Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022 10-18 Planning Commission Packet
Meeting is also available on Comcast Ch. 16 and streaming vod.maplewoodmn.gov AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. Tuesday, October 18, 2022 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East A.CALL TO ORDER B.ROLL CALL C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.September 20, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes E.PUBLIC HEARINGNone F.NEW BUSINESSNone G.UNFINISHED BUSINESS1.Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue Easta.Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolutionb.Conditional Use Permit Resolution H.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS I.STAFF PRESENTATIONSNone J.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS – 3 minute time limit per person K. ADJOURNMENT WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium and speak clearly. Give your name and address first and then your comments. 6. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. “Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood Planning Commission. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the Planning Commission, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. At the podium please state your name and address clearly for the record.” Revised: 02/18 September 20, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. Tuesday, September 20, 2022 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East A.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commission was held and called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Arbuckle B.ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, Chairperson Present Frederick Dahm, Commissioner Present Tushar Desai, Vice Chairperson Absent John Eads, Commissioner Absent Allan Ige, Commissioner Present Sheryl Sukolsky, Commissioner Absent Lue Yang, Commissioner Present Staff Present: Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ige moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Dahm Ayes – All The motion passed. D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.August 16, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Dahm moved to approve the August 16, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Ige Ayes – Arbuckle, Dahm, Ige Abstain – Yang The motion passed. E.PUBLIC HEARING 1.Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue Easta.Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolutionb.Conditional Use Permit Resolution Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East, and answered questions from the Commission. D1 PC Packet Page Number 1 of 54 September 20, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 Ari Parritz, Reuter Walton, addressed the commission and answered questions. Scott England, DJR Architecture, addressed the commission and answered questions. Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing. The following individuals addressed the commission regarding the project: 1. Nicole Peterson, 1828 Walter Street 2. Kathryn Johnson, 1835 Phalen Place North 3. Raymond Bangert, 1890 Phalen Place North 4. Matt Schlager, 1872 Phalen Place North 5. Patrick Vaughan, 1856 Phalen Place North 6. Cheryl Lyn Sandbakken, 1907 Phalen Place North 7. Barbara Vaughan, 1856 Phalen Place North 8. Daniel Kuechenmeister, 1857 Phalen Place North 9. Amara Kuechenmeister, 1857 Phalen Place North 10. Kim Schmidt, 1800 Phalen Place North 11. John Wegleitner, 1082 Fenton Avenue East 12. Ted Anderson, 1871 Phalen Place North 13. Heidi Wilson, 1805 Phalen Place North 14. Kevin Schmidt, 1800 Phalen Place North 15. Melissa Burgess, 1862 Phalen Place North 16. Doug Jacobson, 1833 Adele Street North; Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing. Ari Parritz, Reuter Walton, spoke to address the questions and concerns raised by the public. Commissioner Dahm moved to table the item to the October 18, 2022 meeting, and directed the applicant to hold another neighborhood meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Yang Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 44, Zoning, Revising Use Standards in the NE, North End Zoning District Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 44, Zoning, Revising Use Standards in the NE, North End Zoning District Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing. There were no speakers for this item. Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing. Chairperson Arbuckle moved to approve the draft ordinance amending the Use Standards in the NE, North End Zoning District. Seconded by Commissioner Ige Ayes – All The motion passed. D1 PC Packet Page Number 2 of 54 September 20, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 This item will go to the city council on October 10, 2022. F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of Draft Changes to Districts and Uses Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director, introduced Rita Trapp from HKGi to lead the Review of Draft Changes to District and Uses discussion Rita Trapp, HKGi, presented the Review of Draft Changes to District and Uses and answered questions from the commission. A discussion was held and the Commission provided feedback on the proposed draft. This item is for informational purposes only; no action is required. G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None H. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS None I. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None J. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None K. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Arbuckle adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. D1 PC Packet Page Number 3 of 54 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PC Packet Page Number 4 of 54 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 18, 2022 REPORT TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager REPORT FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution b. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Action Requested: Motion ☐ Discussion ☐ Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐ Contract/Agreement ☐ Proclamation Policy Issue: Reuter Walton Development is proposing a new five-story, 150-unit market-rate development over below-grade parking on the properties located at 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East. To move forward with this project, the applicant is requesting city council approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, conditional use permit, lot combination, public vacation, and design review. The planning commission reviewed this project and held a public hearing on September 20, 2022. After the public hearing was closed, the planning commission made a motion to table the review of this project until its meeting on October 18, 2022, to allow the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting. The developer did hold a neighborhood meeting on October 3, 2022. Recommended Ac t ion : a. Motion to approve an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Lane Use Map to reguide the project properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. b. Motion to approve a resolution for a conditional use permit. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? No ☐ Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0 Financing source(s): ☐ Adopted Budget ☐ Budget Modification ☐ New Revenue Source ☐ Use of Reserves Other: N/A Strategic Plan Relevance: ☐ Community Inclusiveness ☐ Financial & Asset Mgmt ☐ Environmental Stewardship ☐ Integrated Communication Operational Effectiveness ☐ Targeted Redevelopment The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on September 8, 2022. The initial 60-day review deadline for a decision was November 7, 2022 . As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, G1 PC Packet Page Number 5 of 54 the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary, to complete the review. The city has exercised this right, and the new deadline for review is now January 6, 2023. Background: Planning Commission Review As mentioned on the first page, the planning commission reviewed this project and held a public hearing on September 20, 2022. After the public hearing was closed, the planning commission made a motion to table the review of this project until its meeting on October 18, 2022, to allow the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting. The developer did hold a neighborhood meeting on October 3, 2022. The planning commission is now being asked to complete its review and make a recommendation to the city council. This report is largely identical to what was sent to the planning commission for its September 20, 2022, meeting. The only significant changes were the addition of more neighborhood comments to the Citizens Comments section and a requirement to shift a proposed trail away from the west property line and closer to the proposed building. Project Overview On June 28, 2021, the city council approved a purchase agreement with Reuter Walton Development to sell the city-owned property at 1160 Frost Avenue East. Reuter Walton Development also has a purchase agreement for 1136 Frost Avenue – the former Maplewood Marine site. The developer is proposing a new five-story, 150-unit market-rate development over below-grade parking on the properties located at 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East. The proposed apartment building will include a mix of studio, one-bedroom, one-bedroom plus den, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartments. All units will have either a concrete patio or a recessed deck. One level of below-grade parking and surface parking will be provided – amenities will include a clubroom, fitness room, roof deck, outdoor pool, pickleball court, and dog run. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan outlines nine guiding principles to redevelopment in the area as follows: 1. Design the future of Gladstone as a village. 2. Transform regional trails into celebrated village corridors. 3. Make Gladstone a compelling quality of life choice. 4. Weave natural systems and ecological function into the built and recreational environment. 5. Allow Gladstone’s future to whisper the story of its past. 6. Make walkability the standard. 7. Think of Gladstone as a neighborhood for all stages of life. 8. Make the Gladstone redevelopment plan a model for others to follow. 9. Make multi-modal links between Gladstone and areas beyond. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The 2040 Comprehensive Plan currently guides the project area as Medium Density Residential. Medium Density Residential has a density range of 6 to 10 units per net acre. The applicant is requesting the city amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to guide the project area to High Density Residential, which has a density range of 10.1 to 25 units per acre. G1 PC Packet Page Number 6 of 54 In addition, the city provides density bonuses to developers for providing underground parking. For each underground parking space, the city code allows 300 square feet to be added to the net acreage used for density determination. This project proposes 161 underground spaces adding 48,300 square feet to the project site. The applicant’s proposal to build 150 units of housing would meet the requirements of the High Density Residential designation in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Conditional Use Permit Five-Story Building The R3 – multi-family zoning district requires a conditional use permit for any residential buildings more than three stories or 35 feet in height. The applicant’s proposed building will typically be 56 feet and 8 inches tall and bump up to 58 feet and 4 inches at the corner cornices. In comparison, the multi-family buildings east of this project site approved as part of the Frost-English Village redevelopment project are 51 feet tall. Design Review Site Plan The project site would be accessed from a single drive coming off Frost Avenue on the east side of the site. The building is centered on the site, and the developer worked to create substantial setbacks from the residential properties to the west and the Gladstone Savannah to the east. At its closest point, the building would be 102.9 feet setback from the residential properties to the west, 45.6 feet from Frost Avenue, 115.4 feet from the vacant residential property to the south, and 131.5 feet from the Gladstone Savannah to the east. The parking lot is largely encircled by the building but is setback 40.1 feet from the property line to the east, with the access drive lane coming within 36.5 feet of the east property line. All building and parking lot setbacks are being met. In the southeast corner of the proposed site, the developer is proposing a patio with a fire pit, a pickleball court, and a swimming pool. In the northwest corner, a dog park is proposed and is proposed to be setback 33.2 feet from the residential property to the south. A gazebo is proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the site, setback 29 feet from the west property line. Staff believes there is an opportunity to move the dog park, so it is setback at least 50 feet from the south property line. The gazebo location should also be adjusted, so it is setback at least 50 feet from the west property line. During the community design review board’s review of this project, there was a discussion regarding the location of the trail on the west side of the site and a desire to have it set back further from the west property line and on the other side of the stormwater pond. Staff agrees with this assessment, and it is reflected in the recommended conditions of approval. Building and Green Area City code requires multiple family buildings to dedicate at least 35 percent of the site to green areas and limit the building area to 35 percent of the site. The proposed site plan includes 55.8 percent of green space, and the building area will comprise 18 percent of the site. Both the building and green area code requirements are being met. G1 PC Packet Page Number 7 of 54 Building Elevations The proposed building will be constructed with contrasting light and dark fiber cement lap siding and wood-look lap siding accent boards. A brick façade will be used on lower levels, and cementitious trim boards will be used throughout the building. The city’s Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan recommends that multifamily buildings in Gladstone provide variation in the façade footprint, setting some areas back from the right-of-way (20 percent of the frontage length) and that the front façade of the top floor of high buildings be setback eight to 16 feet allowing for garden terraces overlooking the street. These are not code requirements. The building does provide façade variation with the use of materials and decks. The building is also setback 45.6 feet from Frost Avenue. While the top floor of the front façade is not setback, the rear façade is where a rooftop deck is being proposed. Floor Area City ordinance requires a minimum of 580 square feet for studio and one-bedroom units. Two- bedroom units are required to be at least 740 square feet in size. Three-bedroom units are required to be at least 860 square feet in size. The applicant’s submittal indicates that not all of the alcove units – studio – meet the minimum floor area. All other units meet the minimum requirements. Before any building permits are issued, the applicant must submit revised floor plans to ensure all units meet the minimum requirements. Indoor Storage A minimum of 120 cubic feet of storage space, in addition to normal closet space, shall be made available for each multiple-dwelling unit in an R-3 residence district. Such storage space shall be located in the same building as the dwelling unit or in the garage but shall not be considered as part of the habitable area of a dwelling unit. If located in the garage, it shall be enclosed and shall not be part of the automobile parking area. Before any building permits are issued, the applicant must submit plans that show it is meeting the minimum indoor storage requirements. Parking Waiver The city code states that multi-family buildings must provide two parking spaces for each unit – with one of the parking spaces being covered. This project requires a total of 300 spaces. This proposed project will have 244 parking spaces, with 161 parking spaces in the underground parking garage and 83 parking spaces in the surface lot. The covered parking requirement is being met, but the applicant is seeking of parking waiver of 56 spaces. The developer submitted the following narrative regarding its request: For this project , we anticipate parking demand to resemble this distribution and ratio: G1 PC Packet Page Number 8 of 54 You can see that our smallest units are anticipated to demand 1 space per unit, and then as the units get larger that demand increases roughly proportionate to the unit size. We designed 250 total parking spaces: 161 inside in a covered garage and 83 surface spaces in front of the community. At our projected demand of 214 spaces we have an excess of 30 available for visitors and guests. This assumes the building is 100% occupied, and we know that naturally we’ll carry 3-5% vacancy at any given time, which provides an additional buffer. Our design contains all parking set back from the street and set back from adjacent residences. We also feel the position of this parking will help our new project integrate more seamlessly with the adjacent savannah. Our experience in other similar suburban communities support a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces / unit much like we have here. Our most comparable new construction project in Roseville has a parking ratio of 1.45; the building is full, but the parking is not. In addition to the parking, the applicant states it will provide 150 bike parking spaces – this is not a code requirement. Landscaping and Screening The tree inventory plan shows 12 significant trees on the site, equaling 163 caliper inches. Redevelopment of the site will result in the removal of all 12 significant trees. The landscape plan shows 154 new trees (ranging in size from 1.5 to 2.5 caliper inches) planted on the site, for a total of 163 caliper inches of replacement trees – meeting the city’s tree preservation code requirements. City code requires screening to be installed when light from automobile headlights and other sources would be directed into residential windows. Due to the configuration of the proposed site plan staff does not believe this will be an issue. City code requires a landscaped, and possible screened area, of not less than 20 feet in width shall be provided where a multiple dwelling abuts a property zoned for single dwellings. This occurs on the west side of the site, and the applicant’s landscape plan shows the inclusion of many plantings both meeting the landscaped and screening requirements. Lighting The applicant submitted a photometric plan as part of its application. It appears the plan is meeting the code requirements but is not showing the light intensity measurement at all property lines. Before any permits are issued, the applicant will be required to submit a revised photometric plan showing all code requirements being met Public Vacation and Lot Combination The applicant is seeking city approval to combine the three parcels of property that comprise the project site into a single parcel. Staff has no issues with the proposed lot combination. In addition to the lot combination, the applicant is seeking the three public vacations of unused right-of -way. A summary of those requests follow: • Vacate the full unused Edward Street right-of way which currently divides the two parcels comprising the project site. G1 PC Packet Page Number 9 of 54 • Vacate the north half of the unused Fenton Avenue right-of -way that is adjacent to the existing city-owned parcel at 1160 Frost Avenue. • Vacate the west half of the unused Frank Street right-of -way that is adjacent to the existing city-owned parcel at 1160 Frost Avenue. Because the property owners of the affected properties are party to this development project, there is no requirement to submit a petition and the council is permitted to approve this request with a simple majority vote. The lot combination request requires that the proposed new single lot shall include a drainage and utility easement over the entirety of the portion of the Frank Street right-of - way proposed for vacation. Department Comments Engineering Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated September 12 , 2022, attached to this report. Environmental Please see Shann Finwall’s environmental report, dated September 12, 2022, attached to this report. Building Official – Randy Johnson The proposed building is required to meet the minimum requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code Board and Commission Review Community Design Review Board September 20, 2022: The community design review board (CDRB) reviewed this project and made two motions. The first motion was to approve the project while adding additional conditions to require the relocation of a proposed trail to be further away from the west property line, add vegetation to the west side of the project and limit the storage of items on the first level patios. The CDRB voted 2-2 on this motion, which failed due to a lack of a majority. Even though this motion failed, staff has added the CDRB’s recommended conditions to the design review resolution, which will be considered by the city council. A second motion was made to recommend that the project density be reduced so all parking spaces can be underground. This mot ion was approved by a 4-0 vote. Planning Commission September 20, 2022: The planning commission reviewed this project and held a public hearing. After the public hearing was closed, the planning commission made a motion to table the review of this project until its meeting on October 18, 2022, to allow the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting. This motion was approved by a 4-0 vote. The developer did hold a neighborhood meeting on October 3, 2022. G1 PC Packet Page Number 10 of 54 Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 53 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site and within the Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone plat for their opinion about this proposal. Staff received the following comments. 1. We received notice of the Frost apartments proposed development. We live on Phalen Pl near Frost and this development would directly affect us. We are raising three children in this neighborhood because it is quiet and safe. We have enjoyed the peace and quiet, easy access to the lake and to the Gladstone Savanna and playground. This development, if approved, would change that. 150 units up to 3 bedrooms is a whole lot of people to add to this area. We would have to listen to dogs barking at the dog park that will be installed a few doors down, and there would be a massive increase of cars and foot traffic because the development doesn't have enough space for parking and because our street would be the closest way to get to the lake. The request to have less parking than code allows is alarming. What is the plan for parking if there isn't space there? The parking bays on Frost are already often full. We have spoken to a number of neighbors and it is clear that the neighborhood does not want or need this development, and this project would do nothing positive for us. We ask you to consider the people and families living in this area and how this negatively affects us. We are not supportive of this proposal. Additional comments received on October 10, 2022: I'm writing regarding the proposed Frost Ave apartments. The community came out to the September 20th meeting strongly against this proposal. The developer was told to hold another community meeting, which they did. At that meeting, they were unable to give us any reason why this apartment would be good for our neighborhood, and said they would not compromise on size or anything other than things like the color of the siding. They are unwilling to work with the people living in this neighborhood to make something work - even when we asked them to consider a medium density instead of high density building. When we voice concerns about the parking waiver, they just say they have data on that and it will be fine. When we voice concerns about increased traffic, they just say the data says it will be fine. We live here in real life, and raise our kids here. This will have a real impact on our everyday lives. Ari did not make a good case - or really any case - for why we should support this. Please consider the concerns of the community during your meeting on October 18th. The developer clearly will not. (Brynna Kuechenmeister, 1857 Phalen Place North) 2. I am disappointed to learn that Reuter Walton Development is proposing yet another development along Frost Ave. I moved to this area twelve years ago with my family in the hopes that this could be our forever home. Maplewood officials often spoke about community improvements in this area, and we had high hopes. While there have been some changes that have benefited the neighborhood, the purpose for others has been unclear. We are struggling to understand what the vision is for Maplewood, particularly the area along Frost Ave. With the exception of some smaller multi-family units, the neighborhoods along Frost Ave have traditionally been comprised of single-family homes. Many of those homes are moderate single-story homes, many built more than fifty years ago. There are some small G1 PC Packet Page Number 11 of 54 businesses in the area, designed to meet needs of the residents in the immediate area. Frost Ave itself is only two lanes, with traffic controlled by round-a-bout rather than stop signs or traffic lights. This is not an area designed for mass-multi-tenant living. This new development proposal on the corner of Frost Ave and Phalen Pl is a blot on the landscape. This five-story grotesque monstrosity in the middle of a neighborhood of mostly single-story homes is an absurd proposal. Not only would a five-story building be a towering eye-sore to residents and passers-by, but the proposed design is so specific that it will be dated in less than two decades. The proposal appears more like a downtown development than something for a suburb neighborhood with virtually no walkability. It is unclear to me who exactly the developer is hoping to attract. Market-rate for an apartment with these proposed amenities will exclude most people who currently live in the area, and people looking for this type of home are usually looking for a more metropolitan area. There may be a significant need for housing at this time, but what will become of this building when the market changes and that need no longer exists? When people have more choices, they won't pay those rates to live in this area. The City appears to have struggled recently in managing the landscape along Frost Ave. How will the City address the additional strain brought on by this development? How will Frost Ave be modified to handle the increase in traffic? What is the trade-off for allowing a private developer to take portions of City land/park? I can acknowledge a need for housing, but what need is affordable housing - not luxury apartments. A two or three story, traditionally designed apartment building with affordable rates would be much more beneficial to the residents of Maplewood. The City needs to consider it's vision for this area and for Maplewood as a whole. I have heard many demeaning comments about the city from acquaintances who live elsewhere. I'm sure you're familiar with "Maplehood". I have often defended this area as a gem. If this proposal is approved, I will move from this area - and likely out of Maplewood all together. As many of my neighbors have said, this will no longer be the area where I want to raise my family. Property values in the area will decline, and many of us will likely rent our properties out as we find our forever homes elsewhere. If the vision for the City is renter-centric, then perhaps this is the direction to take. If the City wants to attract homeowners who are vested in the area and pay taxes to ensure progress, then this proposal should be denied. As I sit here on this quiet evening with my windows open enjoying the peace that drew me to this home, I hope City managers can understand that this type of development would fundamentally change the nature of this area, and the type of residents it attracts. (Melissa Burgess, 1862 Phalen Place North) 3. I have lived here with my family for twelve years, and enjoy both the peace and convenience of the area. I have seen several development proposals on Frost Ave, and am concerned about what appears to be an effort to turn Frost Ave into "renters row". My family has enjoyed the City parks and trails in this area, and the peace that comes from a neighborhood of single-family homeowners. The introduction of yet another rental complex will further change the landscape of the area, which will also change who the neighborhood attracts. It is common sense that home owners are more invested in the area than renters, and they pay the majority of the property taxes. The City's entertainment of such a proposal seems contrary to what would benefit the City and it's residents. G1 PC Packet Page Number 12 of 54 My wife and I can understand the need for housing at this time, but this is not the type of housing we should be supporting. This development is out of step with the style and environment of the neighborhood. The idea of a five-story building in that location is so off- putting that we can't believe anyone would support it - unless there are other motives that haven't been clearly stated. If the intent is really to meet the housing needs of the community, why build such an ultra-modern complex that the people who live here likely wouldn't be able to afford? And why build it in a location where residents would need to own a vehicle for transportation? Or is it also the City's plan to introduce busses to the area, further congesting the traffic situation caused by the Frost-English Village addition? And what happens when the housing market changes and rentals are no longer in demand? How would the City ensure that any development would be maintained at the high levels being proposed? This type of housing does not belong in this neighborhood. If this proposal is approved, my family will move f rom Maplewood. We share the same thoughts of our neighbors - this will become a renter-heavy area with declining property values and the elimination of everything that makes us enjoy living here. If the City's goal is to alienate homeowners to attract renters, then this isn't the city for us. If the City desires to create more housing, then make it affordable housing and locate it in an area where residents can walk to the services they need so they aren't dependent on a vehicle or other transportation. That is what the residents need. (Michael Burgess, 1862 Phalen Place North) 4. I am the first house next to this development. I don't want a dog park 20 feet away from my house. I don't want to listen to 150 barking dogs all day and all night long. No thank you. Put the dog park on the East side of the building, there is no neighborhood to bother over there. Put the dog park on the South side of the building there is a big open field there and no neighborhood to bother. What are they going to do with my power and phone lines. These lines run out to Frost avenue along the building that is there. I believe the business is called Production Resources or formerly the Maplewood boat marine building. Where is the property line? Are they going to build a fence on the property line? It looks like to me in the plans that they are just going to plant trees. I would prefer they just plant trees. (Scott Cardinal, 1904 Phalen Place North) 5. First, a little history and background I have with the Frost & Gladstone area. In 2007, I bought 1872 Phalen Place from my Grandparents (Lee and Gloria Hansen), who had lived in the house since 1954 when my grandfather and great-grandfather built the house together by hand. My summers included many days at 1872 Phalen Place, going down to the lake, or simply enjoying the company of my grandparents in the yard they worked so hard to maintain. In 2007 when their health had taken them to a point they needed to sell the house, I jumped at the opportunity to buy, not only for the memories but for what my grandmother had coined as “one of the best neighborhoods ever!”. Since 2007, I have made my own memories, and have come to love the Frost/Gladstone neighborhood and people. While it's true that Frost/Gladstone is not a glamorous neighborhood with its modest houses, it is also true that the neighborhood is very quiet, peaceful and everyone watches out for each other. Everyone does their own thing, they are respectful of others and because of this, we have a great neighborhood with very little drama. G1 PC Packet Page Number 13 of 54 My wife and I have thought very hard about the proposed apartment complex, and I would like to take this opportunity to cite my major concerns. Also, for more complete feedback to yourself and the City of Maplewood, I queried some of my neighbors who may not have email due to their technology comfort level. After much consideration and consultation with others, I simply cannot support the proposed “150-Unit Multi-Family Housing Building - 1136/1160 Frost Avenue” apartments as a long- term value to the Gladstone area and moreover the City of Maplewood. In the following bullet points I will highlight my major concerns, but before I get to those points, I would like to openly state that I understand the need for more housing in a community such as Maplewood, in fact, at one point I heard rumors of smaller and more modest mulit-family designs, that I thought would address this need, but now as I review the 1136/1160 Frost proposal, I have serious concerns that this complex goes way overboard and misses the mark of addressing that housing void. a. Size and design: The apartment complex itself being a 5-story, 150-unit, 230 parking space complex is very large, obstructive and will completely dwarf all the houses in the neighborhoods. Looking at the computer renditions provided in the notification letter, a person will immediately see how the apartment complex looks and feels completely out of place considering all of the surrounding houses are either single, 1.5 or at max two story homes. Since receiving this notification, I have looked around at other similar apartment complexes and the vast majority are only 4-story, with the only 5-story complexes being in much higher density areas like downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis. i. In addition to the sheer size, the design of the apartment complex (although likely considered modern at this snapshot in time), does not fit the neighborhood or the surrounding areas. The flat roof, U-shaped design does not align with the nearby houses, nor other apartment complexes in the area. Looking at “The Shores of Phalen”, “Parkview Court Apartments”, “Frost English Apartments” and “Frost English – Silver Apartments” they all have classic peeked roof lines and dormers for added decoration, all of which fit much better with their respective surrounding neighborhoods. b. Occupancy near term and long term: I have serious concerns about initially filling the apartment complex. The design includes such amenities as a pool, pickleball court, roof top patio and dog park; while these amenities are very nice, it is clear that these apartments are intended to attract higher income earners such as professionals and be priced in a range that only higher earners can afford. i. Initial occupancy: My wife and I are both professionals (Engineer and HR Manager) at local companies with many other professionals that would likely align to the type of renter targeted for this proposal; the individuals that are renters tell me when renting they look at the surrounding area to determine if the infrastructure exists to support their lifestyle. Inevitably the infrastructure they look for includes nearby and walkable restaurants, shops, entertainment venues, and sporting facilities. As much as I love Frost/Gladstone, it does not offer any of this. ii. Long term occupancy: Even if there is success with initially filling the complex, the design and price range does not lend itself to long term sustainability for the Frost/Gladstone area. We all know that the housing market is cyclical with very defined stages (recovery, expansion, hyper supply, and recession) and once G1 PC Packet Page Number 14 of 54 recession hits, will there be renters to sustain such a large complex, once again with no surrounding infrastructure to attract new renters? iii. Question: Has there been any studies or data that can help provide justification for such a massive complex? Has a 5yr, 10yr, and 20 yr study been completed showing how the apartment owner plans to support this complex in the down years? c. Continued quality of surrounding neighborhoods: The Frost/Gladstone neighborhoods are quiet, long -standing neighborhoods of owners that get along and watch out for each other, which equates to a long history of very low turnover; simply stated, when people move into Frost/Gladstone, they move in with the intention of making this their “forever home”. I previously discussed my personal story, I know my next-door neighbor (Jan) has lived at 1884 Phalen Place for over 30 years, and in fact, when I look around, we are surrounded by other neighbors with a minimum of 10+ years in their homes. When I think about adding 150 new dwelling units to our neighborhoods, I can only imagine how this peaceful area is going to be disrupted. I believe the potential renters would be good people, however, based on sheer numbers alone (150 units!), I cannot come to any other conclusion than the added volume will undoubtedly disrupt our quiet and peaceful neighborhoods. i. For comparison’s sake, I reviewed “1136/1160 Overview Map”, and there are approximately 110 single family homes within the cited “affected area” (North to South: Frost to Ripley, East to West: Adele to English) and now we have to consider this amount of people would be more than doubled in the same geographic area. I simply do not know how our little neighborhoods could be expected to support such a massive addition, these numbers have me very concerned with the long term wellbeing of the Frost/Gladstone neighborhoods. In closing, I want to emphasize that I bring these concerns to you not from a “not in my back yard” standpoint, but rather from a standpoint of being concerned for the wellbeing of our neighborhoods, including any new dwelling units for both the near term and long term. I take great pride in my Frost/Gladstone home, my neighbors take great pride in their Frost/Gladstone homes, and we simply want what is best for this peaceful, caring neighborhood both now and for generations to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. (Matt and Joy Schlager, 1872 Phalen Place North) 6. I have lived in the Gladstone area for 77 years.I have lived at 1835 Phalen Place for 53 years and also own the property across the street at 1844 Phalen Place. I am writing out of concern about the proposal for 150 unit buildings behind us. This has always been a quiet residential area with family emphasis. In past years we have been bothered by traffic racing down Phalen Place at very high speeds. Adding 150 units to this area would increase traffic and speeding in our neighborhood. Several families on our street have young children so it is a safety issue. I attended the council meeting several years ago at which the current owner of the “Boat Store” requested permission to set up his business. We were assured by the council that when the property was sold there would be single family and duplex homes built. Never did I imagine a huge apparent complex in my backyard. G1 PC Packet Page Number 15 of 54 I received a postcard notifying me of a meeting on August 10 at John Glenn School regarding a proposed building. I went to it thinking that the new building would be at Frost and English. To my shock, I was the only member of the public there other than the mayor. Never did I suspect this would be in my backyard. Neighbors had no idea since the address was not published on the postcard. These are a few of my objections: • increased noise and traffic • loss of our ’small town” quiet feel • huge complex- visually not appropriate for our neighborhood of single family homes • noise from balconies and swimming pool and dog park sound carries easily in this neighborhood even from across lake • we like our small family run businesses along Frost Ave. Every neighbor I have spoken to on Phalen Place is against this project. We need to have our voices heard since we are the tax payers and long time residents of Phalen Place. (Kathryn Johnson, 1835 and 1844 Phalen Place North) 7. We first heard about this plan from our neighbor who went to the initial meeting (we were out of town). We think this is possibly the worse idea our city leaders have come up with. This area already has 3 large apt bldgs. on Frost (2 on Frost & English) & with another one coming off of East Shore Drive. This is a family oriented quiet community and I remember when they closed the marine shop and the Maplewood city council at that time assured us, we would only replace this with single family homes or possibly duplexes/side by side not a huge building with 150 apartments. This is a list of as many we can think of right now of our concerns: - dog park we may like dogs but do not wish to listen to them barking all day - there is a concern also about parking in the past we have not been allowed to park on the streets in Maplewood overnight so where in “the community” are these overflow parking spots? - Phalen place is already a very busy street what will over 150 units with very possibly 300 or more cars cause it to be? - Speeds on Phalen Pl - most of the traffic goes about an average of 40-45 mph and does not stop at stop sign just turns or goes straight through. Morning and evening “rush hour” traffic for those who do not wish to drive all the way down to English to get in the neighborhood. - There was a stop sign at Fenton a few years ago which helped somewhat but the city got rid of it with no notice to us or explanation (the rumor was a big shot in the city didn’t like having to stop there) - What about the increase of cars to Frost and English’s roundabout sounds like during rush hours am & pm it will be “traffic jams” waiting to happen - Now we wish to address the noise from the people in these apartments - adding normal living noise from 300+ people - adding entertaining noise from all of their patios and balconies - also noise of gatherings that may be held on the roof & around the pool have any of you heard the noise from people in a swimming pool? How about over 100 This could go on from possibly from May to Sep reminding everyone this pool is outside G1 PC Packet Page Number 16 of 54 We are not saying we do not welcome newcomers to our area but really that many in one fell swoop? We do not think this was thought out very well by the city or the “ones in charge”. There are many other areas in this community that are more preferable to have this apt built. Specifically at Frost & English there are 2 corners left that could include this apt and not interfere with single family homes that have been here for many years. Plus, the area that houses the former rental hall which needs to be torn down. Are you planning to fill this area with apt after apt? My question to you all is what is your purpose more tax $$$ or what? The bottom line is we do not want nor do we need this apt in Gladstone. (Pat and Barb Vaughan, 1856 Phalen Place North) Reference Information Site Description Project Area: 5 acres Existing Land Use: Office building and vacant Surrounding Land Uses North: Frost Avenue and Flicek Park East: Gladstone Savanna South: Vacant Land and Gladstone Savanna West: Single Family Homes Planning Existing Land Use: Medium Density Residential (proposed to be High Density Residential) Existing Zoning: R3 – Multiple Dwelling Attachments: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution 2. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 3. Design Review Resolution 4. Public Vacation and Lot Combination Resolution 5. Overview Map 6. 2040 Future Land Use Map 7. Zoning Map 8. Applicant’s Narrative 9. Site Plan, updated on August 29, 2022 10. Landscape Plan 11. Tree Preservation Plan 12. Photometric Plan 13. Lot Combination and Public Vacations Plan 14. Building Elevations 15. Engineering Report, dated September 12, 2022 G1 PC Packet Page Number 17 of 54 16. Environmental Report, dated September 12, 2022 17. Draft Community Design Review Board Minutes, September 20, 2022 18. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, September 20, 2022 19. Applicant’s Plans (separate attachment – sent originally with September 20 meeting packet) G1 PC Packet Page Number 18 of 54 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION Resolution approving the comprehensive plan amendment reguiding the properties at 1136 and 1160 Frost Avenue East from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Ari Parritz, of Reuter Walton Development, has requested approval of a comprehensive plan amendment. 1.02 The properties are located at 1136 and 1160 Frost Avenue East and are legally described as: PIN: 162922420003 and 162922420004 – Lots 1 to 13, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alley which accrued to said lots by reason of the vacation thereof, according to the recorded plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND PIN: 162922420112 – Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, together with the vacated alley in said Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Section 2. Criteria. 2.01 The 2040 Comprehensive Plan states the document may require amending due to a property owner request to change land use designation to allow a proposed development or redevelopment. 2.02 The 2040 Comprehensive Plan amendment process follows the same City identified public hearing process as the major update process used to develop the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Amendments are required to submit and gain approval from the Metropolitan Council. Section 3. Findings 3.01 The requested amendment would meet various amendment criteria outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Guide Plan. 1. Enhance existing neighborhoods by encouraging residential neighborhood development and redevelopment to address gaps in the housing mix, ensuring the efficient use of city services and infrastructure, and strengthen neighborhood vitality. 2. Increase development densities/intensities with quality design at appropriate locations to support an increased mix of housing options, viability of neighborhood commercial nodes, and regional transit investments. G1, Attachment 1 PC Packet Page Number 19 of 54 3. Ensure the City has a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of their life cycle. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering this amendment request. 1. On September 20, 2022, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. On October 18, 2022, the planning commission continued its review and recommended that the city council _______ the comprehensive plan amendment. 2. On November 14, 2022, the city council discussed the comprehensive plan amendment. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. Section 5. City Council 5.01 The above described comprehensive plan amendment is ________ based on the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to, and only effective upon, the following conditions: 1. Review and approval of the Metropolitan Council as provided by state statute. 2. The site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans: a. Design and site plans, date-stamped September 2, 2022. 3. The development must further comply with all conditions outlined in City Council Resolution No. _______ for a conditional use permit _________ by the Maplewood City Council on November 14, 2022. _________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on November 14, 202 2. G1, Attachment 1 PC Packet Page Number 20 of 54 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Ari Parritz, of Reuter Walton Development, has requested approval of a conditional use permit to permit a five-story multifamily building. 1.02 The properties are located at 1136 and 1160 Frost Avenue East and are legally described as: PIN: 162922420003 and 162922420004 – Lots 1 to 13, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alley which accrued to said lots by reason of the vacation thereof, according to the recorded plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND PIN: 162922420112 – Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, together with the vacated alley in said Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Section 2. Standards. 2.01 City Ordinance Section 44-359 requires a Conditional Use Permit for multiple dwelling buildings that exceed a height of 35 feet. 2.02 General Conditional Use Permit Standards. City Ordinance Section 44-1097(a) states that the City Council must base approval of a Conditional Use Permit on the following nine standards for approval. 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street. G1, Attachment 2 PC Packet Page Number 21 of 54 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site’s natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Section 3. Findings. 3.01 The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering this conditional use permit request. 1. On September 20, 2022, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. On October 18, 2022, the planning commission continued its review and recommended that the city council _______ this resolution. 2. On November 14, 2022 , the city council discussed this resolution. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. Section 5. City Council 5.01 The city council hereby _______ the resolution. Approval is based on the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the approved plans, date-stamped September 2, 2022. 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 become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. A parking waiver of 56 parking spaces is approved. If a parking shortage develops, the city council may require additional parking spaces to be constructed. G1, Attachment 2 PC Packet Page Number 22 of 54 5. Metropolitan Council approval of Resolution No. _______ for a comprehensive plan amendment _________ by the Maplewood City Council on November 14, 2022. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on November 14, 2022. G1, Attachment 2 PC Packet Page Number 23 of 54 DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Ari Parritz, of Reuter Walton Development, has requested approval of a design review for a five-story multifamily building. 1.02 The properties are located at 1136 and 1160 Frost Avenue East and are legally described as: PIN: 162922420003 and 162922420004 – Lots 1 to 13, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alley which accrued to said lots by reason of the vacation thereof, according to the recorded plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND PIN: 162922420112 – Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, together with the vacated alley in said Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Section 2. Site and Building Plan Standards and Findings. 2.01 City ordinance Section 2-290(b) requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development are in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and are not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Section 3. City Council Action. 3.01 The above-described site and design plans are hereby approved based on the findings outlined in Section 3 of this resolution. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the design plans date-stamped September 2, 2022. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: G1, Attachment 3 PC Packet Page Number 24 of 54 1. Obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for this project. 2. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 3. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 4. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the engineering review authored by Jon Jarosch, dated September 12, 2022. 5. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the environmental review authored by Shann Finwall, dated September 12, 2022. 6. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 7. Rooftop vents and equipment shall be located out of view from all sides of the property. 8. Any identification or monument signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city’s sign ordinance. Identification or monument signs shall be designed to be consistent with the project’s building materials and colors. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the following items: a. The applicant shall provide the city with a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. b. A revised site plan with the dog park setback at least 50 feet from the south property line, the gazebo setback at least 50 feet from the west property line and the trail setback at least 50 feet from the west property line and located east of the stormwater pond. c. Revised floor plans showing all alcove – studio – units meeting the minimum floor area size of 580 square feet and that all units in the building have a minimum of 120 cubic feet of storage space. d. A revised photometric plan that meets city code requirements. 10. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Install all required outdoor lighting. G1, Attachment 3 PC Packet Page Number 25 of 54 e. Install all required sidewalks and trails. 11. 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 public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 12. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 13. Enhance the vegetative break between the west side of the project and the residential properties. 14. Limit the amount of storage on the first-level patios. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on November 14, 2022. G1, Attachment 3 PC Packet Page Number 26 of 54 PUBLIC VACATION AND LOT COMBINATION RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Ari Parritz, of Reuter Walton Development, has requested The Maplewood City Council to vacate the following unused public rights-of-way: All that part of Edward Street lying southerly of a line drawn from northeast corner of Block 2 to the northwest corner of Block 1, all within KAVANAGH AND DAWSON’S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, and northerly of a line drawn from the southeast corner of said Block 2 to the southwest corner of said Block 1. And, All that part of North 1/2 of Fenton Avenue lying easterly of the southerly extension of the westerly line of Block 2, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON’S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, and westerly of the southerly extension of the easterly line of said Block 2, And, All that part of Frank Street, formerly known as Good Avenue, lying southerly of the easterly extension of the northerly line of Block 1, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON’S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, and easterly of the southerly extension of said Block 1, and northerly of the southerly line of the North 1/2 of Fenton Avenue, and westerly of the east line of said KAVANAGH AND DAWSON’S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE plat. 1.02 A request was also made to combine the three lots located at 1136 and 1160 Frost. 1.03 The properties located at 1136 and 1160 Frost Avenue East are legally described as: PIN: 162922420003 and 162922420004 – Lots 1 to 13, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alley which accrued to said lots by reason of the vacation thereof, according to the recorded plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND PIN: 162922420112 – Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, together with the vacated alley in said Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 1.04 The proposed single lot is proposed to be legally described as: Lots 1 to 10, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alley and vacated Edward Street. G1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number 27 of 54 Lots 11 to 13, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alley. Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1, Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, together with the vacated alley, and that part of vacated Frank Street North and Fenton Avenue which lies east of the most westerly extent and south of the most northerly extend of said Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Section 2. Standards 2.01 Minnesota state statute requires that no vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so. 2.02 City Ordinance Section 34-14 states that the lot division process may be used to create three or fewer lots. Section 3. Findings. 3.01 The Maplewood City Council makes the following findings: 1. There is no anticipated public need for the described Edward Street, Fenton Avenue and Frank Street rights-of-way. 2. The vacation is not counter to the public interest. 3. The proposed lot combination meets all of the city’s subdivision requirements. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering public vacations requests. 1. A hearing notice on said request was published in the City of Maplewood’s official newspaper and written notice was mailed to the property owners within the Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition to Gladstone, Ramsey County Plat. 2. On November 14, 2022, the City Council held a hearing on such request, at which time all persons for and against the granting of said request were heard. Section 5. City Council 5.01 The city council hereby _______ the resolution. Approval is based on the findings outlined in Section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A survey shall be submitted to staff with a legal description for a new single parcel reflecting the three properties being combined. 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new multifamily housing building, proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division must be submitted to city staff. 3. The applicant shall provide a drainage and utility easement over the entirety of the portion of the Frank Street right-of-way proposed for vacation. G1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number 28 of 54 __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on November 14, 2022. G1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number 29 of 54 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East - Overview Map City of Maplewood August 24, 2022 Legend !I 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Subject Property G1, Attachment 5 PC Packet Page Number 30 of 54 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East - Future Land Use Map City of Maplewood August 24, 2022 Legend !IFuture Land Use - 2040 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Use - Neighborhood High Density Open Space Park Subject Property 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County G1, Attachment 6 PC Packet Page Number 31 of 54 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East - Zoning Map City of Maplewood August 24, 2022 Legend !IZoning Single Dwelling (r1) Double Dwelling (r2) Multiple Dwelling (r3) Farm (f) Open Space/Park Mixed Use (mu) Subject Property 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County G1, Attachment 7 PC Packet Page Number 32 of 54 Written Statement of Intended Use On behalf of Reuter Walton Development, DJR is proposing a new development at 1136 / 1160 Frost Avenue East in the City of Maplewood. The intend use of the property is a new five story, 150 unit market rate apartment building. The proposed building will include a mix of studio, one bedroom, one bedroom plus den, two bedroom and three bedroom apartments. Most units will have either a concrete patio or recessed balcony. One level of below grade parking along with surface parking will be provided. Amenities will include a clubroom, fitness room, roof deck, outdoor pool, pickleball court and dog run. The goal of this project is to contribute to the need for approachably priced rental units in the City of Maplewood. The new structure will also enhance the streetscape along Frost Avenue by infilling what appears to be a missing tooth. This will be achieved by transforming this underutilized former industrial site into a dynamic new housing project that overlooks and embraces the Gladstone Savanah. This new project will also contribute to the economic growth of Maplewood through job creation and construction activity. G1, Attachment 8 PC Packet Page Number 33 of 54 FROST AVE. E.PHALEN PLACEFENTON AVENUE//EMTRTRTRTTHHHTSSSSC/EC/EC/EC/EC/EGENXFMRCOXXXXXGAZEBO - SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSDOG PARK - SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSPICKLEBALL COURT - SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSSWIMMING POOL - SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSPATIO AND FIRE PIT - SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSEDGE OF UNDERGROUNDPARKING - SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSENTRANCE SIGNAGE(TYP.) - SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSCCAD1TYP.1TYP.1TYP.1TYP.2TYP.2TYP.3TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.5556881414149TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.889TYP.9TYP.9TYP.9TYP.9TYP.9TYP.9TYP.9TYP.182626TYP.26TYP.1920201921 TYP.21 TYP.21 TYP.21 TYP.REINSTALL EXISTINGSIGNAGE AND POSTREINSTALL EXISTINGSIGNAGE AND POSTREINSTALL EXISTINGCROSSWALK POSTS SIGNAGE,LIGHTS, AND RELATEDFEATURES.RETURN EXTRA TO CITY.141414COPYRIGHT © 2022 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO:REVISION HISTORYDATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATE:REG. NO.CERTIFICATIONXX/XX/2019 XXXX#XXDESIGNED:REVIEWED:PHASE:SUMMARYDRAWN:INITIAL ISSUE:BENCHMARKS (BM)PRELIMCADD USER: Jay FILE: C:\USERS\JAY\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\220801 - RW FROST APT MAPLEWOOD - DJR\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\C300 - SITE.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1:1 PLOT DATE: 8/25/2022 10:45 AMSBINKnow what'sRJAY RONALD KOESTER, P.E.08/XX/20224443322080108/19/2022JRKC300PAVING, SIGNAGE, ANDDIMENSIONAL PLANJRKJRKPROPERTY LINELIMITS OF DISTURBANCEBUILDINGCURB & GUTTERSOIL BORINGSFENCESIGNLIGHT POLEPARKING STALL COUNTADA PAVEMENT MARKINGSTANDARD DUTY BITUMINOUSHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUSCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE PAVINGLoDPROPOSEDLEGENDEXISTINGZONING: R-3B, RESIDENCE (MULTIPLE DWELLING)LOT AREA (OVERALL) 213,259 SF = 4.90 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:0.90 AC (TO BE REMOVED)PROPOSED NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA:2.17 ACNET IMPERVIOUS CREATED: 2.17 AC MAXIMUM HARDCOVER 65% MAX.TOTAL HARDCOVER AREA:(IMPERVIOUS AREA/4.90 AC) 44.2%BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: 39,044 SFBUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM ALLOWED: 35 FEET (3 STORIES)5 STORIES (BY VARIANCE)BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED: SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANSDISTURBED AREA: 4.90 ACREQUIRED PARKING SPACES:2 STALLS/UNIT * 150 UNITS 300 SPACES1.5 STALLS/UNIT * 150 UNITS 225 SPACES (BY VARIANCE)PROPOSED PARKING SPACES (UNDERGROUND - SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS):9.5' X 20' 33 SPACES9.5' X 18' 130 SPACESADA 4 SPACESPROVIDED: 167 SPACESPROPOSED PARKING SPACES (OUTSIDE):9.5' X 20' 28 SPACES9.5' X 18' 51 SPACESADA 4 SPACESPROVIDED: 83 SPACESTOTAL PROVIDED: 250 SPACESBUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:FRONT YARD SETBACK (NORTH) 30 FEETSIDE YARD SETBACK (EAST & WEST) 20 FEETREAR YARD SETBACK (SOUTH) 20 FEETPARKING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:FRONT YARD SETBACK (NORTH)XX FEETSIDE YARD SETBACK (EAST & WEST)XX FEETREAR YARD SETBACK (SOUTH)XX FEET11. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT - NORMAL DUTY (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)2. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT - HEAVY DUTY (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)3. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT - MATCH IN KIND4. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)5. CONCRETE SIDEWALK - MATCH EXISTING6. CONCRETE PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)7. CONCRETE PAVEMENT - MATCH IN KIND8. CONCRETE STOOP (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)9. B-618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)10. D-418 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)11. FLUSH CONCRETE CURB (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)12. TRANSITION FROM FLUSH CONCRETE CURB TO 4" OR 6" CURB (SEEGRADING PLAN)13. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER - MATCH IN KIND14. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER - MATCH EXISTING15. CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)16. CURB CUT (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)17. CURB CUT WITH RIP RAP (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)18. TRENCH DRAIN19. ACCESSIBLE STALL STRIPING (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)20. ACCESSIBLE RAMP (SEE DETAIL X/CXXX)21. 4" HIGH VISIBILITY SOLID WHITE PAINT (SEE NOTE XXXXXXXX)22. 4" POLY PREFORMED PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKINGS (SEENOTE XXXXX)23. CROSSWALK PAVEMENT MARKINGS (SEED ETAIL X/CXXX)24. X' TALL, BLACK COATED, CHAIN LINK FENCE (SEE NOTE XXXXXXXX)25. X' WIDE CANTILEVER SLIDE GATE (BLACK COATED CHAIN LINK, 6'TALL26. RETAINING WALL27. LANDSCAPE AREA (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS)28. RAIN GARDEN (SEE GRADING PLAN)29. CANOPY (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)30. TRASH ENCLOSURE WITH DUMPSTER (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)31. BICYCLE RACK (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)32. MONUMENT SIGN (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)33. SECURITY LIGHT (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)34. TRANSFORMER (SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR SIZE AND EXACTLOCATION)KEYNOTESAA. STOP SIGN R1-1 (30" X 30") - 1 SIGNB. HANDICAP PARKING SIGN R7-8M (12" X 18") - NO SIGNC. HANDICAP PARKING SIGN R7-8M (12" X 18") WITH VANACCESSIBLE SIGN R7-8B (12" X 6") - 4 SIGND. KEEP RIGHT SIGN R4-7c (24" X 30") - 1 SIGNSIGN SCHEDULE (PER MN MUTCD)SITE DATA1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO CONSTRUCTION NOTESON C001 PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.NOTESXX1136 FROST AVENUE, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTAFROST AVENUE APARTMENTSDJR ARCHITECTUREMINNEAPOLIS, MN( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALEG1, Attachment 9 PC Packet Page Number 34 of 54 FROST AVE. E.PHALEN PLACEFENTON AVENUE////////EMTRTRTRTTHHHHHHTSSSS|||||||||||||||||||895895896897898899900900901902903900898899901902903890895 900905886887887887887887888889889889891 892893894896 897898899901902903904906907908885890895900883884886886886 887887 887888889891892893894896897898899901902903904890895887888889891892893894896890886887887887888888888889891892893894895895896896896896H0.6%900905899901902903904906907908895895900905896896897897898898899899901902903904906900900898899899899901902903900900 898898899899896897898899895891891892893894896897898899895892892893893894894895 896897898 899 896897898899886887888888888890887888889891892890895889891892893894896897898885885890895884884886886887887887887887888889891892893894896897898885885885884884884886886886886887887887887888888-8.1%-2.0%MA 895.55±MA 895.50±C 896.23C 896.23C 896.32C 896.32892893894895895894894 896896897898GENXFMRHHH//0808909779090043559000293910909928900989899990095999688898766888589999 822298898 168978689798988898989 8698988888888889483888899888897888888888786888578888688788888888788688888488588888888688886866689898955//99999698888989896688998007799990044339008080020211909779999009090900555900003388900222909090000096999998888979799779898898989888898 668888547 89999999228998889898990088 884489888338888888888888989998888998888887788888888888887788888888587878588887878888888664888888888888888888888888888886688888888888445558888888888788888886688888886869099088080890997776999000909055559999977790003333900090909090222905444880900003338889999888999020202666 77779090909011118888 888 8888999999999992221898989 888889////000989898898888888888888888888888789898989699989998888888888888888888888844498989897979797899993339888888888899977799999998999969998888889898989895555888888888888888888888888888887777858585857888899996668989898888888888885888888666688878888878787888888888666688868888888888888888866668888888888686868688884444888555588888888888888866668888888888888888888484877788488888888888884488448887877788444889522154999988888856998859989899894889 4 885968858989899899889388222885589898994899008 88489898888855 556SY (3)NM (5)SY (3)BL (3)SL (2)CH (3)SP (4)NP (4)CF (7)CV (3)GL (2)LL (3)MT (3)LL (2)KF (13)GL (2)LL (3)LL (3)KF (6)GL (17)CV (12)TY (4)GL (2)LL (3)TY (6)KF (9)GL (2)LL (3)KF (6)TY (4)GL (2)LL (3)KF (7)KF (6)TY (4)LL (2)GL (2)LL (3)AJ (6)PD (6)SE (11)DB (1)KF (8)GL (6)KF (10)SE (11)PD (5)SL (2)SL (2)DB (3)AJ (8)CH (3)ARTIFICIAL PET TURFGL (2)CV (3)GL (2)CV (3)GL (2)NS (43)CV (3)CV (3)CV (3)GL (2)GL (2)GL (2)GL (2)MT (3)NS (16)NS (12)AJ (5)MJ (2)AJ (5)MJ (2)GL (2)GL (2)GL (2)AJ (5)AJ (5)MJ (4)AF (33)PD (34)PD (26)AJ (8)PD (5)NS (6)DB (6)NS (27)SJ (12)SJ (12)AF (27)RS (14)NS (15)DB (6)PD (5)GL (15)CV (8)AF (17)DB (4)GL (2)GL (2)GL (7)CH (1)CH (2)GL (4)NP (3)LP (8)CF (7)NP (7)NV (3)QA (3)LP (2)NR (4)LP (3)NV (5)SP (5)SODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSODSOD4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCHRD (13)RD (13)RS (3)GL (2)RS (20)WL (34)AF (6)WL (34)AF (6)GL (2)GL (2)GL (2)RS (3)RS (20)AF (13)KF (13)AF (8)GL (2)GL (2)AF (8)KF (10)GL (2)AF (3)LL (4)LL (4)GL (2)GL (2)LL (5)WL (6)WL (6)LL (11)MJ (4)CV (4)MJ (7)CV (4)MJ (4)4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGING4" MULCH & EDGINGSODSY (5)BL (3)NO TREES PROVIDED DUE TOUNDERGROUND PARKINGORNAMENTAL TREES PROVIDED DUE TOADJACENT UNDERGROUND PARKINGNO TREES PROVIDED DUE TOADJACENT UNDERGROUND PARKINGNO TREES PROVIDED DUE TOADJACENT UNDERGROUND PARKINGSODSODSODI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.SIGNATURE:____________________JOSEPH L. SCHEFFLERPROJECT NUMBERPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE08-19-2022REVIEWDate:License #:PLAN-TypeSITE PLANNING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREMinneapolis, MN info@plan-type.com5559708-19-2022DRAWN BYPROJECT MANAGERLOUIEJ + LFROST AVEAPARTMENTS1136 FROST AVE,MAPLEWOOD, MNXXXXISSUE LOGLANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTSxONE (1) OVERSTORY TREE PER PARKING LOT ISLANDxBUILDING PERIMETER LANDSCAPINGxBOULEVARD TREES AT REGULAR INTERVALSBETWEEN SIDEWALK AND ROAD (MIN. WIDTH 5')NOTES:xOBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR PLANTING IN ALL R.O.W. AND VERIFY ALL UTILITIES WHICHMAY EFFECT THEIR WORK.xCOMPLETE WORK PER OWNERS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COORDINATE WORK WITH OTHERSON SITE.xALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE GUARANTEED ONE (1) FULL YEAR FROM THE COMPLETION ANDACCEPTANCE BY OWNER, WITH ONE TIME REPLACEMENT AT APPROPRIATE TIMExREPLACEMENT TOPSOIL (WHEN REQUIRED) SHOULD BE CLEAN, FREE OF DEBRIS, ROCKS ANDWEEDS.xVERIFY TOPSOIL DEPTH AND NOTIFY OWNER OF ANY DEFICIENCY.xSOD TO BE A KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS SEED VARIETY. NO GUARANTEE ON SOD EXCEPT SOD THAT ISNOT ACCEPTABLE AT TIME OF COMPLETION. STAKE SOD ON SLOPES 3:1 AND GREATER.xWHERE EXISTING HARDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO BE REPLACED WITH LANDSCAPING, PROVISIONSSHOULD BE TAKEN TO COORDINATE EXCAVATION OF SUBSOIL TO A DEPTH OF 6" WITH GRADINGCONTRACTOR. REPLACE WITH COMPACTED TOPSOIL. ALL AREAS TO BE LANDSCAPED AND SODDEDSHALL BE GRADED SMOOTH AND EVEN.xSOD ALL AREAS WHICH ARE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING ALL R.O.W. AND ADJACENTPROPERTIES.xPROVIDE BLANKET ON ALL SEEDED AREAS THAT ARE SLOPED. MULCH APPLICATION FOR ALL OTHERSEEDED AREAS SHALL BE HYDROMULCH OR DISCED STRAW DEPENDING ON SEED TYPE.xINSTALL BLACK VINYL EDGING AROUND ALL PLANTING BEDS AS SHOWN ON PLAN.xMULCH TO BE FINELY SHREDDED, UNDYED, HARDWOOD ORGANIC MULCH INSTALLED TO 4" DEPTH.xxNO WEED FABRIC BARRIER BENEATH ORGANIC MULCHES.xxNO EDGING AROUND TREES OUTSIDE OF SHRUB BEDS.xROCK MULCH SHALL BE 1-1/2" DIAMETER WASHED RIVER ROCK INSTALLED TO 3" DEPTH WITHAPPROVED WEED FABRIC BARRIER.xINSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM PER IRRIGATION PLAN. IRRIGATION DESIGN SHOULD ENCOMPASSALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITH SOD AND PLANTINGS. R.O.W. TO BE IRRIGATED FROM SPRINKLERHEADS LOCATED WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARY. MINIMIZE OVER SPRAY.xxCOORDINATE INSTALLATION OF ALL PVC SLEEVES UNDER DRIVE AREAS WITH GENERALCONTRACTOR.xCLEAN ALL PAVEMENT AREAS AFTER ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE AND ACCEPTED BYOWNER, DAILY CLEANING TO BE COMPLETED IF REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.SCARIFY & SPREADROOT MASSOVER-EXCAVATE 6"SUBGRADEREMOVE DEAD &BROKEN BRANCHESEXCAVATE ROOT FLARE,PLACE AT FINISHGRADE4" DEPTH MULCHFINISH GRADEPROTECT MAIN LEADER,REMOVE DEAD &BROKEN BRANCHESSTAKE & GUY AS NEEDED4" DEPTH MULCH, DONOT PLACE WITHIN 2"OF TRUNKEXCAVATE ROOT FLARE,PLACE AT FINISHGRADECUT & REMOVE ALLTWINE, BURLAP & WIREBASKET, PLACE ONUNDISTURBED SOILSUBGRADEWRAP TREE, FALLINSTALLATION ONLYFINISH GRADESOD - --- SYEDGING - --- LFMULCH - --- CYDECIDUOUS TREESCH2.5" CAL. B&B 50'H x 50'WCOMMON HACKBERRYCeltis occidentalisNM2.5" CAL. B&B 50'H x 35'WNORTHWOOD MAPLEAcer rubrum 'Northwood'SL2.5" CAL. B&B 50'H x 30'WSKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTGleditsia tricanthos var. inermis 'Skycole'QA2" CAL. B&B 40'H x 20'WQUAKING ASPENPopulus temuloidesLANDSCAPE PLANT LEGENDORNAMENTAL TREESDB1.5" CAL. B&B 30'H x 8'WDAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCHBetula platyphylla 'Fargo'EVERGREEN TREESNPB&B 50'H x 30'WNORWAY PINEPinus resinosaSPB&B 40'H x 30'WSCOTCH PINEPinus sylvestrisCFB&B 30'H x 15'WCONCOLOR FIRAbies concolorMTB&B 10'H x 6'WMUGO TANNENBAUMPinus mugo 'Tannenbaum'SJB&B15'H x 4'WSPARTAN JUNIPERJuniperus chinensis 'Spartan'6' HT6' HT6' HT36" HT4' HTBL2.5" CAL. B&B 50'H x 25'WBOULEVARD LINDENTilia americana 'Boulevard'SY2.5" CAL. B&B 60'H x 45'WEXCLAMATION! SYCAMOREPlatanus x acerifolia 'Morton Circle'NRB&B 20'H x 20'WNORTHERN REDBUDCercis canadensis2" CAL.9651161242114914624LPB&B 25'H x 10'WLIMBER NORTHERN BLUE PINEPinus flexillis 'Northern Blue'6' HT13SHRUBSNV#5 CONT. POT 20'H x 10'W8NANNYBERRY VIBURNUMViburnum lentago-- SY-- SYMN STATE SEED MIX 34-262 WET PRAIRIE (OR APPROVEDEQUAL).MN STATE SEED MIX 35-221 - DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL (ORAPPROVED ALTERNATE).SPRING SEEDING TO BE BETWEEN MARCH 15TH - MAY 15TH.FALL SEEDING TO BE BETWEEN AUGUST 15TH - OCTOBER 15TH.xNO SUMMER SEEDING ALLOWED.xPROVIDE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON ALL SIDE SLOPESAJPOT 6'H x 4'W42AMBER JUBILEE NINEBARKPhysocarpus opulifolius 'Jefam'MJPOT 5'H x 6'W23MANEY JUNIPERJuniperus chinensis 'Maneyi'AFPOT5'H x 4'W121ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOODCornus stolonifera 'Farrow'TYPOT 3'H x 4'W18TAUNTON YEWTaxus x media 'Tauntonii'GLPOT 2'H x 8'W105GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMACRhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'SEPOT 1.5'H x 2'W22AUTUMN FIRESedum x 'Autumn Fire'KF#1 CONT. POT 4'H x 3'W95KARL FORESTER FEATHER REED GRASSCalamagrotis x acutiflora 'Karl Forester'NS#1 CONT. POT 4'H x 2.5'W119NORTHWIND SWITCH GRASSPanicum virgatum 'Northwind'ORNAMENTAL GRASSESPERENNIALS#2 CONT.#2 CONT.#2 CONT.#2 CONT.#2 CONT.#1 CONT.LLPOT5'H x 5'W48LITTLE LIME HYDRANGEAHydrangea paniculata 'Jane'#3 CONT.RSPOT 4'H x 3'W60RUSSIAN SAGESalvia yangii#1 CONT.PD#1 CONT. POT 3'H x 3'W81PRAIRIE DROPSEEDSporobolus heterolepisCVPOT 6'H x 6'W46COMPACT AMERICAN VIBURNUMViburnum trilobum 'Bailey Compact'#2 CONT.LANDSCAPEPLANL100RDPOT 1.5'H x 2'W26RUBY STELLA DAYLILYHemerocallis 'Ruby Stella'WLPOT 2.5'H x 2.5'W80WALKER'S LOW CATMINTNepeta faassenii 'Walkers Low'#1 CONT.#1 CONT.G1, Attachment 10 PC Packet Page Number 35 of 54 FROST AVE. E.PHALEN PLACEFENTON AVENUE////////EMTRTRTRTTHHHTSSSS|||||||||||||||||||895895900900900890895 900905885890895900890895890895895113.10 (P)393.10(P)393.15(P)393.14(P)N00°17'40"W 394.97S89°32'53"W 260.05N00°19'12"W 395.03N00°19'12"W 395.05N00°19'58"W 279.62N89°39'10"E 130.00N00°20'45"W 115.22S89°32'53"W 260.05N89°31'58"E 129.94N89°31'58"E 259.880.6%900905899901902903904906907908895895900905896896897897898898899899901902903904906900900898899899899901902903900900 898898899899896897898899895891891892893894896897898899895892892893893894894895 896897898 899 896897898899886887888888888890887888889891892890895889891892893894896897898885885890895884884886886887887887887887888889891892893894896897898885885885884884884886886886886887887887887888888-8.1%-2.0%MA 895.55±MA 895.50±C 896.23C 896.23C 896.32C 896.32892893894895895894894 896896897898GENXFMRHHHT01: 23" BLUESPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T02: 12"BLACK LOCUST(SIGNIFICANT)T03: 16"SIBERIAN ELMT04: 14"SIBERIAN ELMT05: 15"SIBERIAN ELMT06: 16"SIBERIAN ELMT07: 12"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T08: 13"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T09: 11"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T10: 13"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T11: 15" BLUESPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T12: 13"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T13: 18"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T14: 14"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T15: 19"WHITE SPRUCE(SIGNIFICANT)T16: 16"SIBERIAN ELMT18: 12"SIBERIAN ELMT17: 23"SIBERIAN ELMT20: 13"SIBERIAN ELMT19: 13"SIBERIAN ELMT21: 13"SIBERIAN ELMT22: 12"SIBERIAN ELMT23: 12"SIBERIAN ELMI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.SIGNATURE:____________________JOSEPH L. SCHEFFLERPROJECT NUMBERPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE08-19-2022REVIEWDate:License #:PLAN-TypeSITE PLANNING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREMinneapolis, MN info@plan-type.com5559708-19-2022DRAWN BYPROJECT MANAGERLOUIEJ + LFROST AVEAPARTMENTS1136 FROST AVE,MAPLEWOOD, MNXXXXISSUE LOGTREEPRESERVATIONPLANL300TREE REMOVAL CALCULATIONSIF 20 PERCENT OR MORE TOTAL SIGNIFICANT AND SPECIMENTREE DIAMETER INCHES ARE REMOVED, APPLICANT SHALLMITIGATE ALL SIGNIFICANT AND SPECIMEN DIAMETER INCHESUSING THE TREE MITIGATION/REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE INACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING FORMULAS:A = TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES LOST AS ARESULT OF THE LAND ALTERATION (INCLUDES SIGNIFICANTAND SPECIMEN TREES)B = TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SITUATEDON THE PROPERTY (INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT AND SPECIMENTREES)C = TREE REPLACEMENT CONSTANT (1.5)D = TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OF SPECIMEN TREES SAVED *E = REPLACEMENT TREES (NUMBER OF CALIPER INCHES)[((A/B -0.2) X C) X A] - [D/2] = E[((163/163 -0.2) X 1.5) X 163] - [0/2] = 196"TOTAL REMOVED TREES (DIAMETER) = 163"TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED = 196"TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES PROVIDED = 253.5"DEFINITIONSSIGNIFICANT TREE MEANS A HEALTHY TREE MEASURING AMINIMUM OF SIX INCHES IN DIAMETER FOR HARDWOODDECIDUOUS TREES, EIGHT INCHES IN DIAMETER FOR CONIFERTREES, 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER FOR SOFTWOOD DECIDUOUSTREES, AND SPECIMEN TREE. BUCKTHORN OR OTHER NOXIOUSWOODY PLANTS OR TREES AS DETERMINED BY THE EEDDDIRECTOR ARE NOT CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT TREE SPECIESAT ANY DIAMETER.SPECIMEN TREE MEANS A TREE OF ANY SPECIES THAT IS 28INCHES IN DIAMETER OR GREATER, EXCEPT INVASIVE SPECIES.SPECIMEN TREES MUST HAVE A LIFE EXPECTANCY OF GREATERTHAN TEN YEARS, HAVE A RELATIVELY SOUND AND SOLID TRUNKWITH NO EXTENSIVE DECAY OR HOLLOW, AND HAVE NO MAJORINSECTS, PATHOLOGICAL PROBLEM, OR DEFECTS. SPECIMENTREES ARE VALUED FOR THEIR SIZE AND THEIR LEGACY.NOTE***ALL TREES ONSITE TO BE REMOVED******SIBERIAN ELMS WERE NOT COUNTED TOWARDSREPLACEMENT DUE TO BEING INVASIVE***23" CAL. SIGNIFICANTBLUE SPRUCEPicea pungensEXISTING TREE LEGENDSIZECATAGORYSPECIESID#T01STATUSSIGNIFICANTBLACK LOCUSTT02SIBERIAN ELMT03INSIGNIFICANTT04INSIGNIFICANTT05T06SIGNIFICANTT07SIGNIFICANTT08SIGNIFICANTT09REMOVESIGNIFICANTT10SIGNIFICANTT11SIGNIFICANTT12SIGNIFICANTT13SIGNIFICANTT14SIGNIFICANTT15REMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVE 0" CAL.0" CAL.12" CAL.0" CAL.0" CAL.12" CAL.23" CAL.REMOVEDCAL. INCHESREMOVAL TOTAL: 163" CAL.REMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVET16T17T18INSIGNIFICANTT19INSIGNIFICANTT20T21T22T23REMOVEREMOVE0" CAL.REMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVE12" CAL.16" CAL.14" CAL.15" CAL.16" CAL.12" CAL.13" CAL.11" CAL.15" CAL.13" CAL.18" CAL.13" CAL.14" CAL.19" CAL.16" CAL.23" CAL.12" CAL.13" CAL.13" CAL.13" CAL.12" CAL.12" CAL.SIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMSIBERIAN ELMWHITE SPRUCEWHITE SPRUCEWHITE SPRUCEWHITE SPRUCEWHITE SPRUCEWHITE SPRUCEWHITE SPRUCEWHITE SPRUCEBLUE SPRUCEINSIGNIFICANTINSIGNIFICANTINSIGNIFICANTINSIGNIFICANTINSIGNIFICANTINSIGNIFICANTINSIGNIFICANTINSIGNIFICANT13" CAL.11" CAL.13" CAL.15" CAL.13" CAL.18" CAL.14" CAL.19" CAL.0" CAL.0" CAL.0" CAL.0" CAL.0" CAL.0" CAL.0" CAL.Robinia pseudoacaciaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaUlmus pumilaPicea glaucaPicea glaucaPicea glaucaPicea glaucaPicea glaucaPicea glaucaPicea glaucaPicea glaucaPicea pungensG1, Attachment 11 PC Packet Page Number 36 of 54 &KHFNHG%\ 5HYLVLRQV 'DWH &RPPHQWV'DWH [7KHVHGUDZLQJVDUHIRUFRQFHSWXDOXVHRQO\DQGDUHQRWLQWHQGHGIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQ)L[WXUHUXQVDQGTXDQWLWLHVVKRXOGEHYHULILHGSULRUWRRUGHU9DOXHVUHSUHVHQWHGDUHDQDSSUR[LPDWLRQJHQHUDWHGIURPPDQXIDFWXUHUVSKRWRPHWULFLQKRXVHRULQGHSHQGHQWODEWHVWVZLWKGDWDVXSSOLHGE\ODPSPDQXIDFWXUHUV0DSOHZRRG$SWV/6 'UDZQ%\ -RH)UH\6DOHV$JHQW 6WHYH+DKQ6FDOH 6FDOH LQFK )W5HQWDEOH$UHD/HJHQG678',2%5%5'%5%5$/&29(%,.($0(1,7<),71(660(3&,5&8/$7,21322/6725$*(3$5.,1*683325775$6+)5267$9(18(($673+$/(13/$&(1257+9$&$7('+$/)2))8785()5$1.675((71257+52$'(;3$16,213/$7('5,*+72):$<)25)8785()(1721$9(18(52$'(;3$16,2167250:$7(50$1$*0(17*$=(%23/$7('52:72%(9$&$7('3/$7('$//(<9$&$7(' 6)%56)%5 6)&,5&8/$7,216)%56)%5'6)%56)%56)$0(1,7<6)%56)%56)%5'6)%56)%56)$/&29( 6)%5'6)%56)%56)%5 6)%56)%5685)$&(/2767$//6322/3$7,23,&./(%$//&2857 6)%5 6)%56)$/&29(6)6725$*(6)0(36)68332576)%56)$/&29( 6)%5'6)$0(1,7<23(172%(/2:6)%56)%56)%5/.56/,1(2)*$5$*(%(/2:6)75$6+ 3523(57</,1(6(7%$&./,1( /2%%</($6,1*'2*3$5.6)$/&29(6)$0(1,7<'$6+('/,1(6,1',&$73522)2)3$5.,1*)25)8785(/27,)1(('('8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+$)*8'0+$)*/0+$)*/)70+$)*/)70+$)*/)70+$)*/)70+$)*8'0+$)*8'0+$)*8'0+$)*8'0+$)*8'0+$)*8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+$)*8'0+$)*8'0+$)*8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+8'0+/0+ 0+ /%%0+ /%%0+ /0+ /0+ /0+ //0+ /)7 0+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ '10+ 0+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '1'10+ 0+ '1'10+ '10+ 0+ '1'10+ 0+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ '10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ '1'10+ 0+ '10+ 8'0+ 8'0+ 8'0+ 8''10+ 0+ '150+ /XPLQDLUH6FKHGXOH6\PERO4W\/DEHO$UUDQJHPHQW/XP/XPHQV//)'HVFULSWLRQ/XP:DWWV7RWDO:DWWV8'*52831$ %/$'(&B.8'1$'16LQJOH %/$'(&B.56LQJOH /$'/('/:)7556)+$=/)7 # GHJUHHV 6/0/('/6,/)7&5,/)76LQJOH 6/0/('/6,/)7&5,/%%%DFN%DFN 6/0/('/6,/&5,/6LQJOH 6/0/('/6,/&5, 0D[0LQ$YJ0LQ0D[0LQ%XLOGLQJ(GJH,OOXPLQDQFH)F 'RJ3DUN,OOXPLQDQFH)F3DUNLQJ$UHDB3ODQDU,OOXPLQDQFH)F 3RRO3LFNOH3DWLRB3ODQDU&DOFXODWLRQ6XPPDU\/DEHO&DOF7\SH8QLWV$YJ,OOXPLQDQFH)F'ULYH,OOXPLQDQFH)FG1, Attachment 12 PC Packet Page Number 37 of 54 FROST AVE. E.PHALEN PLACE PORTION OF EDWARD STREET TO BE VACATEDFENTON AVENUEFRANK STREET VACATED ALLEY VACATED ALLEY PORTION OF FENTONAVENUE TO BE VACATEDPORTION OF FRANK STREET AVENUE TO BE VACATED S00°17'40"E 424.96S89°31'58"W 289.8630.00N00°19'12"WS89°31'58"W 189.94N00°19'58"W 279.62 S89°39'10"W130.00N00°20'45"W 115.22 N89°32'53"E 610.11DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROPERTYCommitment Number: NCS-1055437-MPLS:Lots 1 to 13, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh andDawson's Addition to Gladstone, and thatportion of the vacated alley which accrued tosaid lots by reason of the vacation thereof,according to the recorded plat on file in theoffice of the Register of Deeds within and forRamsey County, Minnesota. Abstract PropertyCommitment Number: NCS-1077071-MPLS:Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1,Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition toGladstone, together with the vacated alley insaid Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota.Abstract PropertySurvey Notes1. Bearings are based on the Ramsey CountyCoordinate System.2. This survey is based on the legal descriptionas provided by the Client3. This Surveyor has not abstracted the landshown hereon for easements, rights of wayor restrictions of record which may affectthe title or use of the land4. Do not reconstruct property lines frombuilding ties5. Proposed parcel to be a contiguous join ofNCS-1055437-MPLS andNCS-1077071-MPLS6. Proposed use of parcel to be an ApartmentBuilding with amenitiesLot DivisionExhibitProposed Legal DescriptionsLots 1 to 10, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Additionto Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alley and vacatedEdward StreetLots 11 to 13, inclusive, Block 2, Kavanagh and Dawson's Additionto Gladstone, and that portion of the vacated alleyLots 1 through 20, inclusive, in Block 1, Kavanagh and Dawson'sAddition to Gladstone, together with the vacated alley, and thatpart of vacated Frank Street North and Fenton Avenue which lieseast of the most westerly extent and south of the most northerlyextend of said Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota.G1, Attachment 13PC Packet Page Number 38 of 54 &RS\ULJKW'-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF$(;7(5,255(1'(5,1*60DSOHZRRG010$3/(:22'$3$570(176 )5267$9(/22.,1*($67G1, Attachment 14 PC Packet Page Number 39 of 54 &RS\ULJKW'-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF$(;7(5,255(1'(5,1*60DSOHZRRG010$3/(:22'$3$570(176 )5267$9(/22.,1*:(67G1, Attachment 14 PC Packet Page Number 40 of 54 &RS\ULJKW'-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF$0$7(5,$/%2$5'0DSOHZRRG010$3/(:22'$3$570(176 G1, Attachment 14 PC Packet Page Number 41 of 54 3523(57</,1(3523(57</,1(/(9(/ /(9(/ 72)227,1* /(9(/3 /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)75866%($5,1* /(9(/ 72522)6+($7+,1* 723$5$3(7 /5(6,'(17,$//5(6,'(17,$//5(6,'(17,$//5(6,'(17,$/33$5.,1*352326('6725<$3$570(17%8,/',1*29(53$57,$//<(;326('81'(5*5281'3$5.,1*/5(6,'(17,$//5(6,'(17,$//5(6,'(17,$//5(6,'(17,$/72&251(53$5$3(7 /5(6,'(17,$/&RS\ULJKW'-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF$6,7( %8,/',1*6(&7,2160DSOHZRRG010$3/(:22'$3$570(176 (DVW:HVW6LWH6HFWLRQ (QWLWOHPHQWV %XLOGLQJ6HFWLRQ G1, Attachment 14 PC Packet Page Number 42 of 54 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Frost Avenue Apartments 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East PROJECT NO: 22-25 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Assistant City Engineer DAT E: 9-12-2022 PLAN SET: Civil plans dated August 2022 REPORTS: None The applicant is seeking city approval to develop a new five-story, 150-unit multi -family housing building and associated site amenities at 1136/1160 Frost Avenue . The applicant is requesting a review of the current design. The amount of disturbance on this site is greater than ½ acre . As such, the applicant is required to meet the City’s stormwater quality, rate control, and other stormwater management requirements. The applicant is proposing to meet these requirements via the use of filtration basins. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents and calculations for final review. The following are engineering review comments on the design and act as conditions prior to issuing permits. Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)A large portion of the parking lot and entrance drive are sloped towards the vicinity of the underground parking garage entrance. The grading plan shall be modified to ensure overflow from these areas is not routed into the parking garage entrance area. An emergency overflow shall be provided in this area, at least 1-foot below the highpoint between the garage entry drive and the parking lot. The applicant shall work with the City on the intent of this requirement. 2)A stormwater management plan shall be submitted, including hydraulic calculations, to depict how the project is meeting the City and Watershed District’s stormwater management standards. 3)The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) for review. All conditions of RWMWD shall be met. G1, Attachment 15 PC Packet Page Number 43 of 54 4)A joint storm water maintenance agreement shall be prepared and signed by the owner for the proposed filtration basin, infiltration basins, pretreatment devices, and underground detention system. The Owner shall submit a signed copy of the joint storm- water maintenance agreement with the RWMWD to the City. 5)The lowest floor elevation (LFE) of the proposed building shall be set at least 2-feet above the 100-year high water elevation of the proposed filtration basins. Likewise, the LFE shall be set at least 1-foot above the designated emergency overflow elevation. 6)An emergency overflow for the filtration basins shall be identified on the plans. This overflow shall be properly stabilized to prevent erosion during an overflow event. 7)Pre-treatment of stormwater before discharge into filtration basins is required. A minimum 3-foot deep sump or similar pre-treatment shall be installed on MH-1 and CBMH-1 to provide pre-treatment and sediment removal upstream of the proposed filtration basins. Grading and Erosion Control 8)All slopes shall be 3H:1V or flatter. 9)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on all existing and proposed onsite storm sewer until all exposed soils onsite are stabilized. This includes storm sewer on adjacent streets that could potentially receive construction related sediment or debris. 10)A double row of heavy-duty silt fencing is required long the south-eastern and eastern property line to prevent sediment from leaving the site into the adjacent Gladstone Savanna infiltration basins. 11)Adjacent streets and parking areas shall be swept as needed to keep the pavement clear of sediment and construction debris. 12)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 13)The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 14)A copy of the project SWPPP and NDPES Permit shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 15)The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. A SAC determination is required. G1, Attachment 15 PC Packet Page Number 44 of 54 16)All modifications to the water system shall be reviewed by Saint Paul regional Water Services. All requirements of SPRWS shall be met. 17)All new sanitary sewer service piping shall be schedule 40 PVC or SDR35. Other 18) The existing paver crosswalk on Frost Avenue, proposed for relocation as a part of this project, includes a significant structure beneath the surface. This consists of a concrete trough, drainage ports, geotextile fabric, and a free-draining sand bedding material for the pavers to sit on. This structure shall be restored to its original construction in the proposed location. The City will provide record drawings to aid in the reconstruction of this item. 19)The enhanced crosswalk signs shall be reinstalled in the location of the proposed paver crossing location. 20)The replacement of the paver cross-walk will require a detour of Frost Avenue. The applicant shall provide a detour plan for all work within Frost Avenue. This work shall be coordinated to minimize the length of the required detour. 21)All work within Frost Avenue right-of-way shall be restored per the City’s right-of-way ordinance. Unique features like paver edgers and plantings within the modified median areas shall be restored in like-kind. Pavement replacement shall be full lane width. Smaller patches of the pavement are not allowed. 22)The existing sidewalk along Frost Avenue shall be protected throughout construction. Damaged portions of the sidewalk shall be replaced with the same materials and at the same thicknesses as are existing. 23)The applicant shall provide a sidewalk easement along Frost Avenue for those portions of the sidewalk lying outside of the public right-of-way. 24)The applicant shall provide a drainage and utility easement over the entirety of the portion of the Frank Street right-of-way proposed for vacation. 25)The applicant shall provide a self-renewing letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 125% of the proposed site improvements including earthwork, grading, erosion control, site vegetation establishment (sod, seed, etc.), aggregate base, and paving. Public Works Permits The following permits are required by the Maplewood Public Works Department for this project. The applicant should verify the need for other City permits with the Building Department. G1, Attachment 15 PC Packet Page Number 45 of 54 26)Right-of -way permit 27)Grading and erosion control permit 28)Storm Sewer Permit 29)Sanitary Sewer Permit -END COMMENTS - G1, Attachment 15 PC Packet Page Number 46 of 54 1 Environmental Review Project: Frost Avenue Apartments Date of Plans: August 19, 2022 Date of Review: September 12, 2022 Location: 1136 Frost Avenue Reviewers: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304 , shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us Background: Reuter Walton Development is proposing a new five-story, 150-unit market-rate development over below-grade parking on the properties located at 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East. The project redevelops the Maplewood Marine site and an adjacent vacant lot. The site is located within the City’s Gladstone Area Redevelopment Neighborhood and is adjacent the Gladstone Savanna and Gladstone Park. There are significant trees on the site. The project must comply with the landscape and tree replacement guidelines specified in the Gladstone Redevelopment plan, tree preservation ordinance, and overall City landscape policies. Gladstone Area Redevelopment Neighborhood The Gladstone Area Redevelopment Plan details overall redevelopment guiding principles, implementation initiatives, and key factors for shaping redevelopment of the Maplewood Marina and adjacent vacant lots. Items pertaining to the environmental review include: •Creation of design principals and policies that create green building and sustainable design. •Weave natural systems and ecological function into the built and recreational fabric. •Design that fosters connections between Gladstone and Flicek Parks. •Incorporation of the Green Street concept on the east side of the site. •Development should take advantage of views of the Savanna and should present a high quality design. •25 percent of vehicle use area should be covered by tree canopy when trees are 2/3 ma ture size. •For each 100 square feet of pavement, 5 square feet of interior landscaping should be provided. G1, Attachment 16 PC Packet Page Number 47 of 54 2 Tree Preservation Ordinance: Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. A specimen tree is any tree that is 28 inches in diameter or larger. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed during redevelopment of the site to be replaced based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree removed versus overall significant trees situated on the property. The ordinance encourages the preservation of specimen trees. Tree Removal: The tree inventory plan shows 12 significant trees on the site, equaling 163 caliper inches. Redevelopment of the site will result in the removal of all 12 significant trees. Tree Replacement: The tree preservation ordinance requires the replacement of 196 caliper inches (98 – 2 caliper inch trees). Tree Replacement: The landscape plan shows 154 new trees (ranging in size from 1.5 to 2.5 caliper inches) planted on the site, for a total of 163 caliper inches of replacement trees. It appears the project meets the City’s tree preservation ordinance requirements for replacement trees, but the applicant should submit a revised landscape plan showing additional details as outlined below. Environmental Review Recommendations: 1.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must submit a revised landscape plan showing the following details: a.The location and species of all existing boulevard trees and how any new trees will be incorporated into that boulevard tree planting. Note, there are existing City trees located in the Frost Avenue boulevard. The landscape plan shows new trees planted in the boulevard. b.Detailed landscape plan for the infiltration basin, including a list of species, container size, spacing, and quantities to be approved by City staff. Note, large infiltration basins will ideally be planted with deep- rooted native plants. The City requires a portion of the basin to be planted rather than seeded. Using plants rather than seeds hastens establishment and provides a better chance of successful establishment. Basin bottoms and lower elevations almost never establish successfully from seed since the seed is washed away when stormwater flows into the basin. c. Native seed mix maintenance plan with information on maintenance for planting year and years two and three, addressing what maintenance activities will be required and what entity (developer, owner, etc.) will take on this responsibility. d.Details on the removal and replacement of landscaping in the Frost Avenue median due to impacts from construction within the right-of-way. G1, Attachment 16 PC Packet Page Number 48 of 54 3 e.Landscape details for the surface parking lot which reflects tree canopy coverage and interior landscaping meet the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan requirements (5 percent of vehicle use area should be covered by tree canopy when trees are 2/3 mature size and for each 100 square feet of pavement, 5 square feet of interior landscaping should be provided). f.How the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan Green Street concept can be incorporated into the east side of the site. The Green Street concept includes a wide sidewalk and extensive landscaping to provide a green appearance. At a minimum, the plan should show additional landscaping and how the development could be connected to the Gladstone Savanna and Gladstone Park with interconnecting trails. 2.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must: a. Submit building plans that meet the City’s Green Building Code if City financing supports the project. The applicant should also consider other green elements including designing the building to be solar ready and the underground and surface parking lot to be EV charging station ready. b.Submit plans for trash and recycling storage/enclosure that meet City code requirements. 3.Prior to certificate of occupancy, the applicant must: a. Make arrangements with the City for recycling service through the City’s contracted residential recycling program. G1, Attachment 16 PC Packet Page Number 49 of 54 DRAFT MINUTES MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, September 20, 2022 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East E.NEW BUSINESS 1.Design Review, Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the Design Review, Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East and answered questions from the Board. Ari Parritz, Reuter Walton, addressed the Board and answered questions. Scott England, DJR Architecture, addressed the Board and answered questions. Kim Schmidt, 1800 Phalen Place, spoke against the proposed project. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve a resolution for a design review for a Multifamily Residential Project, at 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East as proposed by staff, with friendly amendments underlined and in bold, below: 1.Obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for this project. 2.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 3.All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 4.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the engineering review authored by Jon Jarosch, dated September 12, 2022. 5.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the environmental review authored by Shann Finwall, dated September 12, 2022. 6.The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 7.Rooftop vents and equipment shall be located out of view from all sides of the property. 8.Any identification or monument signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city’s sign ordinance. Identification or monument signs shall be designed to be consistent with the project’s building materials and colors. 9.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the following items: a.The applicant shall provide the city with a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. G1, Attachment 17 PC Packet Page Number 50 of 54 b.A revised site plan with the dog park setback at least 50 feet from the south property line and the gazebo setback at least 50 feet from the west property line. c.Revised floor plans showing all alcove – studio – units meeting the minimum floor area size of 580 square feet and that all units in the building have a minimum of 120 cubic feet of storage space. d.A revised photometric plan that meets city code requirements. 10.The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a.Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b.Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c.Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d.Install all required outdoor lighting. e.Install all required sidewalks and trails. 11.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 public health, safety or welfare. b.The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 12.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 13.Move the trail to the opposite side of the drainage pond. 14.Enhance the vegetative break between the west side of the project and the residential properties. 15.Limit the amount of storage on the first-level patios. Seconded by Chairperson Kempe Ayes – Kempe, Lamers Nays – Oszman, Shankar The motion failed. G1, Attachment 17 PC Packet Page Number 51 of 54 Boardmember Shankar moved to approve a resolution for a design review for a Multifamily Residential Project, at 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East with the recommendation that the project density is reduced so all parking spaces can be underground. Seconded by Boardmember Oszman Ayes – All The motion passed. G1, Attachment 17 PC Packet Page Number 52 of 54 DRAFT MINUTES MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. Tuesday, September 20, 2022 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East E.PUBLIC HEARING 1.Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East a.Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution b.Conditional Use Permit Resolution Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East, and answered questions from the Commission. Ari Parritz, Reuter Walton, addressed the commission and answered questions. Scott England, DJR Architecture, addressed the commission and answered questions. Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing. The following individuals addressed the commission regarding the project: 1.Nicole Peterson, 1828 Walter Street 2.Kathryn Johnson, 1835 Phalen Place North 3.Raymond Bangert, 1890 Phalen Place North 4.Matt Schlager, 1872 Phalen Place North 5.Patrick Vaughan, 1856 Phalen Place North 6.Cheryl Lyn Sandbakken, 1907 Phalen Place North 7.Barbara Vaughan, 1856 Phalen Place North 8.Daniel Kuechenmeister, 1857 Phalen Place North 9.Amara Kuechenmeister, 1857 Phalen Place North 10.Kim Schmidt, 1800 Phalen Place North 11.John Wegleitner, 1082 Fenton Avenue East 12.Ted Anderson, 1871 Phalen Place North 13.Heidi Wilson, 1805 Phalen Place North 14.Kevin Schmidt, 1800 Phalen Place North 15.Melissa Burgess, 1862 Phalen Place North 16.Doug Jacobson, 1833 Adele Street North; Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing. Ari Parritz, Reuter Walton, spoke to address the questions and concerns raised by the public. Commissioner Dahm moved to table the item to the October 18, 2022 meeting, and directed the applicant to hold another neighborhood meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Yang Ayes – All The motion passed. G1, Attachment 18 PC Packet Page Number 53 of 54 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PC Packet Page Number 54 of 54