Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1972AGENDA Maplewood Village Council 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, October 10, 1972 Municipal Administration Building Meeting 72 - 37 ROLL CALL (B) PUBLIC HEARING - Special Use Permit (Fred Moore) 1. Raading of Notice 2. Staff Report 3. Commission Reports 4. Visitor Presentations 5. Council Discussion C) ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS D) ADJOURNMENT * Persons wishing to make statements or presentations should sign the list which is placed at the entrance to the Council Chambers. Appearances will be in the order of the listing. MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD VILLAGE COUNCIL 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, October 10, 1972 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 72 -37 A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Village Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building and was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Mayor Axdahl. B. ROLL CALL Lester G. Axdahl, Mayor Present John C. Greavu, Councilman Present Harald L. Haugan, Councilman Present Donald E. Olmstead, Councilman Present Donald J. Wiegert, Councilman Present C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Special Use Permit (Fred Moore) a. Mayor Axdahl convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a re- vised site plan for Phase II of the Fred Moore Special Use Permit. The lo- cation of the area is a 12 acre vacant tract located adjacent and immediately east of Hillside Junior High School; west of the Forest Green Apartment de- velopment and north of Beebe Laboratories. The Clerk read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. b. Manager Miller presented the staff report. (as attached) c. Mr. Roger Singer, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, commented on the Commission's report. d. Village Planner Seda read the Planning Commission's report. (as attached) e. Manager Miller presented the Human Relations Commission report. f. Mayor Axdahl called for persons who wished to speak in regards to the proposal. The following were heard: Mr. Swanburg, 1818 No. Howard Wayne Kilcut, Forest Green Apartments Richard Rhode, Forest Green Apartments John Crouch, attorney representing Fred Moore Mrs. Diane Nelson, 1881 Furness Street Mrs. Russell Johnson, 1811 Howard Street Mr. Norman Anderson, 1603 Frost Avenue Mrs. Lorraine Fischer, 1812 Furness Street Mr. Archie Givens, the developer, spoke. g. Mayor Axdahl closed the public hearing. - 1 - 10/10 h, Following Council discussion, Councilman Haugan moved approval in con- cept of the development subject to the staff conditions, however in staff condition number 16, to be 650 square foot dwelling units for the Senior er Seconded by Councilman Greavu, Councilman Wiegert tions. 30 to t_e_rnate_ design of roads as to whether or not it is at all feasible, if it ve addit in the report. (This would be for staff and developer to review and then be presented to the Council.) Seconded by Councilman Haugan. Ayes - Mayor Axdahl, Councilmen Greavu, Haugan and Wiegert. Nays - Councilman Olmstead. Council then voted on the motion of Councilman Haugan. Ayes - all. C. PRESENTATIONS 1. Councilman Greavu stated he had received a call tonight from a member of Hill- Murray High School and they finally received an O.K. for money to do grad- ing in the back of the property, but it has to be started and done within the next two days, or else they will have to forget about it. They now have the money to grade for the playground area, but if they wait two weeks they might as well forget about the playground and forget about the money. They are not going to change the drainage or anything. Councilman Greavu moved that the grading permit be issued, subject to staff working with them. Seconded by Councilman Olmstead. Ayes - all. 2. Councilman Greavu wished to know if anything had been heard about Pleasant - view Park and Mr. King. Village Planner Seida stated he had investigated the calls regarding Mr. Kings buying the property for a church or some other use and Mr. King has assured him that is not his intent. He intends to reside in the home. 3. Manager Miller stated that the Planning Commission has adopted the Compre- hensive Master Plan for Maplewood and are ready to submit it to Council, They - 2 - 10/10 ask that Council establish a meeting date, preferably off from a regular Council meeting, at which time they could submit it to Council and discuss it with you. Hopefully Council would refer it to the Metropolitan Council. The meeting date was set for 7:30 P.M., Monday October 23, 1972 in the Council Chambers. D. ADJOURNMENT 10:26 P.M. ity Clerk - 3 - 10/10 a� TO: Village Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Archie Givens Site Plan Review DATE: September 26, 1972 M�� S RIEP012r- To C owcl L 10 /to /-22 General Continents: 1. The proposed site plan is reasonably similar to the original Phase II plan approved by the Council for the McGlynn- Garmacker proposal. The most striking differences occur in: (1) Building bulk coverage is reduced. (2) Off- Street larking area and amount is red.iced (3) Net usable and total open space is increased 2. The issue of Beebe Road continues to mystify all due to the inability of any- one to determine its alignment. Previous public hearing on the Beebe Road Improvement indicated an alignment corridor. rhis office is informed that new southerly route alternatives are being conside-ed south of the Phase II area for Beebe Road. Prior to any decision on a site plan the Village should officially - once and for all - come to grips :oith the alig_ment issue of Beebe Road and declare it so that related actions such as this site plan can be either adjusted or resolved in accordance with the road which is supposedly to serve this area. 3. Since a total street improvement project was ordered by the Village Council there should be some public indication when such project can be anticipated for start and program completion of it so that the private sector who wishes to develop can schedule their development on a timing basis as well. 4. This report and following suggestions, will be made upon the basis of the Council's publicly heard street corridor route earlier approved, which indicates Beebe Road curving west from its current north termini point and extending north to Holloway Avenue along the east side of the Hillside Jr. High property but located on.the private property side and not the school property. Should there be some decided change in any or all-of the current approved corridor alignment for Beebe Road, then the conditions in this report are withdrawn and reservation is made to comment and recommend on both the proposed alignment and its relationship to abutting properties. Perspective Comments: It is essential that it be recognized that no comments will be made in this report on street dedication, etc. . Since it is assumed that the Council resolved those issues as part and parcel of the September 7, 1972 Special Use Permit transfer. I Site Comments: This office in reviewing the proposed site plan would suggest that the following specific comments should be noted and, if considered worthy by the Council, then attached as specific controls or conditions on the approved site plan. 1. Land Use Coverages: The site plan proposed is composed of: a. 11.06 acres total land area b. 169 total.dwelling units c. 2 residential structures composed of 69 and 100 dwelling units d. 4 garage structures containing space for 100 enclosed vehicles e. 121 total -open off - street parking spaces, 21 spaces assigned to the 69 unit tuilding and 100 spaces assigned-to the 100 unit building. f. Maximum ":uilding coverage for the site is 80,576 square feet or 18.36% o.c the total 11.06 acres.. , g. Maximum open parking lot coverage with drives -'for the total site is 70,216 square feet or 16% of the total 11.06 Acres. h. Minimum open space for the site including outdoor recreation areas is 287,9+4 square feet or 65.64% of tha total. 11.06 acres. i. The dwelling unit mix is: (1) 69 one bedroom elderly housing units contained in one building. (2)- 30 one bedroom, 64 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom units contained in Cane building 2. Storm Drainage: This site is within the County Ditch 17 drainage basin Tor which innumerable drainage problems of flooding downstream continue to occur. This project site shall be served by storm sewer and engineering detailed study of this project and its effects upon downstream areas shall be resolved prior to initial grading changes and construction so that runoff capacities and quantities can be accommodated from the site. Resolution of the Ramsey County Drainage Policy is involved here just Like Homart and County Ditch 18. 3. Improved Street and Utilities: According to Municipal Code Public Street Chapter, an improved or maintained street by the Village shall be provided and available at time of building'permit issuance. This Phase area currently is not abutting any dedicated or maintained street by the public -- therefore, conflict will occur for building permit issuance at anytime prior to resolving such street. Further, the Health Section of the Municipal Code requires public water and public sewer service to multiple dwelling unit structures. Therefore, more detailed.public utility resolve must be provided-in order to issue any building permit especially in the case of water and sewer - although project order by Council has been given some time ago - definite execution of the order ade. needs to become firmed up and dates and committments m 4. Double Facing Garage Aisle Width: the Municipal Code provides where a series of garages face each other, as is the case on the north end of this site, the minimum width separating garages shall be 30 feet in order to provide visibility in backing out or turning around. The site plan proposes 24-feet. The Code must be complied with or variance granted indicating the accepted width of less than Code requirement. 5. Outdoor Recreation Facilities: The proposed plan indicates various facilities, some of which are future tennis courts. It should be clearly determined at this time what is and is not. The questionableness of future is misleading and represents both doubt of ever being installed, as well as, the timing of such if it is to be installed. Consumer protection is the issue here since tennants will rely on a site plan approved by the Village. 6. Tennis Courts: The proposed location is only 20 feet away from the southerly Phase I building. Both the activity and :.menity factors present adverse environment to the existing west side of the southerly building. It should be . removed from its planned location and if installed - then located to the west of the pond area or s,mewhere on the north end taklig advantage of lower topography of the site. 7. Open Parking Spaces: Previous approved plans for the site utilized gart.;es as a screening devise to block view of open parking areas from the strc.f:t. Efforts should be made to screen such lots from view of the street. Such should encom;Dass berming land between the street and parking lot utiliu•- ing landscape screening in addition. Further, depressing the parking lot can effe :tivel.y be used towards this end. To leave unscreened the parking lot is unacceptable regardless of location. Further, the parking lot should be similarly r>creened.from the apartments as weli as from the street. 8. Refuse Removal: Always a subject ignored, phis plan does not show locations or indicate method. All refuse bins should be located in an enclosed structure and roofed. Open bin locations merely rolled up next to a garage -is verboten*(forbidden) in this office's opinion and should not be allowed. Further, the interior of the buildings should be so designed to require refuse facilities within each building avoiding the necessity of having to transmit refuse outdoors by the tennants. 9. Security: Security system should be required for all residential-buildings so as to prevent open entrance to residential buildings. Further, each garage space shall be independently enclosed to provide security to garaged materials. 10. 'Enclosed Recreation Facilities: The advent of senior citizen housing surfaces the need for indoor leisure time activity space and facilities. Such should be provided and clearly defined. No indication has been made on this detail but such should be considered by the Village. 11. Site Topography: The site is very rolling in terrain and considerable investigation should be made as.to the ability of the site proposed development to construct a building as proposed on the north without substantially adversely altering the physical lay of the area to the t degree of creating substantial site grading modifications. 3 Particular concern is expressed about the north end of the sit which has a lower elevation from the center and easterly developed Phase I of as touch as 35 feet or better. 12. Underground Garages: Because of the substantial fills required on the north end or conversely substantial grading, it is this office's belief that underground garaging should be not just considered but required because of site adoptability due to grades. 13. Drainage: A substantial pond exists on the property to the north of Phase II. The northerly 2/3 of the site currently drains to this pond on adjacent property to the north. Any regrading or development of any kind will affect that pond to the north. The Village, and developer must resolve the on site drainage to north before allowing any development permit to that portion of the site which will increase to that portion of the site which will increase water ruroff onto private property witaout securing appropriate drainage rights. 14. Existing Vegetation Cover: The Phase II pertion is blessed with substantial well developed tree cover on rolling terrain. Particular weil.develope9 foilage occurs on the northerly 2/3 of the site. To accomplish the proposed plan substantial site grading will be needed which will effectively move the majority of tree cover remaining. More- over, the la-gest building space proposed is in the site area having the most tree co•ier and the need to achieve the most site regrading. This office .Ls quite concerned about this element and particular efforts should be untertaken to consider alternative site planning for the norther:iy portion of the site. 15. Building Spatial Arr.anoements: Special consideration must be given and remembered about Phase I portion. All apartment•buildings in Phase I are quite-close to the westerly property line of Phase•I. There -- fore effects must be taken to provide adequaee spatial distance between them and the Phase II buildings. Particular concern is expressed over the closeness of the easterly wing of the northerly apartment building*in the Phase Ii portion with the Phase I apartment building location. Concerns that' come to play are privacy distances between buildings facing one another. Secondly, the grade elevations plane for both structures is critical to this evaluation. On the surface of site checking and field survey notes by this office a preliminary position is one of believing that the northerly building is too close to Phase I buildings for privacy views and vistas. 16. Dwelling Unit Requirements: The,existing multiple family dwelling zoning code shall be complied with for this project'as regards dwelling unit requirements except for the 69 unit senior citizen building which shall be a minimum of ,550.• square feet/-dwelling unit. Further. a minimum of 21 off - street parkin'`spaces shall be provided for the 69 unit senior citizen building. 4 i (1) Both apartments buildings shall be equipped with elevators having no less capacity than 2000 pounds weight carrying capacity. (2) All units shall be provided and have installed air conditioners and balconies. . (3) All units shall have garbage disposal uhits installed. (4) All kitchen stoves shall be served by hood vents and fans having direct exterior ventilation - to the outside of the building. (5) If the apartment buildings are served by natural gas and stand by reserve gas supply is required -- such supply shall not be allowed to be stored above ground.level anywhere on site. (6) The senic.r"citizen 69 unit building shall be architecturally designed with fixtures and facilities which do not present barriers to the haiWl capped, wheel--chair residents, etc. Such should .include as examp'L es : a. hall hand railings b. lava.r:ory hand rails c. doors: and rest room comfort stations adequate in width to accomriodate wheel chairs. d." drinl.ing fountains and fire safety alarms at appropriate heights. 17. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are needed along open parking areas between parking areas and apartment buildings for full length of parking lot areas. Further, a walkway'system between the Buildings is needed rather than notindicated or marked way. Recommendation Unfortunately, this report will be read by most as.being designed as a nice way of being lead down the primrose path and then hit over the head by a leaded rose. The real issue here, in our judgment is adjusting site development to the site rather than adjusting the site to the development. The southerly portion of Phase II is reasonably acceptable for site planning by this office subject to the comments made in this report, On the northerly portion of the site we suggest that a different site plan arrangement be considered so.as to not have to alter the site as radically in terms of natural grade, vegetation preservation, ...and better total site amendities for both phases. .*Previous site plan-investigations of the total 18 acre site have occurred during ;inter snow cover conditions. A summer ground tour of the total site reflects a different perspective not before able to view. 0 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SITE PLAN REVISION FOR PHSE II, FRED MOORE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 69 1- bedroom elderly units in one building 30 1- bedroom 64 2- bedroom and 6 3- bedroom units in one building The site under consideration is shown in the Plan for Maplewood with a density of "RM ". This classification for residential use provides for an average density not to exceed 22 people per net residential acre. This density is designed to represent those areas of the community intended for such housing types as single family detached houses on small lots, duplex houses, single family row houses (townhouses), low density apartments with low land coverage, and mobile homes. The present proposed plan has a density of 33 people per acre. The Planning Commission continues to doubt the suitability of this site for a high density project of this nature. It would be our recommendation to deny the permit on the basis of the density. If the Village Council feels committed to a density of this nature, it is our recommendation that the request for permit be tabled until the developer has provided a more detailed site plan for the project, particularly details on storm drainage, improved street and utilities, site topography, interior drainage, existing vegetation cover and building spatial arrangements. Considering the rugged topography of this site and the severe drainage problems it may present, this Commission cannot possibly make a responsible recommendation on a site plan which does not even include dimensions, elevations, topographical information and drainage flows. If, in spite of the above, the Council feels warranted in proceeding with the Planned Unit Development at this time, the Planning Commission strongly recommends that approval of this proposal should not be made without the guarantee that the overall construction on, and development of, the existing site should make the best use of the natural character of the site and at the same time complement rather than simply abut to the adjacent existing development. Further, it is also recommended that any approval should be on the basis of requiring compliance with all Village Codes as are determined applicable to the project. The Commission feels that these points are of particular importance in that the final appearance and long term adequacy of this project, if ultimately approved, will undoubtedly set precedent for future development requests involving Federal funding. The Commission concurs with the general and specific recommendations outlined in the September 26, 1972 memorandum from the Director of Community Development j except for one major point; that being the allowance of a variance from the existing multiple family dwelling zoning code for the minimum area per dwelling unit as ! proposed for the senior citizens building. _ A- t .. cR as O iU oY ���• � �, t - - o o ! i i In this instance the Commission recommends that minimum area requirements of existing-Codes should be applied to all, types of dwelling units. It is further recommended that in the event that such variance should be considered or. allowed, the developer should carry the burden of proof to substantiate the benefit and justify the need for any such reductions in dwelling unit areas. The Commission also recommends that particular emphasis should be placed on all staff 'recommendations that relate to the best use of the site, such as listed under "Site Comments " items 2. Storm Drainage, 3. Improved Street and Utilities, 11. Site Topography, 13. Drainage, 14. Existing Vegetation Cover, 15. Building Spatial Arrangements. Commissioner Howard moved the recommendation '_of the Planning Commission on site plan revision for Phase II; Fred Moore Special Use Permit. Seconded by Commissioner Batman. Motion carried - ayes all. i ADDENDUM It is reco=ended that no open parkin.- spaces be allowed within 15 feet of any dwelling unit. It is recom snded that if the project is approved by the Village then such Special Use Penait is issued for a 12 month period in which construction must commence in order for the Permit to be valid. In the event there is a failure to cor-nence construction by building their the Special Use Permit would be declared null and void and the zoning restrictions which were present on the property at the tuna of Special Use Permit shall then become effective upon the property affect,d by the Use Permit. In the instance of staged dei"elopment a reco:aendation is reserved until revies:in the stag-in.-'plan and no permits be issued until such staging is approved Uy the council. Q, It is reco=ended that any charges in the plan relative to uses or location of uses or structures shall necessitate a new public hearing and any previous action taken on a preceding plan shall not bird the Village to life or similar action on any revision that may be presented. 5. It is recommended that underground wiring be provided and installed on site. `3 V; LLAGE lklj t /'> 1380 FROST AVENUE - Mayor and Council Village of Maple000d 1380 Frost AvenUE: Maplewood, Minneso :a Gentlemen: MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55109 55109 September 7, 1972 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Pursuant to your request the Human Relations Commission has considered the staff and other available reports, met with the developer on July 18, 1972, and evaluated the Forest Green Proposal, Phase II, against the "tenta- tive standard or teria" developed by the Commission for subsidized housing under the Federa "236" program. The following motion was adopted: "The Forest Green Development substantially conforms to the criteria established for evaluation. We respect- fully recommend that the Maplewood Village Council give the proposal favorable consideration.'' In addition to the criteria, the developer envisions training minority persons in the management of such developments. He will also use minority construction workers. The commission supports these efforts. There are a number of places in the criteria where the developer stated good intentions, but firm commitments could net be made at this state of development. The commission felt the H.U.D. guidelines and other reviewing groups should assume that these intentions become reality. Appended hereto is a more detailed statement of the proposal contrasted with the criteria. We note that this proposal envisions no town houses for family units, which we prefer to apartments. Resp ctfully submitted / tJf JBJma Jo nn Broady, Chairman encl. Maplewood Human Relations Commission Raplewood Human Rights Commission met and considorod The _' the proposal of t %r. %rchle Givens .'_zed housibg Jx Project under I! ^d ho sin J Forest Wens Phase 1� a5 a subsidized o the Federal 1230" program. The Commission used its for determining feasibility Village of Maplewood. ntentative standard criteria" of housing developments for the The Commission's findings are as follows: I. Resident Population This criteria recuires that the develo.cer should a. make provisions for lc;;' to iI" - ^ vOi.';:15„- OTi^.OnCl' . twded "nat SVch 9nts -.^-. rbS1Gi._.., t: provisions had been made. � ^e.� that 1 GS of t. � the units should be b. It is reowi. =w� - for -:: n0 income - ncome made available .iC _ housing; Lice commission fc,,.n d compliance. ; o > •• n ncc,dS UL J % j.- 4 and 1L 1S required •n u ri be C. ., Aca: C.LCi °r1'�7 C�.L 1; [;:':.S 0 :&p--o-cod :�..C. -.�,.. priority in occupancy. The p:-2nS and SJ2Cly 1C2L1Cn5 Of Mr, Givens proposal indicates that provisions for elderl y citizens IIav2 02cn made. He Staled that he would cooperate in vin, priority in occupancy t0 .citizans Of Kaplcuood. ZFamily _ ttere • �,,,t_..- Lln1uS SAOt..' >d Cc- spaced O_" scattered _: .rather than ccr_ce:_-r� ad in h -_ h density Clusters, +� Clust So,, of VtheCO:.missio ar5 empressed 2S to whether the proposed lay-00-- which late s bstan ial ldnlCi .':cS before v_.:.:.i 4t, the -v _ '�y alt c:.:...__ complied with this i o l Givens stated -•l'�.- t11.an -'!e i90'w_u have �. his planner review L'.1:: site p_c:II in - -c,''" of this criteria and sake whatever revisions would be necessary to brin^7, the plan into cc ::ipliance. ( Letter from ern = son Durram & 3ihardson. , r fiat revis ions). 10.5 ). his architects, proposing one as'" �y ✓ 141011 j e' II. Social Deconsions a. An effective educaticnal process should be initiated So to 'L ple col residents are - different cultural- . prepared to a'aso : °o paop -!e of and social backgroti_ -ds into the community. expressed -, willingness to participate :'r. Givens C+'J. �,�., ..� o. ' y, willing and in such a program, and was reap . - r required by the able to cooperate ;r� any :;�,n ".er Commission. b. The development should not --1 'aysicallY segregate resiao -s of d�i_f -Int cul;,u -=al and SOC. - baC�� = ^Ou i from the rest of he Community. The Commission found that `- e location and proposed "mix" substantially iieV this criteria. c. The development sho'.,-:- avoid the concentration of people ren- asen'-_- _ the same cultural and econcmic background. The residential p,ttcrns p,�*ujosad by the developer appear Lo i ee"i, this criteria- Information about the development should be disseminated to encourage con,�munity residents to avail themselves of improved housing. This could be accomplished by means of the educational programs suggested in item II (a) above. III. Design and fi'.airtenance a. The development should be compatible W ith the existing and proposed area in which it is planned. The design as proposed is compatible with the existing community patterns, viz. Forest Greeds Phase I. facilities b. There should be adequate sanitary /and maintenance provided. �+^ i ! ^n for a r',: na Ze.mcn and ,'fir• Givens el-. �_L :ed a !_.. -._ Y . y o or r Jn. .:..a which aearod to maintenance rs�."�li - - -. .i ii r l l is insl,..�11lad be adeoua a. ; :: r System :,0 to be serve one devP.lo -o.^," adjacant are area � �� � .,: - proposes to connect thereto in accordance with < exi+; g v it - st Cla ":5 and to :provide ruowis- s��. -�, � .. _ , removal, etc. in a 11'..:o manner. c. The structura should be a physical asset to the connunity. The co.-mission's findings in this regard :':ere in the afPirr :alive. V. Facilities Available to Occupants a. The provision should be m. e for yea -,--round - � recreational and open space a_ ^eas or chi_ v_.. The Ci0: .I: ssicn. 'i sC uSS ad 'ri ili s Standard Yliii. ^i t.- developer '::he r es_JonCai: oy "St. tin t at his' plan for reducl-d dens:_ty VOU1C i� C'vi a he no^eQBCI open: space. b. Indoor recreational faci.l ?.i.'.:.es should be senior citizens envisioned -for theC=e. and pre - school childre n . mine developer's pl sU4o•>: J vs -tS haQtL r c`C`=S :late been rovided 'o space- ;d 'VZ "p.?, i c: !C 03 a'Sai.—I 2bie LU cost and the deveio- =.:_ . The developer i:ad contacted „he Transit. Authority who had i:^ „ a r;illi,: Hess to consder L�.:� 1. �.. lI l%4 7.^ c n °portation llineS approp- ^ia-u� exi,L__�_on of ., -� to serve the area. C d. School _`_ P Schools, shc.on, -GCS 1V }GJ rid ocher pub!'.c services s':ould be convent t0 -he resident'- of the dousino 7eVe_ cp: :ens . i s_ �; n,: °aCili ties , ate . are Existing scl.00_s, hcpi _ reasonably close to -che proposed davelop:.ant.