development. 1. We live in a neighborhood of single family homes. The homes surrounding the project area are all one or two story homes. In the neighborhood there is nothing over two stories. A four story fifty plus foot high building on that site is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. A four story building directly across the street with 25 balconies facing our home will significantly decrease our privacy not only in our from yard and our living room, dining room, and bedroom windows but because of its very height will also intrude on our privacy in the back yard. It will also block the afternoon sunshine that we value in the winter months and will have a negative impact on recent landscape projects that we have installed. 3. The from entrance is directly across from our home. All traffic into and out of the complex will pass by our home and driveway. Parking on the property will be facing our living and bedroom windows with headlights shining in our windows after dark. When improvements were made to Ferndale Street we were told that curb and gutter were unnecessary on our streets because the traffic on Ferndale Street did not warrant curb and gutter and it was expensive. I believe with 52 units and a potential for 75 to 100 new individuals in that development that there will be a significant increase in the motor vehicle and emergency services vehicles in from of my home throughout the day and night. Harvester Avenue has curb and gutter and was designed to be the main thoroughfare connecting the neighborhood to major arteries. It would seem that the main entrance to the proposed development and the parking should also be on Harvester Avenue. 4. The statement in your enclosed literature proposed that there would actually be a decrease in traffic near the existing property related to the motor vehicle traffic from the school. I would counter that fallacious argument with the fact that the traffic for the school occurs within the 15 minutes before and after the start and dismissal of school classes. There is rarely evening or nighttime traffic, no weekend, traffic, and no traffic during the summer months when school is not in session. There is also no emergency services traffic, no one coming or going in the middle of the night as there would likely be with the senior housing. With the main entrance directly across from our home that is another issue with the peace, serenity, and privacy that we have enjoyed in this single family neighborhood for 29 years. 5. We purchased a home in this neighborhood 29 years ago because it was a neighborhood that was zoned single family residence. It was close to neighborhood schools and work. We have raised our children, paid taxes and stayed here because we have not found other residences in second tier suburbs that afforded the convenience, 41 privacy and livability that has existed for us in this Maplewood neighborhood. We feel that this project threatens that peace, privacy, and livability in our neighborhood. 6. We have significant concerns related to our property value should the proposed development be approved. We also have concerns related to assessments that may need to be done to up grade the existing streets to accommodate the traffic related to the development and the increase in property taxes that may ensue. 7. We have concerns related to the environmental impact that the size of this development will have on the Maplewood Nature Center. With the parking entrance so close to the Nature Center we have concerns with the nm-off of petroleum products and exhaust from the cars in the development. It appears that one of the rainwater outlets on the south side of the building near the parking entrance goes directly into the Nature Center. 8. The overwhelming neighborhood sentiment when we canvassed our immediate neighborhood was not in favor of this proposed development in its present form. (We will have a copy of that petition available at the next meeting regarding this proposal. ) 9. According to the city web site, Maplewood has 956 senior housing units in the city of Maplewood. There are two senior housing facilities within 6 blocks of the present proposed development. We have nothing against senior housing. I do believe this project would have merit in Maplewood but not at this site in the size and scope described in the proposal related to Transfiguration's property size and our neighborhood. In closing, we ask you to sit down in your living room tonight, look out your window and imagine a four story building with 25 balconies looking back at you and then tell me that this is right for our neighborhood! We urge you to deny the present proposal because it is too big for the proposed site, does not fit the character or tenor of the established neighborhood, overall negative neighborhood sentiment, and issues related to privacy and traffic. Sincerely, Janel & John Heroff 940 Ferndale Street N Maplewood, MN 55119 42 Message Shann Finwall Page 1 of 2 From: Mckenzie, Mark [Mark. Mckenzie@qwest. com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:11 AM To: Shann Finwall Subject: proposed project on Harvester ave Good morning Shann, I wanted to share my thoughts, and those of my neighbors, about the proposed project on Harvester Ave. Unfortunately all of the information I have seen about this project has been provided by my neighbors as I have not received any notices or otherwise in my mail. As I understand it the proposed project would include: · removing the current school and buildings owned by Transfiguration church. · modifying the current site to accommodate multi family / high density housing · building a new structure including I level for parking and 4 levels for residences · creating residence for 50+ new housing units My concerns are about the impact of these changes to the neighborhood (traffic, noise, "style", traditions) and the size of the structure and it's impact on the views from the existing residences. As I review the neighborhood, for at least several blocks, the only structure that would be at a similar height would be the water tower at the Beaver Lake Elementary School site. If I am missing any other 4+ story buildings please let me know. As I see it there are a few 2 story structures within a few miles, and one at 2.5 stodes, but that's about it. I would certainly enjoy an opportunity to better understand the proposed project. I am concerned that the proposal has become this mature without my neighbors and myself having heard about it. While I understand that the Church and the developers are looking for the greatest return on investment, and the city would be able to add 50+ more tax payers to the current base, I think the project I have heard about is just too large for this neighborhood. If the area is to be developed as high density housing I think it would be appropriate to make the project fit it's surroundings. I would not be in favor of any project that would place the tallest building in the area in the middle of an established residential neighborhood. Please reply or call me so that I can gain a better understanding of the proposal and where it is in it's decision making process. As I understand, there are variances required to proceed with this project, as proposed. My neighbors and I will want to be involved in those discussions. Thanks for listening, Mark McKenzie 2676 Harvester Ave 651-739-8264 Mark McKenzie Senior Account Executive 8/5/2004 43 Joe and Mary Erickson 932 Ferndale SWeet North Maplewood, MN 55119 August 4, 2004 City of Maplewood Attn: Shann Finwall Office of Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Neighborhood Survey - Transfiguration School, 935 Ferndale Street We just received the survey sent out fxom your office regarding the proposed four-story building to replace Transfiguration School. As a resident of this neighborhood, we have many concerns regarding this extreme change to our neighborhood. We are very compelled to express our dismay and objections to this project. As stated in the survey all residents within 500 feet of the school had been sent written notice of the meeting that was held on June 17, 2004. This was not the case for us, as we did not receive any notification via the U.S. Mail and I believe that we are within the 500 as we are directly right across the street. Had we received this notice, we would have been in attendance to this meeting to voice our concerns and our strong obiections to this four-story building in our neighborhood. We have been in this neighborhood for 8 years and one of the main reason to purchase our house was we were told about the "inability" for any new construction at the school would not be taking place. We am sure that the church and its leadership are very excited to be able to sell this land and have this four-story building put up, but they will not have to look out their windows and see a parking lot and this four-story building each and every day. This is only a profit for the church and its members. The amount of traffic will not decrease; our streets during the summer months are exceptionally quiet and are less traveled when school is not in sessior~- With the "senior" building across the street, I believe we will see much more traffic along with many, many more emergency vehicles to contend with. It's a minimum of 55 vehicles for this building and that would not be taking into account any visitors to the building. This would be a year round problem, not seasonal as it is right now. Some of our main concerns are that we see a loss of the nature center; we get to look at this four- story building daily and not to mention how this building will block sunlight. Addition of another road or re-construction of Michael Lane at the "square" corner of Ferndale and Brand Streets will only cause accidents and/or vehicles to get stuck in the wintertime. This is a very poorly constructed comer, cars do not stay to their respective side of the road now, and what will this new road also create? How many vehicles will need to mm around, need assistance to get unstuck, or how many accidents do we need to contend with? 44 Page 2 August 4, 2004 Neighborhood Survey- Transfiguration School, 935 Ferndale Street They also believe that this building will free up single family dwelling, well there are many young families in the neighborhood now, and with the increase of property taxes and now a four- story building right out your window, who would want to purchase a dwelling in this neighborhood? Most homes in our neighborhood are at least 50 years old, yet maintained very well; we will not be able to sell the house for close to market value with this "eye sore" in the neighborhood. We have already been through the construction of the street/curbing etc that was to say the least a "nightmare". Our streets were left in disarray many times during that construction, dirt not graded, mounds of dirt to try to maneuver around or through, sometimes not access to Ferndale either from Brand or Harvester. No parking on the streets, per city ordinance, yet attempting to get into your own driveway was unattainable some days. Now again, we will have to live and go around another big construction project that will not better us by any means. Does this project take in two counties? We believe that Century Avenue is the dividing line for Ramsey and Washington Counties; the enclosed map does not show the church on the Washington County side, as we believe that the church is in Washington County. How will this affect us? This is a Residential zone; why not keep it that way? Instead of putting up some ridiculous four-story building, put in some single family dwelling equivalent to the surrounding dwellings? We have over the years tried to better our residence both inside and outside for our benefit as well as our neighbors, and for re-sale bad we made the choice to sell, now if we made that choice, we have to contend with this project and more than likely lose money on the sale. Who compensates us for our monetary loss? We cannot express how much we are against this proposed project enough and still feel that we have not been kept apprised of all activities. This is a lose, lose situation for all people in our neighborhood, and it is very unjust that we have to pay the price for someone else's choice and for the church to profit from this and jump to another county, they are off Scott-free from the mess they leave behind. This project does not belong in my front yard or my neighborhood. Strongly Opposed, 45 l~egar~ng the proposed development of 936 Ferndale St. North: My name is Dan Zschokke and I live at 924 Ferndale St. North, directly across from the proposed development. First of all, I would like to say that I am all for _an owner of any property doing whatever they would like on their land. I think ff the owners wanted to put another school on the property or develop the property as single family dwe]]ing it would be fine. The rezoning of the property, however, is upsetting to me and to many others in our neighborhood. We moved into this neighborhood with a school across the street. If there was a four story apartment bu~]ding across the street, we would have looked elsewhere. Tb~ attitude makes us believe that our property values would go down as a result of this building going up. My family would det~n~tely be moving as a result and not gettiug the equity out of our house that we might have. I tbi~k there are many fA.milles in this community and neighborhood that are in the same situation as we are. Please do not rezone this property to allow for a bl,~lding of this size and purpose. Th_~mk you for your time. lokke 46 Attachment 18 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from School (S) to High Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3H). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 935 Ferndale Street. WHEREAS, the legal description is Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 4, Bartelmy Acres Second Addition, according to the record plat thereof, Ramey County, Minnesota, together with the North Half of Michael Lane, as dedicated in said plat, lying between the southerly extensions of the east line of said Lot 4 and the west line of said Lot 5. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 16, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendment, subject to the developer meeting the city's density requirements. On ,2004, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described change for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: Having a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street, parks and open space. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 47 Attachment 19 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC, is proposing the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: Single-Family Residential (R-l) to Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 935 Ferndale Street. WHEREAS, the legal description is Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 4, Bartelmy Acres Second Addition, according to the record plat thereof, Ramey County, Minnesota, together with the North Half of Michael Lane, as dedicated in said plat, lying between the southerly extensions of the east line of said Lot 4 and the west line of said Lot 5. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 16, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. On ,2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 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. 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 water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this property for multiple-dwelling senior housing. The Maplewood city council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 48 tO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Cottages at Legacy Village Hazelwood Street, south of County Road D August 6, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Larry Aim, representing Southwind Builders, is proposing to build 33 for-sale townhomes on a 4.6- acre site on the east side of Hazelwood Street, south of County Road D. The project is between Hazelwood Street and the recently approved Heritage Square part of the Legacy Village PUD. Refer to the applicant's statement and the maps on pages 17 through 28. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: A comprehensive plan amendment. The current land use designation is BC (business commercial) and the city requires a residential land use designation for town houses. The applicant, therefore, is requesting a land use plan change from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). A PUD (planned unit development) for the town house development. The existing zoning of the site is R-1 (single dwelling residential). The city may allow the town house development by approving a PUD for the proposed development. 3. A preliminary plat for the lot line configuration. 4. The site, building and landscape plans. (See the plans on pages 24 - 28). BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, including a comprehensive plan amendment, the tax-abatement plan and the preliminary plat. This plan included the site for the Hedtage Square townhomes, which are now under construction just east of this proposed development site. December 8, 2003: The city council approved the PUD, preliminary plat and design plans for Hedtage Square. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build the proposed town houses, Mr. Aim wants the city to change the land use plan for the site. This change would be from BC (business commercial) to R-3(H ) (residential high density). (See the existing land use map on page 22.) The city intends R-3(H) areas for a variety of housing including double dwellings, town houses or apartments of up to 16.3 units per gross acre. For BC (business commercial) areas, the city plans for offices, clinics, restaurants, day care centers and retail businesses. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including: · Provide for orderly development. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Provide a wide vadety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: Transitions between distinctly diffedng types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. Include a vadety of housing types for all residents.., including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, Iow- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffedng and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: Promote a vadety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and pdce ranges through its land use plan. Townhomes would certainly be compatible with the surrounding townhomes that the city recently approved and are now under construction east of this site in Legacy Village. The site is on a collector street (Hazelwood) and is between two artedal streets (Beam Avenue and County Road D) and, of course, is near shopping and other services. In addition, the character of this neighborhood has changed with the addition of Cardinal Pointe and Legacy Village to the area. Finally, this property would not be a great site for a commercial or retail business as it is hidden from the main commercial areas along White Bear and Beam Avenues. As proposed, the 33 units on the 4.6-acre site means there would be 7.2 units per gross acre. This project density is less than the maximum density standard (10.1 units per acre) in the comprehensive plan for town houses. For comparison, the Heritage Square town houses to the east of this site will have 220 units on 19.8 acres (an average of 11.1 units per acre). In addition, the Cardinal Pointe Co-op across Hazelwood from the site is a 108-unit, three-story building with underground parking on a 6.75-acre site (an average of 16 units per gross acre). The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle to meet housing needs. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or supedor quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. o The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 33-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because the existing R-1 (single-family residential) zoning requires the lots to be 75 feet wide, 10,000 square feet in area and to have frontage on public streets. As proposed, the individual town houses would be on lots 29 to 35 feet wide, would be about 1,919 to 2,299 square feet and would have access from pdvate driveways. With a small lot around each dwelling unit, a homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the pdvate driveways and the common areas. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as now proposed (shown on pages 24 - 28), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or supedor quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having pdvate driveways with reduced townhouse setbacks will lessen the amount of impervious surface on the property. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and built public streets, such a plan would require more grading and longer driveways because of the right-of-way requirements and the larger setbacks. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not 3 increase the number of lots or the density of the housing in the development over the density in other town house projects. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $200,000. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the driveways, sidewalks, landscaping, the common areas and any retaining walls. For all the reasons as I stated above, there should be no problem with having a PUD to allow the new townhome complex in this location. The townhouses would replace the five single-family homes that were on the site. Visitor Parkin,q A major issue recently with the review of the townhome developments is that of parking. That is, will there be enough resident and visitor parking within the proposed development? The applicant noted in his statement (on pages 17 - 20) that the typical buyers of these homes do not need more than one extra parking space outside of the two that are in the attached garage. In this review, staff applied the same visitor-parking ratio that the city applied during the review of Legacy Village. This requirement is that the applicant provide one visitor parking space for each two units, or one-half space for each unit. Thus for the 33 proposed units, there should be at least 17 visitor parking spaces. The project plans show 40 exterior parking spaces in and near this development, including 11 spaces along the east side of Hazelwood Street, 8 spaces along the north side of Legacy Parkway and 21 spaces along the private driveways within the development. Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting approval of the subdivision to sell the individual townhome lots. This is typical of such developments and staff does not find any unusual concerns with doing so beyond the usual city requirements for platting. In this case, such requirements include the signing of a developer's agreement, the approval of final grading/drainage/erosion-control/utility plans, the dedication of required street right-of-way and the dedication of any drainage and utility easements that the city engineer may require. It is important to note that the city's contractor recently started constructing Legacy Parkway (with trails) from Kennard Street to Hazelwood, including the segment in the northern part of this site. In addition, the city is planning to reconstruct Hazelwood Street from Beam Avenue to County Road D in 2005. This construction will include the parking bays and sidewalk as shown on the project plans. Chris Cavett and Erin Laberee, of the city's engineering department, reviewed this proposal and had several comments. Refer to the memo on pages 33 - 34. Staff recommends that the city council require that the applicant meet all the conditions and statements in this memo as conditions of plat approval. 4 Land Purchases and Sales As part of a coordinated re-development effort, the City has been working with this developer to purchase the five existing residential properties that made up the project area. The city has been working with the developer and two of the previous property owners to help facilitate the construction of Legacy Parkway, for the reconstruction of Hazelwood Street in the area and in the preparation of this development site. Specifically, the developer bought the three southern properties (3004, 3016 and 3050 Hazelwood) and the city bought the northern two properties (3056 and 3062 Hazelwood). The city paid a total of $650,000 for the two properties it purchased. The city's approved tax abatement plan for the area will pay for the assessments, home demolition, site grading and the purchase of the two homes. In addition to the above, this coordinated effort has included the following: The City has purchased the two northemmost existing residential properties in the project area. The City will use about 0.13 acres of the area purchased as right-of-way for Legacy Parkway and the city will sell the remainder of this area (approximately 1.00 acres) to the developer at a purchase pdce of $150,000. City staff is recommending that the city make this purchase by Southwind Builders a condition of the approval of the development. Southwind Builders has purchased the three southernmost existing residential properties in the project area. The City will buy about 0.22 acres land is this area from the developer for Legacy Parkway right-of-way. The City has agreed to buy this right-of-way for $50,000. As part of a redevelopment agreement, the City has already demolished three of the existing homes in the project area at City cost. The City also has contracted for the removal of the remaining two homes. City staff expects that the city crews will remove the remaining homes by the end of August. As part of a redevelopment agreement, the City has agreed to provide assistance for the site preparation and grading of the project area at a total value of $50,000. City staff anticipates that the city contractor will complete some of the site preparation and grading as part of a City construction contract. The specifics of this work still need to be coordinated with the developer. The developer has agreed to consider revisions to their site grading plan to allow for the disposal of up to 30,000 cubic yards of excess soils resulting from other City construction projects in the area. As a condition of the approval of the development, the developer must agree to work with the City to address this issue. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Hazelwood Street and will the contractor will be installing them as part of the construction of Legacy Parkway. These systems will be available to serve the proposed development. As designed, the storm water from this development would go into the new, regional ponding area north of the site. The city designed and built the storm water pond north of the site to accommodate drainage from a large area east of Hazelwood Street. Drainage Concems As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the private driveways, discharging into the new ponding area to the north of the site. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm-water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from Edn Laberee starting on page 33.) Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading or the developer would have to plant trees to replace those that the contractor would remove. For this 4.6-acre site, the applicant's plans show the entire site being graded and the removal of all the existing trees. The applicant's engineer told me that this amount of grading would be necessary for drainage purposes and to make this site fit the grades of Hazelwood Street, Legacy Parkway and the development to the east. As proposed on the preliminary landscaping plan (page 26), the developer would plant 110 trees on the site. These include ash, honeylocust, maples and spruce. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 4.6-acre site, the code requires there be at least 46 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed landscaping plan would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Design Review Site and Landscaping Considerations As stated above, there must be adequate visitor parking provided. The recommended conditions of approval should satisfy this need. The landscape plan shows the developer planting 110 trees, 51 ornamental trees and at least 125 shrubs in the development. While this plan is a good start, the developer needs to have several details in it revised to meet city code standards and current practices. Such changes should include increasing the tree size to 2 % inches (from 2 inches) and changing the Colorado Spruce to Black Hills Spruce or Austrian Pines (or a mix of these). In addition, the developer should coordinate the landscaping materials and designs along Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street to make sure that they are compatible with the approved landscape designs for Heritage Square and Kennard Street. Architectural The three building designs (on pages 29 - 31) are attractive and the proposed color scheme would provide an appealing color variation. Li.qhtin~ Plan The landscape submitted by the applicant shows 20-foot-tall light poles at the intersections of the driveways and at the east end of the driveways (near buildings 5 and 15). The city code now requires the applicant to submit to the city a detail photometric plan for the site, including pole and fixture details and a plan showing the light spread and light intensity. City staff will need to approve such a plan before the city may issue a building permit for the project. Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before starting construction. Building Official's Comments All applicable codes must be met. Police Department Comments Lieutenant David Kvam did not note any negative impact to public safety with the proposal. He did note, however, that since most of the driveways in the proposal are to be privately owned and managed that most of state statutes and many city ordinances governing traffic control or parking might not apply. He continued by stating that this could lead to issues later on. T ; RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on page 35. This resolution approves a change to the comprehensive land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) for a 4.6- acre site for the Cottages at Legacy Village on Hazelwood Street. The city is approving this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that is between two residential areas. 3. This change would allow for town house that would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development. 4. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a collector street and is near artedal streets. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 5. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. B. Adopt the resolution on pages 36 - 38. This resolution approves the 33-unit Cottages at Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) on Hazelwood Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) This approval is subject to the following conditions: The development shall follow the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall meet all the requirements noted in Edn Laberee's memo dated August 6, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the city issues a grading permit. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. The developer or contractor shall construct the project according to the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except as specifically modified by these conditions. The developer shall add sidewalks and sidewalk connections in locations that city staff decides are necessary. The developer or builder will provide parking spaces at the ends of the driveways wherever they may fit. The developer or builder shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Hazelwood Street for the entire length of the project. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. Provide a revised landscape plan for city staff approval. This revised plan shall include: a. Increasing the tree size to 2 % inches (from 2 inches). b. Changing the Colorado Spruce to Black Hills Spruce or Austrian Pines (or a mix of these two species). The developer should coordinate the landscaping materials and designs along Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street to make sure that they are compatible with the approved landscape designs for Hedtage Square and Kennard Street. do Overstory trees to be planted along both sides of Legacy Parkway and along Hazelwood Street shall be set at an average of 30- to 40-feet on center. All setbacks are approved as shown on the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the zoning code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan date-stamped July 22, 2004. The applicant or developer shall provide visitor-parking spaces at the minimum quantity of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimum of 17 required visitor parking. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. Co Do Approve the preliminary plat for the Cottages of Legacy Village (date-stamped July 22, 2004), subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall meet all the requirements in the assistant city engineer's report dated August 6, 2004. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the city issues a grading permit. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. The applicant shall pay the city $150,000 for the property now owned by the city. Approve the project plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, for the Cottages at Legacy Village on Hazelwood Street. This approval is subject to the developer or contractor meeting all the following conditions: Obtaining city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the site. 2. Obtaining city council approval of a planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary plat for this project. 4. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100- year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. ]0 (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north, east and south sides of the site. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width-parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north, east and south property lines and the applicant shall change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. b. Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city approval showing: 1! As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the northern, easterly and southerly property lines as possible. (2) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings. (3) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system. (4) Larger tree sizes (2 % inch-caliper instead of 2 inch). (5) Replacing the Colorado Blue Spruce with Black Hills Spruce and Austdan Pines. eo Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. F. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required extedor improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. H. The developer shall close on the purchase of the properties with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. I. The contractor or builder shall meet all of the requirements of the fire marshal and building official. J. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. K. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 5. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: Install reflectodzed stop signs at each ddveway connection to Hazelwood Street and Legacy Parkway, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap- parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" and any traffic control signs within the site, as required by staff. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Hazelwood Street and Legacy Parkway to match the driveways. c. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). d. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. e. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. f. Install the trails and sidewalks as shown on the approved plans. g. The developer or contractor shall: 1. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 2. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 5. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 6. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance. 7. The setbacks are approved as shown on the project plans. 8. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 9. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 10. No units facing Hazelwood Street shall have utility rooms or exposed utility meters on that elevation. 11. The applicant shall work with staff to propose suitable screening for outside utility meters. 12. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required extedor improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spdng or summer. T T c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 14 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 10 properties within 500 feet of this site and received no replies. REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 4.6 acres Existing Use: Vacant (formerly had five single-dwellings) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and ponding area South: Saint John's Hospital East: Heritage Square Town houses under construction in Legacy Village West: Hazelwood Street PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Existing - BC; Proposed - R3H Zoning: Existing - R-l; Proposed - PUD Findings for PUD Approval City code requires that, to approve a planned unit development, the city council must base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the resolution on pages 36 - 38. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on July 22, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by September 20, 2004 unless the applicants agree to a time extension. p:sec 3\Cottages at Legacy (Swinds) -2004 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Site Plan 6. Proposed Preliminary Plat 7. Proposed Landscaping Plan 8. Proposed Grading Plan 9. Proposed Utility Plan 10. Building Plans and Elevations 11. Building Plans and Elevations 12. Building Plans and Elevations 13. Sample Site Photograph 14. Memo from Erin Laberee dated August 6, 2004 15. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 16. Planned Unit Development Resolution 17. Plans date-stamped July 22, 2004 (separate attachment) 18. Preliminary date-stamped July 22, 2004 (separate attachment) 19. Colored Plan Booklet date-stamped July 22, 2004 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 Thursday, July 22, 2004 Ken Roberts - City Planner Maplewood Community Development 1830 East Co Rd B Maplewood MN 55109 Re: Cottages at Legacy Village Dear Ken, As I am sure you know typical suburban residential developments are most often characterized by single use subdivisions of single-family homes. Social space is oriented towards the back yards of residences, and garages punctuate the streetscape. Also, most developments lack any open space areas where neighbors can interact or children can play, and the streets are designed to move auto traffic at unsafe speeds, with little attention paid to the needs of bicycles and pedestrians so simple trips to the grocery store or local destinations must be made by car because streets are the only connection to these other areas. However, Southwinds idea/goal in our newest neighborhood is to provide a diversity of housing types, shade providing trees and a common green space placed within walking distance of all residents. Pedestrian pathways are incorporated into the site to promote walking and biking to local destinations. You will notice our plan shows the use of alley- served homes to hide unattractive garage door fronts and require traffic to proceed at slower speeds to keep our neighborhood safe. Parking is provided on these alleyways on one side only and prohibited overnight, similar to city parking ordinances. Also, short concrete driveways are used to increase green space and to insure that motor vehicles are garaged instead of left outside the homes. We have found the use of short drives holds down the initial cost of the homes by several thousand dollars and helps keep the association maintenance dramatically lower. (This is important as these will be private streets and the association will need to budget their upkeep into the monthly association dues payment.) Another goal in this prototype development will be to provide a detached single-family option for entry-level homebuyers, single professional individuals, empty nesters and others seeking the simplified maintenance and other benefits of a small-lot home in the $200,000.00 price range. Furthermore our typical buyer fits nicely in our 2-car garage design. Our research shows that they typically have one car and do not require large APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 5960 Highway 61 North, White Bear Township, MN 55110 · Phone: 651-775-8780 · Fax: 651-773-8265 · southwindbuilders.com 17 amounts of storage for boats or snowmobiles etc. Also, they do not entertain in the traditional sense and do not require more than one extra parking space outside of the 2 provided with the home. Another benefit to our design is on the Liberty and Victorian units another bedroom or studio fits neatly over a typical two-car garage. This can serve as a home office or simply another living area that can be used as the homeowner sees fit. This 33 unit development will be professionally managed and maintained to insure the individual property owners values remain high as possible and the community remains an asset to Maplewood. Grass cutting, landscape maintenance, snow plowing and removal, site irrigation, trash removal and an adequate reserve fund allotment will be covered by the $135.00 per month association fee. Finally, we believe that this 3 plus acre site in Maplewood would be greatly enhanced by the construction of these residential detached town homes. This will make this parcel most compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and provide another unique use of housing in your community. These homes will provide an alternative to the large multi family buildings to the east. The streetscape along Hazelwood Street will have the diversity of homes with front porches and attractive colors which will be pleasing to the eye. I have included for your review some pictures detailing our concept for home design and streetscape. I have also included a short narrative regarding the home features themselves. HOME NARRATIVE Southwind Builders will incorporate 3 different styles of homes in our Cottages at Legacy Village Neighborhood. All of these homes feature eat in kitchens, private courtyard off of the dining room, main floor laundry and ½ bath, 480 sq. fi. 2 car attached garages, comfortable living rooms looking out over green spaces. Two bedrooms with walk-in closets and a full bath occupy the upper levels. The traditional 1380 sq. ft. 2 stories will feature either a wrap around Country Style porch or a modest covered front entryway. (Victorian or Liberty respectively.) A 3ra bedroom or bonus room is also available over the garage and will add an additional 407sq. ft. The 1800 sq. ft. story and ½ (The Bungalow) shows a full front porch, an accent dormer and under the eve storage that expansion bungalows are famous for. On the exterior all homes will feature maintenance free trim around the windows and doors. The additional detail of frieze boards and trim banding all add to the houses and 18 contribute to an upgraded feeling of quality. In addition the unique gable trim feature and the decorative corbel's placed on all the front porches will enhance the Victorian look. Thank you for your consideration, Larry Aim, President Southwind Builders, Inc. 19 Proposed Street Standards Local Res/dent/a/Street 9-foot travel lanes may be acceptable (see 2.2.1b). One-Way Street Clear for emergency vehicles. R.o.w. Residential Connector & Commercial Street *Sidewalk and tree grate for street fronting commercial. Rural Lanes May be reduced to preserve mature trees. Residential Alley . Clear of obstructzon for back up. 20 Industrial Street Walk may be landscape.d until justified by ped. acuvity. ST. CROIX VALLEY DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY 1-694 Attachment 2 COUNTY ROAD D Sounty View Golf Course Hazelwood N m © o BEAM AVE LEGACY VILLAGE Z m m ..4 Z Z )> Hazelwood Par~ LOCATION MAP 21 C Attachment 3 COUNTY ROAD D Attachment 4 uuu 1567~:3"~ 1579~58~5~ i ~ r !1613 155515551567 ~157~; 1587 ~159~ t~131613 15551555 1567157915~91~Z~.1579~8.,~ 15991599~ ~1~1~131613 187i159159 ~161 16511657 16391645 161i5!6~1 COUNTY ROAD D 1695 1480 M1 M1 3062 ! 3(~56 3050 R1 3016 SITE 3004 z LEGACY 3=,, ~ERITAGE SQUARE M1 Attachment 5 HO SE ~ ~ L2'~ / HOUSE TYPlCA~, ~.UILDINGS · SITE PLAN 1 Attachment 6 PLANTING SCHEDULE PORCH ~ ~.__.., PORCH I t I TYPICAL BUILDINGS ~' - 1~' Attachment 7 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 26 T ~ Attachment 8 PROPOSED LECEND (~¥ OTHERS). PRoPoSED LEGEND / / T T PROPOSED LEGEND Attachment 9 PROPOSED UTILITY 28 PLAN W ~ Attachment l0 r II ~" COTTAGES AT LEGACY VILLAGE 5.1PtPLEWOOD, 55109 Miflneama. BUILDING PLANS 29 Attachment 11 II II IL- THE LIBERTY Maplewood, Minn~ota. R~ld~nce ~ COTTAGES AT LEGACY VILLAGE MAPLEWOOD, 55109 BUILDING PLANS 3O ~ " Attachment 12 II II ~=: THE VICTORIAN COTTAGES AT II~*;//.-,,~ ~*~ LEGACY VILLAGE Mlpl,~o~, Mi ......... · ~,:~Zt; ~ ......... : MAPLEWOOD, 551~ BUILDING PLANS 31 ,],tt~ch,.~nt 1 3 32 Attachment 14 Enl~ineerinl~ Plan Review PROJECT: Cottages at Legacy Village PROJECT NO: 04-12 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: August 6, 2004 Southwind Builders is proposing to redevelop five existing single-family residential properties on the east side of Hazelwood Street into 33 detached town homes. Drainage from the site is proposed to discharge into a storm water pond just north of the site that was constructed in conjunction with Legacy Parkway and Heritage Square. The design engineers accounted for the drainage from this site in the design and in the construction of the new pond. The city's consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, has reviewed these plans and we have incorporated their comments into this review. The following issues shall be address by the developer and their engineer. Streets The proposed street width is shown at 28' back to back of curb. City standards allow for parking on one side of the street when the street is constructed 28' wide face to face of curb. If parking is intended for one side of the street, the street width shall be increased to 28' wide face to face of curb. 2. Pedestrian ramps shall be constructed at all sidewalk crossings. When the project engineer revises the plans, the revised plans should show the parking hays that the city will have constructed during the city's improvement project along Legacy Parkway. 4. The developer and engineer shall coordinate proposed grades near Hazelwood Street with the city. Drainage Runoff from the north/south street in Block 1 is shown to drain across the street to an inlet constructed in conjunction with Legacy Parkway. It is recommended that the contractor construct an inlet behind the curb instead of allowing water to drain onto Legacy Parkway. 2. Construct STM MH #4 in the gutter line to pick up runofffrom the gutter. An 18" storm sewer pipe is proposed to connect into a stub downstream of CBMH #6 at an invert of 909.93. The Legacy Parkway plans show a 12" storm sewer stub at an invert of 907.60. The engineer shall coordinate the proposed storm sewer downstream of CBMH #6 with the project engineer for Legacy Parkway. 33 Grading & Erosion Control 1. The developer must submit an erosion control plan to the city and to the watershed district for review and approval. The proposed contours do not seem to match the proposed Heritage Square contours. The project engineer shall coordinate the site grading with the Heritage Square plans and show contours that tie into their site. Utilities The sanitary manhole at station 1+35 on Legacy Parkway has a 901.96 invert elevation. The Southwind utility plan shows their sanitary sewer connecting into this manhole at an elevation of 903.09. An inside drop manhole will not be allowed at this location. The engineer shall coordinate the sanitary manhole invert elevations with the city's consultant engineer, Kimley-Horn and Associates. 1. The developer shall provide a tree survey and landscape plan. Developer's Agreement The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City to address the conditions of approval, as well as the following: The developer has agreed to consider revisions to their site grading plan to allow for the disposal of up to 30,000 cubic yards of excess soils resulting fi.om other City construction projects in the area. As a condition of the approval of the development, the developer must agree to work with the City to address this issue. AS determined necessary by the city engineer, the developer shall dedicate public drainage and utility easements between Legacy Parkway and the north boundary of the proposed development for City storm drainage facilities. The developer shall also dedicate a public utility easement over all watermain facilities in accordance with Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) requirements. The easements shall be included on the plat or the developer must establish an escrow fund to ensure that the easements are dedicated. The developer shall dedicate any additional fight-of-way along the Hazelwood fi.ontage as required to accommodate the widening and sidewalk and reconstruction of Hazelwood Street. 34 Attachment 15 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Larry Aim, representing Southwind Builders, applied for a change to the City's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located on the east side of Hazelwood Street, south of County Road D. The legal description is: Lots 1 through 36 inclusive, Block 6, Dode Park, Ramsey County, and Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, Block 3, Dode Park, Ramsey County, together with any vacated alleys and roads accruing thereto. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On August 16, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public headng. The City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the land use plan change. 2. On September 13, 2004, the City Council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above described change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that is between two residential areas. 3. This change would allow for town house that would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development. 4. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a collector street and is near arterial streets. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 5. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2004. 35 Attachment 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION /~- FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Larry Aim, representing Southwind Builders, applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for a 33-unit detached town house development. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 4.6-acre site on the east side of Hazelwood Street lying south of County Road D. The legal description is: Lots I through 36 inclusive, Block 6, Dorle Park, Ramsay County, and Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, Block 3, Dorle Park, Ramsay County, together with any vacated alleys and roads accruing thereto. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 16, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public headng on September 13, 2004. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 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 ton-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 36 T o 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: The development shall follow the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall meet all the requirements noted in the Assistant City Engineer's report dated August 6, 2004. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the city issues a grading permit. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. The developer or contractor shall construct the project according to the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except as specifically modified by these conditions. The developer shall add sidewalks and sidewalk connections in locations that city staff decides are necessary. 9. The developer or builder will provide parking spaces at the ends of the driveways wherever they may fit. 10. The developer or builder shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Hazelwood Street for the entire length of the project. 11. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. 12. Provide a revised landscape plan for city staff approval. This revised plan shall include: a. Increasing the tree size to 2 ½ inches (from 2 inches). b. Changing the Colorado Spruce to Black Hills Spruce or Austdan Pines (or a mix of these two species). 37 The developer should coordinate the landscaping materials and designs along Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street to make sure that they are compatible with the approved landscape designs for Heritage Square and Kennard Street. Overstory trees to be planted along both sides of Legacy Parkway and Along Hazelwood Street shall be set at an average of 30- to 40-feet on center. 13. All setbacks are approved as shown on the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004. 14. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the zoning code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan date-stamped July 22, 2004. 15. The applicant or developer shall provide visitor-parking spaces at the minimum quantity of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimum of 17 required visitor parking. 16. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 17. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on September ,2004. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Hillside Estates Preliminary Plat {Springside Drive) Property Located Between 2401 and 2425 Linwood Avenue August 10, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Poirier is requesting preliminary plat approval from the City of Maplewood in order to subdivide his 1.6-acre parcel into three new lots. One lot will have street frontage on Linwood Avenue and two lots will have street frontage on a new cul-de-sac extension of Springside Drive. All three lots will be developed with future single-family homes. (Refer to the maps attached on pages 6 through 11 .) Requests To develop this project, the city council must approve the following: 1. Rezoning of the property from F (Farm Residence) to R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential). A preliminary plat for the creation of three new lots. The city's subdivision ordinance allows the city to process subdivisions that create three or less lots as administrative lot divisions. However, in this case a new right-of-way will be established through the extension of Springside Drive. For this reason, a preliminary plat is required. BACKGROUND February 13, 1989: The city council approved the Huntington Hills South Third Addition Plat. A condition of approval of this plat was that a temporary cul-de-sac be constructed at the end of Springside Drive, ensuring the possibility of the extension of the street for future development. (Refer to the Huntington Hills Plat and the Springside Drive Temporary Cul-De-Sac Map attached on pages 12 and 13.) April 30, 2001: City staff approved the minor subdivision of 2437 Linwood Avenue in order to create two single-family lots. One lot maintained the existing house on Linwood and the second lot was developed with a single-family house. A condition of approval was the dedication of a 60-foot- wide right-of-way easement for the future expansion of Springside Drive. (Refer to the 2437 Linwood Avenue Minor Subdivision Map attached on page 14.) DISCUSSION Zoning The property is zoned F (Farm Residence) and is planned as R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) in the city's comprehensive plan. The city's subdivision ordinance allows for the platting of single- family lots within the Farm Residence zoning district. To be consistent with the comprehensive plan, however, staff recommends that the city rezone the entire property from F to R-1. Subdivision The proposed subdivision includes the removal of the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Springside Drive, and the extension of the street approximately 250 feet west within an existing right-of-way that was dedicated to the city in 2001 as part of the lot split that occurred at 2437 Linwood Avenue. A permanent cul-de-sac will be constructed at the end of the extended Springside Drive to serve the two new lots on the north of the property. The minimum lot width within the R-1 zoning districts is as follows: interior lots - 75 feet at the established building setback line; cul-de-sac lots - 40 feet at the front lot line. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. All three proposed lots within the Hillside Estates preliminary plat meet or exceed these requirements. Grading/Drainage/Utilities John Poirier, the property owner of the lot proposed for subdivision, has petitioned the city for a public improvement project. The proposed Springside Drive extension and all utilities within the city's right-of-way would be constructed as public infrastructure by the city under the improvement project. ^ pond at the south end of Mr. Poirier's property would treat runoff from the site. Storm sewer will be extended from the cul-de-sac south to the pond. The storm sewer would also be constructed as public infrastructure. All other improvements required for the development of the lots, such as site grading and private utilities, will be constructed and financed by the owner or developer. (Refer to the engineering plan review attached on page 15.) Tree Preservation The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all large trees removed within the platted land be replaced one for one, not to exceed ten trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree with a trunk diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot-trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwoods, poplars, and other undesirable trees as determined by the community development director. In addition, a developer should attempt to preserve as many large trees as possible with the development of the land. Mr. Poirier's property is 1.6 acres in area and contains 85 large trees. The city's final grading plan for the street extension and utilities will be designed to save as many large trees as possible. In addition, prior to issuance of building permits for each new single-family house, the owner or developer will be required to submit a separate grading plan for each lot which reflects the preservation of as many large trees as possible. The owner or developer will be required to replace all large trees removed, one for one, up to 16 trees (1.6 acres x 10 trees = 16 trees). RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18. This resolution changes the zoning map from Farm Residence (F) to Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) for the proposed Hillside Estates plat. The city is making this change because: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. Hillside Estates 2 August 10, 2004 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. 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 water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The owner plans to develop this property as single-family houses. Approve the Hillside Estates preliminary plat date stamped July 14, 2004. Prior to final plat approval, the owner or developer must complete the following: ao Have the city's engineering department prepare the final construction drawings as specified in the city engineering department's August 5, 2004, engineering plan review. Prepare and submit to city staff for approval, easement documents for the required utility and drainage easements. Prior to issuance of a building permit for lots 1 through 3 the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Record the plat and utility and drainage easements. Submit grading and drainage plans for each new lot to be approved by the city's engineering department. The grading plan must reflect the preservation of as many large trees as possible. All large trees removed from the three lots must be replaced one-for-one, not to exceed 16 trees, as required by the city's tree preservation ordinance. Hillside Estates 3 August 10, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed all property owners within 500 feet of this site. Of the 62 properties, 2 responded with the following comments: No name and address given: We need to quit building and tearing down trees. It is becoming another cluttered up city. Nothing is sacred. It's always "grandfathered" in. The only thing that counts is more money for the city. Fred Nazarian, 2425 Linwood Avenue East: (Refer to Mr. Nazarian's correspondence attached on pages 16 and 17.) Hillside Estates 4 August 10, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.6 acres Existing land use: Vacant Land SURROUNDING LAND USES There are single-family houses located to the north, south, east, and west of this site. PLANNING Existing Land Use: R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) Existing Zoning: F (Farm Residence) Criteria for Approval Rezoning: Section 44-1165 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 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; 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 water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Application Date The city received the application materials for this request on July 14, 2004. State law requires cities to take action on all land use requests within 60 days. Therefore, city action is required on the Hillside Estates Preliminary Plat by September 12, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 12-28\Hillside Estates Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 6. Utility Plan 7. Huntington Hills Plat 8. Springside Dr. Temporary Cul-de-Sac 9. 2437 Linwood Avenue Minor Subdivision Map 10. Engineering Plan Review 11. Fred Nazarian August 3, 2004, Correspondence 12. Rezoning Resolution Hillside'Estates 5 August 10, 2004 T 762374 2384 239~ 2372 2370 2409 12363 9 64T 2410 2420 2430 2419 2429 2439 OAKRIDGE LN ~55 353 651 c '652 351 z z © 662i 661 Z - 2360 671 - 582362 2373 -2383 681 2~28' 672 682 2401 :~60 2379; 2389 2??9 2431 , ~ . . 2441 2370 LINWOOD CT~' '~ 2380' ' 'r;; . ..., ' ' ':_2450 2390 2371 2400 2410 2420 2430 2440 N S ~0 / / ,,~/459 246¢ 2449 2479 2489 / 2499 ~-...~ Attachment 1 601 ' 607 , 613 619 625 m 2448 2458 2468 24~8 2'488 2457 / 2447 / 91 ""~ 705 2446? 245,6 ~ 2486 2437 2~45= 2453 LINWOOD AVE 712 2480 2465 2455- 681 672 2452 682 692 702 ~ 2 -,,.--.._~. 2475 OxG' 2516 2476 '; Location Map 6 T T ~ 2-384 F ~2392 z410 2409 641 2420 2430 2419 2429 2439 OAKRIDGE LN .¢./2459 2449 Attachment 2 2469t. R1 2489 ~2479 2499 6i 61 62 2373 !371 - 2~83 651 661 671 681 682 662 - 2438' 2428 672 R1 2448 2458 2468 '2478 2488 682 2457 2447 24374 . 2,401 2445 2453 2461 LINWOOD AVE SPRIN GSiD~ o~ 244.6 2456 ......... 2466 R1 681 1~91 712 6 7O2 R1692 2370 2431 237g,,, r2389: , 2399: .2409 ii'~2~ "" ..... '~ 2441 L!NWOOD CT' F 2480 2465 2475 N Zoning Map i Attachment 3 ~2372 2373 2371 2384 2392 2409 651 661 671 681 23~3 2410 2401 2420 2430 24~9 2429 2439 OAKRIDGE LN 6OO /2459 ?' 2449 2469k 2479 2489 2499 'T ~ 6,52 Z Z -~ .662 O Z 2428 6.72 2448 2,458 68;~~ , ~-~ _ ~-~ 2437 2445 r2453. 2461 LINWOOD AVE 2447 2457 705 SPRINGS//3~.O,9 2466 2468 2478 '2~88 712 681 607 613 619 625 68: 692 702 2-3~o 2370 2379' r 23~¢:J: 2399., 2409 r, 24t9 2431 L_i] ¢ ........... '-. ~'" ' '.' r .... ...... ' 2441 LINWOOD CT 2480 2465 2475 N Land Use Map 8 f Attachment 4 145' I' SPRINGSIDE DR. SECTION 12 TOWN 28 RANGE 22 SUBJ TO RD & EX W 60 FT OF E 206 FT OF S225 FT & EX E 146 F"T; THE $ 500 FT OF ;' 1/'2 OF W 1/2 Of' SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 IN SEC 12 1~1 28 RN 22 / / / ./ LINWOOD AVE. Preliminary Plat T ~E=1002.~ ~ 1E"'~100.3.50 NE N Drainage and s Erosion Control 101 Attachment 6 CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" DIP~ I 213 LF8" SDR 3§ SAN MH RE=1024 IE~1013.40 DIP WATE~blAIN CL TO EXISTING 8' PVC IE=1012.55 N Utility Plan Attachment 7 BEARING 0RAINAGE AND UTII. ITY £ASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS~ NI ¥4 N[ I/4 HUNTINGTON N 102.21 HILLS SOUTH THIRD ADDITION .::.UTL(~T h' HL.:NTiH.:.'-T,~H , 2 C,U T.:.,~.~ r, ."~OUTH SF'.':C'ND ADDiTK."N $ 871'2o'15-[ $ nil '"2 Huntington Hills Plat (2/13~89) 12 Attachment 8 CONSTRUCT TEI~! TURN-AROURD r*- STA, CENTER F I I I I I I ~A~Y I00 DIA. 69.3F 40. ! .... lit I ! " J I,'1' I I ii/11 6 I ,5 / TM 50'-4" PE DRAIN~TILE ! II /// '// : J [ L-.: .... //.. / / N.W = IDOG.98 / H.W. = I010.0 Springside Drive Temporary Cul-de-Sac 13 o~ N 88'34'06' x~ --146.03-- /~ x,-. x~,x 146.0 Attachment 9 ;I;C. t2. T. 28. R. 22\'--"~ ~ ~ LINWOOD AVE. E --146.03,-- N 88'34'06" E N 2437 Linwood Ave. Minor Subdivision 14 T T , ! ' iF Attachment 10 Engineering Plan Review ROJECT: Springside Street Extension/Hillside Estates ROJECT NO: 03-36 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: August 5, 2004 John Poirier, the owner of the property between 2401 and 2425 Linwood Avenue East, is proposing to subdivide his 1.6-acre property into three single-family parcels. Currently Springside Drive extends west fi:om Sterling Street to a temporary cul-de-sac. The proposed improvements include the extension of Springside Drive and utilities further west (approximately 250 feet) to provide access to the proposed development. Mr. Poirier has requested the street and utilities be public infrastructure and be constructed as part of a public improvement project. The engineering department has prepared the preliminary plat and engineering drawings for the p[oposed development. The street extension is proposed be public along with all of the utilities. An infiltration basin would be constructed at the south end of the property to treat runoff fi:om the street extension and the yards. The developer has submitted a permit application to Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. The public hearing for the project was held on August 0m, 2004. No objections to the project were filed and city counCil ~tpproved the street extension pr0j~ct. The city wi!1 prepare the construction drawings and build the public street and utilities. All construction administration will be done by the city. A majority of the improvement costs will be recovered through assessments to the benefiting properties. 15 Attachment 11 TO: Shann Finwall - Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 FROM: Fred Nazarian 2425 Linwood Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55119 - 5824 DATE: 3 August 2004 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat - Property located East of 2401 Linwood Ave and West of 2425 Linwood Avenue. Dear Ms. Finwall, I have received and looked over the preliminary Plat documents sent out by you on behalf of the City of Maplewood. In reviewing the proposed Plat I have the following comments, objections, and proposals: 1) In extending the cul-de-sac Westward and additional (approximately) 200' as proposed it appears that some (or all) of the trees directly behind my home would be removed. This would cause an increase in noise, and lights behind my home and also cause me a loss of the privacy I currently enjoy. 2) If three lots were allowed, the house proposed for Lot 2 would potentially cause the removal of the remaining trees directly behind my home (again) causing the loss of the remaining privacy I would enjoy, as well as increasing further the light and noise behind my home. 3) If the plat is approved as proposed, the (proposed) house on Lot 3 would not have very much privacy in their back yard due to it being so far forward of BOTH 2401 and 2425 Linwood Avenue East homes. PROPOSED ALTERATION TO THE PLAT: A) I propose the movement of the (proposed) location of the house on Lot 3 back an additional 40 feet, or in-line with the homes at 2401 and 2425 Linwood Avenue East. B) I further propose the subdivision of the 1.71 Acres into two (2) lots to be represented by houses number 1 and 3 on the Plat drawing. Each new lot would then be (approximately) 0.85 acres in size with good sized "grassy areas" around them. These would fit in with all lots West of them better. PROPOSED CONTINUATIONS OF THE LAND BORDERING THE (NEW) CUL-DE- SAC. 16 A) I would like to see the trees at the South West edge of the proposed extended cul-de-sac kept as they exist today. I believe this can be accomplished with the proposed extension of the cul-de-sac. LOSS OF FAUNA IN THE AREA. Additionally with the approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat of Mr. Poirier's as suggested, there will be a loss of green space for the wildlife that currently roam freely in this area. I am not sure what the City's position is on this, but I feel that this encroachment will eliminate yet another living space for the wildlife that inhabit this area as part of their homelands. I, for one, object to this potential human encroachment. Regards, Fred Nazarian 2425 Linwood Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55119- 5824 Tel: (651) 730 - 0298 E-mail: fred n 55119~yahoo.com ]7 I 7 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 12 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is proposing the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: Farm Residence (F) to Single-Family Residential (R-l). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located in between 2401 and 2425 Linwood Avenue in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the property is being platted into three single-family lots. WHEREAS, the new legal description for the three new lots is as follows: Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Hillside Estates. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 16, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. On August 23, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 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. 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 water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this property as single-family houses. The Maplewood city council adopted this resolution on ,2004. 18