The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023 02-21 CDRB Meeting PacketMeeting is also available on Comcast Ch. 16 and streaming vod.maplewoodmn.gov AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, February 21, 2023 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 15, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Design Review, Assisted Living and Memory Care Project, 1910 County Road C East 2. 2022 Community Design Review Board Annual Report 3. Election of Officers (No Report) F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None G. BOARD PRESENTATIONS H. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None I. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS – 3 minute time limit per person J. ADJOURNMENT THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK November 15, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, November 15, 2022 City Hall, Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East A.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Board was held and called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chairperson Kempe B.ROLL CALL Bill Kempe, Chairperson Present Jason Lamers, Boardmember Absent Amanda Reinert, Boardmember Present Ananth Shankar, Boardmember Present Tom Oszman, Boardmember Present Staff Present: Elizabeth Hammond, Planner C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda item E2 was moved to be heard before item E1. Chairperson Kempe moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Boardmember Oszman Ayes – All The motion passed. D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.September 20, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the September 20, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Chairperson Kempe Ayes – All The motion passed. E.NEW BUSINESS Agenda item E2 was heard before item E1. 1.Design Review, Residential Apartment Project, 3090 Southlawn Drive Elizabeth Hammond, Planner, presented the Design Review, Residential Apartment Project, 3090 Southlawn Drive and answered questions from the Board. Patrick Brama, Enclave Development, addressed the Board and answered questions. D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 1 of 47 November 15, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 Boardmember Oszman moved to approve a resolution for design review for a residential apartment project at 3090 Southlawn Drive. Chairperson Kempe made the friendly amendment that the applicant remove two parking stalls from the interior courtyard and replace with greenspace in the area. Seconded by Boardmember Reinert Ayes – Kempe, Reinert, Oszman Nayes - Shankar The motion passed. 2. Comprehensive Sign Plan, Cassia Senior Housing Facility, 1438 County Road C East Elizabeth Hammond, Planner, presented the Comprehensive Sign Plan, Cassia Senior Housing Facility, 1438 County Road C East and answered questions from the Board. Chairperson Kempe moved to approve the comprehensive sign plan for Cassia Senior Housing Facility, at 1438 County Road C East, subject to certain conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall submit sign permit applications for the monument signs to be reviewed by the city before installation. 2. This approval allows a monument sign not to exceed 6 feet in height and 32 square feet in size, to be located 10 feet from the property line along County Road C. This sign identifies the main entrance, includes the facility logo, and can be internally illuminated. 3. This approval allows for a monument sign not to exceed 6 feet in height and 6 square feet in size, to be located 10 feet from the property line along County Road C. This sign identifies the west entrance for resident parking and deliveries and cannot be illuminated. 4. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping surrounding the base of both signs. 5. Any changes to the approved plan requires review by the community design review board. Staff may approve minor changes. Boardmember Shankar made the friendly amendment that the applicant submits a plan for the landscaping around the base of the sign to staff for approval prior to installation. Seconded by Boardmember Oszman Ayes – All The motion passed. 3. Design Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Birch Run Station, 1715 Beam Avenue East Elizabeth Hammond, Planner, presented the Design Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Birch Run Station, 1715 Beam Avenue East and answered questions from the Board. Grant Eggan, Kimley-Horn, addressed the board and answered questions. Dan Noyes, Blumentals/Architecture, addressed the board and answered questions. Chairperson Kempe moved to approve a resolution for design review and a comprehensive sign plan amendment for project plans date-stamped November 1, 2022, for the improvements at 1715 Beam Avenue East. D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 2 of 47 November 15, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 Seconded by Boardmember Shankar Ayes – All The motion passed. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None G.BOARD PRESENTATIONS None H.STAFF PRESENTATIONS None I. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None J.ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Kempe moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Seconded by Boardmember Oszman Ayes – All The motion passed. D1 CDRB Packet Page Number 3 of 47 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CDRB Packet Page Number 4 of 47 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Meeting Date February 21, 2023 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: Design Review, Assisted Living and Memory Care Project, 1910 County Road C East Action Requested:  Motion ☐ Discussion  Public Hearing Form of Action:  Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐ Contract/Agreement ☐ Proclamation Policy Issue: Galahad Development, LLC proposes constructing a 61,148-square-foot two-story assisted living and memory care building on the vacant land at 1910 County Road C East. The timing of the proposed development is to start in spring 2023 and have a construction timeline of 12 to 18 months. To move forward with this project, the applicant requests city council approval for a conditional use permit, wetland buffer setback variance, and design review. Recommended Action: Motion to approve a resolution for design review for a two-story assisted living and memory care facility to be constructed on the vacant land at 1910 County Road C East. 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 January 4, 2023. The initial 60-day review deadline for a decision is March 5, 2023. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days, if necessary, to complete the review. Background: The proposed building will consist of 72 total units – 46 assisted living and 26 memory care. A shared parking lot is proposed to be constructed for the new building and the Minnesota Women’s Care, which is directly to the east and is anticipating a future addition to be constructed. The owner E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 5 of 47 of Minnesota Women’s Care is also the current owner of the vacant property for which this project is being proposed. The applicant held a virtual neighborhood meeting on December 20, 2022. The 35 property owners within 500 feet of the project site received an invitation directly from the developer. In addition to the project team, four residents attended this meeting. A summary of this meeting, as submitted by the developer, is included in the attachments of this report. Conditional Use Permit The 2040 Comprehensive Plan currently guides this site as Mixed-Use – Neighborhood, which allows up to 31 units per acre. Meaning up to 116 units of housing could be built on this site. The zoning of this site is Business Commercial which allows multifamily housing projects with the approval of a conditional use permit. The city’s zoning ordinance outlines nine standards that must be met for the city council to approve a conditional use permit. These standards are outlined in the attached resolution. Wetland Buffer Setback Variance Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed and approved the wetland delineation report submitted by the applicant for this project. Wetland 1, as noted on the delineation, is located on the south side of the property and includes a creek. City ordinances require a 75-foot minimum, and a 100-foot average wetland buffer is maintained around a creek. Grading that will prepare the site for this project will encroach into the creek buffer requiring a 100-foot wetland buffer setback variance approval from the city. Buffer disturbance is required to reroute the stormwater system with a new discharge into the creek and remove the old system. The applicant proposes to re- establish the creek buffer with native seed and increase the buffer area on the southwest side of the building to maintain the 75-foot wetland buffer averaging in all other areas of the buffer. Design Review Site Plan The project site has approximately 60 feet of frontage on County Road C East which will provide the main access to the site. This access point also provides access to the car wash located at 2635 White Bear Avenue. In 2021, the car wash was purchased by a new operator, and the building and site underwent renovations. This included reversing the circulation of how cars enter the site and car wash building. This has caused concern among neighbors about cars queuing and potentially affecting County Road C East. Ramsey County reviewed this proposed project and did not have any stated concerns or requirements. It is the responsibility of the property owners of this proposed project and the car wash to manage the access drive that serves both properties. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to submit a plan on how it will address queuing issues if they develop. There is a single-family home to the northwest of the proposed project, and the new building must be setback at least 50 feet from the shared property line. All drive lanes and parking lots require a 20 feet setback from a residential property line. These setback requirements are being met. Building and Green Area City ordinance requires multiple-family buildings to dedicate at least 35 percent of the site to green E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 6 of 47 areas and limit the building area to 35 percent of the site. The proposed site plan includes 36 percent of green space, and the building area will comprise 19 percent of the site. Both the building and green area code requirements are being met. Building Elevations The proposed building will be constructed with a combination of cementitious siding, stone and glass. A combination of lap and shingle style siding will contribute to textural variety on the building façade. Staff believes the proposed use of materials and colors is attractive and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 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. The applicant’s floor plans meet this requirement. City ordinance does not have a minimum for memory care units, but the applicant will be required to meet the state’s minimum as part of its license with the State of Minnesota. Parking Waiver and Potential Shared Parking City ordinance 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 144 spaces. This proposed project will have 130 surface parking spaces. The applicant is seeking of parking waiver of 14 spaces and from the covered parking requirement. This proposed assisted living and memory care facility will have approximately 20 full-time employees spread over three shifts. During peak shifts, during the day, there will be approximately 10 to 12 employees in the building. The remaining shifts will have five to six staff members each. The facility will provide transportation, so no residents will be bringing cars. Parking spaces not used by employees will be available to visitors. Based on past projects, the applicant believes this site actually requires 35-40 parking spaces, as it is unlikely there would be more than 20 visitors in the building at any given time. Staff is comfortable with the applicant’s explanation of its parking needs and granting the parking waiver. In addition, the new parking lot is intended to be shared with the medical office building to the east, which anticipates a building addition in the future. When that addition is proposed, the applicant will be required to seek city approval for a shared parking agreement. The new lot is also proposing to connect to the existing parking lots at 2603 and 2607 White Bear Avenue, which would provide this new building access to White Bear Avenue. For this configuration to be constructed the applicant must submit all needed access and parking agreements between the three property owners before any permits are issued. If the three owners cannot come to an agreement, then the new lot must maintain at least a five-foot setback from the east property line with no access being allowed to White Bear Avenue. Landscaping and Screening There are 124 large trees on the site. Only 85 of the trees are defined as significant trees covered by the city’s tree ordinance (due to the health of the tree or because they are an invasive species). Two of the significant trees are classified as specimen trees (28 diameter burr oak and 32 diameter white oak). There are 1,271 diameter inches of significant trees on the site. The applicants propose to remove 56 significant trees equaling 907 diameter inches (including one E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 7 of 47 specimen tree). This represents 71 percent of the trees removed on the site. City ordinance requires 685 caliper inches of replacement trees on the site (342 – 2 caliper inches of replacement trees). The landscape plan shows 54 new trees ranging in size from 2 to 4 caliper inches, totaling 172 caliper inches of replacement trees. This is 513 caliper inches less than city ordinance requirement (685 caliper inches of required replacement trees – 172 caliper inches of proposed replacement trees = 513 caliper inches less than city ordinance requirement). Staff recommends the applicant be required to submit a revised landscape plan that identifies 513 caliper inches of additional trees on the site. Alternatively, the applicant can pay into the city’s tree fund. City ordinance requires screening to be installed when light from automobile headlights and other sources is directed into residential windows. Also, city ordinance 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. There is a single-family home to the northwest of the project site, and the applicant’s landscape plan shows the inclusion of 16 arborvitae trees to be planted along the shared property line, both meeting the landscaped and screening requirements. Lighting The applicant submitted a photometric plan as part of its application and all city ordinance requirements are being met. Department Comments Engineering Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated January 11, 2023, attached to this report. Environmental Please see Shann Finwall and Carole Gernes’ environmental report, dated January 11, 2023, 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 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission January 25, 2023: The environmental and natural resources commission reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions found in the staff environment review report. Community Design Review Board February 21, 2023: The community design review board (CDRB) will review this project. Planning Commission February 21, 2023: The planning commission will hold a public hearing and review this project. E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 8 of 47 Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 35 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinion about this proposal. Staff received the following comments. 1. K & H Investment, LLC owns the commercial office building at 2607 White Bear Avenue. K & H Investment partners are The Hesley Group and Kenny Shoquist. • You have requested, through your letter dated December 27th , 2022, to receive feedback from accent properties to prepare your recommendation for the planning commission and City Council. • As perhaps you are aware we have been at our location for the past 36 years. We have seen requests in the past regarding the development of the proposed property before. • The main issue, that currently exists has been consistent with the past, has been the lack of parking spaces and the flow of traffic. This issue has escalated recently with the expansion of Minnesota Women’s Care. • The joint parking agreement we entered into with the Minnesota Women’s Care with the last expansion has not lived up to what was agree too. • Minnesota Women’s Care need for parking exceeded the amount of parking spaces available in our joint parking agreement, as such, our employees and customers were denied parking. • Excess traffic has cause unexpected parking lot maintenance issues, slow to be repair by management; • Use of the designated handicap parking stalls have been abused by the public due to the lack of parking • It’s true, the issue has been relieved recently with the Minnesota Women’s Care expansion of their parking lot west of our property. Currently on the existing vacant land at 1910 County Road C East. • However, we believe the unacceptable parking issue and flow of traffic that exists between Minnesota Women’s Care and Hesley Shoquist CPA office will resurface with this proposed development • We strongly support the traffic access for this development be required through County Road C and not White Bear Avenue. We are all aware of the traffic congestions and excess speed that already exists on White Bear Avenue. The current existing inflow and outflow of traffic to White Bear Avenue under the joint parking agreement with Minnesota Woman’s Care and K & H Investment, LLC on top of the current proposed development will surely exceeded it potential traffic congestion causing traffic delays, potential safety issues to pedestrians and additional wear and tear to the existing parking lot. • Perhaps you are aware of my past and current ownership of much needed senior housing, specifically assisted and memory care for our “ aging in place “ senior population. I believe this proposed development will be needed for the City of Maplewood and will function well at this prosed vacant land site • However, we cannot endorse the proposed development without a detail proposal to address the traffic flow and parking needs this proposed development will create in addition to the already current congested traffic and parking needs of Minnesota Women’s Care and Hesley Shoquist CPA. I would be happy to assist the development team in addressing the traffic and parking needs to work towards a workable solution. (David H. Hesley, 2607 White Bear Avenue) E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 9 of 47 Reference Information Site Description Project Area: 3.76 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Surrounding Land Uses North: Single-family homes and a car wash East: Commercial uses South: Ramsey County open space and commercial uses West: Ramsey County open space and a single-family home Planning Existing Land Use: Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Existing Zoning: Business Commercial Attachments: 1. Conditional Use Permit Wetland Buffer Setback Variance Resolution 2. Design Review Resolution 3. Overview Map 4. 2040 Future Land Use Map 5. Zoning Map 6. Wetlands Map 7. Applicant’s Narratives 8. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 9. Site/Grading Plan 10. Wetland Delineation 11. Storm Sewer Plan 12. Landscape Plan, updated on February 1, 2023 13. Tree Preservation Plan 14. Photometric Plan 15. Building Elevations 16. Engineering Report, dated January 11, 2023 17. Environmental Report, dated January 11, 2023 18. Applicant’s Plans (separate attachment) E1 CDRB Packet Page Number 10 of 47 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Lucas Larson, of Galahad Development, LLC, has requested approval of a conditional use permit to permit a multi-family senior housing building in the Business Commercial zoning district. 1.02 Lucas Larson, of Galahad Development, LLC, has also requested approval for a 100-foot wetland buffer setback variance. 1.03 The property is located at 1910 County Road C East and is legally described as: PIN: 112922220041 – That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 29 North, Range 22 West , Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 170.00 feet to the west line of the East 170.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds East along said west line 225.00 feet to the south line of the North 225.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along said south line 170.00 feet to the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds East along said east line 429.00 feet to the south line of the North 654.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said south line 396.50 feet to the west line of the East 396.50 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds West along said west line 321.00 feet to the south line of the North 333.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along said south line 166.50 feet to the west line of the East 230.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds West along said west line 333.00 feet to said north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along said north line 60.00 feet to the point of beginning. Abstract Property Section 2. Standards. 2.01 City Ordinance Section 4 4-512 (1) of the Business Commercial zoning district requirements states that a conditional use permit may be granted for “all permitted uses in the R3 district.” E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 11 of 47 2.02 City Ordinance Section 18-221 (d) (1) requires a minimum buffer width of 100 feet from Manage A Wetlands and Streams where no building, grading, or mowing is permitted. 2.03 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. 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. 2.04 Wetland Buffer Variance Standards. City Ordinance Section 18-221 (h) (1) provides procedures for granting a variance to the wetland ordinance requirements and refers to the state statute where a variance may be granted when: (1) the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance; (2) when the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. Practical difficulties mean: (1) The proposed use is reasonable; (2) the need for a variance is caused by circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; (3) the proposal will not alter the essential character of the locality. Section 3. Findings. 3.01 The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards. 3.02 The proposal meets the specific procedures for granting a variance to the wetland ordinance requirements for the following reasons. E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 12 of 47 1.Wetland buffer mitigation will improve the existing buffer with native plants and seed. 2.The existing conditions on this property are unique and not caused by the property owner. 3.The proposed building would complement the surrounding buildings without altering the essential character of the area. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering this conditional use permit request. 1. On February 21, 2023, 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 deny this resolution. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council _______ this resolution. 2. On March 13, 2023, 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: 1.All construction shall follow the approved plans, date-stamped January 4, 2023. 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 14 parking spaces is approved. If a parking shortage develops, the city council may require additional parking spaces to be constructed. 5.For the new parking lot to connect to the existing parking lots located on the properties at 2603 and 2607 White Bear Avenue, the applicant shall provide copies of cross-access and parking agreements with all affected, adjacent parcels before the issuance of any permits. If agreements are not in place, the applicant must maintain a five-foot setback between the new parking lot and the shared property lines to the east. 6.Before any permits are issued, the applicant must submit a plan to city staff showing how the potential queuing of cars onto County Road C East due to the E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 13 of 47 shared drive used by the proposed senior housing use and the adjacent car wash will be mitigated. 7.This permit allows 72 senior housing units consisting of assisted living and memory care units. Minor changes to this unit count may be approved by staff. 8.The conversion of this building to independent senior housing or multifamily housing is not approved. The applicant must seek city council approval to revise the uses approved with this permit. 9.Storage of refuse containers should be accommodated inside the buildings. However, outdoor storage can be provided if adequately screened both architecturally and with landscaping. The location should minimize visibility from the street and neighboring buildings. No refuse storage is allowed in front of the building, adjacent to the street. 10.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the engineering review authored by Jon Jarosch, dated January 11, 2023. 11.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the environmental review authored by Shann Finwall and Carole Gernes dated January 11, 2023. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on March 13, 2023. E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 14 of 47 DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Lucas Larson, of Galahad Development, LLC, has requested approval of a design review for a multi-family senior housing building 1.02 The property is located at 1910 County Road C East and is legally described as: PIN: 112922220041 – That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 29 North, Range 22 West , Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 170.00 feet to the west line of the East 170.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds East along said west line 225.00 feet to the south line of the North 225.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along said south line 170.00 feet to the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds East along said east line 429.00 feet to the south line of the North 654.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence West along said south line 396.50 feet to the west line of the East 396.50 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds West along said west line 321.00 feet to the south line of the North 333.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along said south line 166.50 feet to the west line of the East 230.00 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds West along said west line 333.00 feet to said north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence East along said north line 60.00 feet to the point of beginning. Abstract Property 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. E1, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page Number 15 of 47 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 January 4, 2023. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 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 January 11, 2023. 5.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the environmental review authored by Shann Finwall and Carole Gernes dated January 11, 2023. 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 the single-family homes to the north and northwest of the 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.Before 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.For the new parking lot to connect to the existing parking lots located on the properties at 2603 and 2607 White Bear Avenue, the applicant shall provide copies of cross-access and parking agreements with all affected, adjacent parcels. If agreements are not in place, the applicant must maintain a five-foot setback between the new parking lot and the shared property lines to the east. E1, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page Number 16 of 47 c.The applicant must submit a plan to city staff showing how the potential queuing of cars onto County Road C East due to the shared drive used by the proposed senior housing use and the adjacent car wash will be mitigated. 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. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on March 13, 2023. E1, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page Number 17 of 47 1910 County Road C East - Overview Map City of Maplewood December 7, 2022 Legend !I 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Subject Property E1, Attachment 3 CDRB Packet Page Number 18 of 47 1910 County Road C East - Future Land Use Map City of Maplewood December 7, 2022 Legend !IFuture Land Use - 2040 Low Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Public/Institutional Open Space Subject Property 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 4 CDRB Packet Page Number 19 of 47 1910 County Road C East - Zoning Map City of Maplewood December 7, 2022 Legend !IZoning Single Dwelling (r1) Multiple Dwelling (r3) Planned Unit Development (pud) Farm (f) Limited Business Commercial (lbc) Business Commercial (bc) Subject Property 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 5 CDRB Packet Page Number 20 of 47 1910 County Road C East - Wetlands Map City of Maplewood December 7, 2022 Legend !IWetlands Manage B Manage C Storm Water Pond Subject Property 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 6 CDRB Packet Page Number 21 of 47 7803 Glenroy Road, Suite 300 | Bloomington, MN 55439 | 952.288.2000 | Fax: 952.288.2001 | www.DoranCompanies.com Galahad Development is proposing to develop ±2.99 acres located at County Road C and White Bear Avenue to the south of the existing Title Wave Auto Spa. The current site is vacant with the exception of trees and underlying vegetation, much of which is invasive and will be removed as a part of the project. The developer is proposing to construct a 61,148 sq. ft two story assisted living and memory care community. The building will consist of 72 total units, 46 assisted living and 26 memory care. Of the 46 assisted living units, 23 will be one bedroom, and 23 will be two bedroom units. Generous common spaces will include dining for assisted living and memory care, a club room, salon, activity room, and outdoor living spaces for both memory care and assisted living. A total of 130 stalls of surface parking will be provided, with 5 stalls being accessible. These stalls will be shared with the adjacent property owner who is anticipating a future addition to be constructed to the east of the parking area. The stalls provided will be sufficient to satisfy staff turnover at shift change and guest parking. The assisted living/memory care community will have ~20 total FTEs spread over 3 shifts. During peak shift (breakfast to dinner) there will be 10- 12 employees in the building. The remaining shifts will have 5-6 staff members each. The assisted living/memory care community will provide transportation, so none of the residents will bring cars. The stalls that are not used by employees will be available to visitors. It is very unlikely there would be 20+ visitors in the building at one time. The assisted living/memory care community will have access from both County Road C and White Bear Avenue. Landscaping will be done in accordance with the City of Maplewood Standards using a combination of trees, shrubs, and grasses planted around the perimeter of the building and throughout the overall site. Wall pack lighting will be placed on the proposed building at all entrances. Any additional lighting shall be downcast and in accordance with City of Maplewood Standards. The exterior of the building will be a combination of cementitious siding, stone, and glass. Cementitious siding will provide long term durability with minimal required maintenance. A combination of lap and shingle style siding will contribute to textural variety on the building façade. The design of the building is intended to recall contextual agrarian architecture, with simple forms, materials and colors. This look will function well for this demographic, since many future residents either grew up in rural areas or have a sentimentalized memory of this look and feel. The timing of the proposed development is to start in Spring 2023 and have a construction timeline of 12 to 18 months. E1, Attachment 7 CDRB Packet Page Number 22 of 47 6120 Earle Brown Drive, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55430 763-843-0420 3507 Ringsby Court, Suite 105, Denver, CO 80216 720-515-9807 www.bkbm.com WETLAND BUFFER VARIANCE REQUEST Michael Martin City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Caretta Assisted Living & Memory Care BKBM Project No. 21435.50 Dear Michael: The developer (Galahad Development) of the Caretta Assisted Living and Memory Care project is requesting a variance to the minimum buffer requirements as outlined in Section 18-221(h) “Wetland and Streams – Variances”. The project is proposing to disturb a portion of the existing Wetland #1 buffer (located on the south side of the site) for the proposed rerouting of an existing storm sewer pipe that runs through the center of the property. There are currently three wetlands surrounding the proposed development. Wetland 1 (Manage B) is located to the south of the development, Wetland 2 (Manage C) is located to the west of the development, and Wetland 3 (Manage C) is located to the north of the development (see attached drawing C7.0). Please note that no impacts to the Wetland 2 buffer are being proposed. In addition, Wetland 3 was approved as an incidental wetland per Permit #22-11 WCA Notice of Decision 09/16/2022. This variance request is specifically regarding the proposed disturbance of the Wetland 1 buffer. Section 18-221 requires a no-disturb buffer of 75’ on average with a minimum buffer of 50’ for Manage B wetlands. As shown on the attached wetland impact drawing, a portion of the existing buffer for Wetland 1 will be impacted for proposed utility work. The attached storm sewer exhibit shows the location of the existing storm sewer pipe that is routed through the center of the property. This pipe receives stormwater runoff from County Road C and directs that runoff to the existing creek south of the development. Because of the existing storm sewer’s location on the site, the development cannot reasonably avoid the existing storm sewer line. As such, the project is proposing to reroute the existing sewer line around the east side of the proposed building and to provide a new discharge location into the creek, east of the current flared end section outlet. Because of the proposed storm sewer rerouting, the project would require disturbance of the existing wetland buffer. Buffer disturbance would be necessary on the southwest side of the site E1, Attachment 7 CDRB Packet Page Number 23 of 47 Page 2 for the contractor to access and remove the existing flared end section outlet and bulkhead the existing pipe. Buffer disturbance would also be required for the installation of the new storm sewer on the southeast side of the site between STRM 100 to STRM 101. To mitigate the proposed buffer disturbance, the developer is proposing the following mitigation strategies as outlined in section 18-221(e)(4). a) The design team has worked on multiple site layouts to position the proposed building and parking areas such that they avoid wetland buffer areas. b) As outlined on the attached landscape plan (Sheet L2.1), the disturbed areas within the wetland buffer will be restored with native vegetation. c) The design team, contractor, and developer will work with the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and City of Maplewood to limit the site disturbance for the proposed utility installation. Please note that there is also a creek buffer required for the existing creek south of the project area. Section 18-221 allows for buffer averaging. The creek/stream average buffer width must be 100’ with a minimum creek buffer width of 75’. While the proposed building and south walkways will encroach into a portion of the existing creek/stream buffer, the minimum buffer width of 75’ will be maintained and the average buffer requirement of 100’ will be met by expanding the buffer width on the west side of the project (see attached sheet C7.0). Because buffer averaging is allowed under Section 18-221(d)(5) of the city code, it is our understanding that no variance for the creek buffer will be required. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions. Sincerely, BKBM Engineers Kevin A. Bohl, P.E. Associate Principal 763-843-0427 F:\21\21435\correspondence\governing agencies\review comments\watershed district\variance request memo.docx E1, Attachment 7 CDRB Packet Page Number 24 of 47 1 Michael A. Martin From:Lucas Larson <lucas@galahaddevelopment.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 21, 2022 12:03 PM To:Michael A. Martin Cc:Jeremy VanMinsel; Steve Johnson; John Ferrier Subject:Caretta Assisted Living Maplewood Follow Up External message alert: This message originated from outside the City of Maplewood email system. Use caution when clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments. Michael, Here is the attendance from our neighborhood meeting last night: Carol Guzzo, Rick and Gail Johnson, Arlene Frokjer, Jeremy VanMinsel (Doran), Steve Johnson (Doran). The meeting started at 7pm and ended at about 8:10pm. There were two primary concerns regarding our proposal. One had to do with access from County Rd C. The second had to do with screening between Carol’s property and our project. Regarding access from County Rd C, they expressed frustration about the car wash, the new fire station down the road, and the current condition of the road itself. I discussed with them that the lot we are purchasing is currently zoned commercial and that our use is a relatively low traffic use. I also brought up our alternative access point to White Bear Avenue (WBA) which should help alleviate traffic from the north. I told them there isn’t much we can do to ensure WBA is used as the primary access, but that I would look into the existing easement with the car wash to see if there is anything we can do to help with access from County Rd C. I have already asked my attorneys to review. Regarding screening between our project and carol’s property, I told them that we would provide coniferous trees along her lot line as a sound and visual barrier and that we will do our best to retain large specimens tree and replant as many new trees and shrubs as possible. After the meeting I followed up with them showing our landscape plan with trees lining Carol’s property line. I have not gotten a response back. They also inquired generally about why Maplewood needs more senior housing and I told them the findings of our independent market study, which shows hundreds more AL/MC units will be needed in Maplewood (over and above the new Cassia project down the road) in the coming years due to the aging population. My perception was that we all left the meeting on good terms. Agreeing to look into the access easement and provide screening along Carol’s lot line seemed to alleviate their concerns. I have also been in email contact with Ronda Wintheiser, but she didn’t want to attend the meeting. As an alternative, I extended the opportunity to meet with her individually and she ignored the offer. She initially thought that I was working in partnership with the city and that the intent of our project was an effort to expand the light rail/transit system. I told her I have no relationship with the City outside of trying to get our project developed. She is generally not a fan of congregate assisted living, like our project, despite the growing need for it and thinks more needs to be done to expand intergenerational living (which I also agree with.) Carol asked for contact info for who we are dealing with at the city, county, and watershed. I wanted to provide an overview of our meeting so you can better field inquiries. I intend to keep the neighbors in the loop as we progress with the project. Lucas E1, Attachment 8 CDRB Packet Page Number 25 of 47 cccccccccccccccccPLOT DATE:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of MinnesotaKEVIN A. BOHLREG #NPAWH11/23/2221435.50CARETTAASSISTED LIVING& MEMORY CAREMAPLEWOOD, MNDate:___XX/XX/22_____ISSUE RECORDNo. Description DateCITY /WATERSHEDREVIEW SET11/23/202252209GRADING,DRAINAGE, ANDEROSION CONTROLPLANC2.0E1, Attachment 9 CDRB Packet Page Number 26 of 47 NO BUILDINGS ON SITEcccccccccccccccccPLOT DATE:I hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under thelaws of the State of MinnesotaKEVIN A. BOHLREG #NPAWH12/21/2221435.50CARETTAASSISTED LIVING& MEMORY CAREMAPLEWOOD, MNDate:___XX/XX/22_____ISSUE RECORDNo. Description DateCITY /WATERSHEDREVIEW SET11/23/202252209WETLANDDELINEATIONC7.0E1, Attachment 10 CDRB Packet Page Number 27 of 47 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c E1, Attachment 11 CDRB Packet Page Number 28 of 47 E1, Attachment 12 CDRB Packet Page Number 29 of 47 E1, Attachment 13 CDRB Packet Page Number 30 of 47 E1, Attachment 14 CDRB Packet Page Number 31 of 47 $0&$5(77$$66,67('/,9,1* 0(025<&$5(0$3/(:22'01'9,(:$E1, Attachment 15 CDRB Packet Page Number 32 of 47 / / 75866%($5,1* $63+$/76+,1*/(6&(0(17,7,2866+,1*/(6&(0(17,7,286/$36,',1*&8/785('6721('(&25$7,9(:22'%5$&.(7663$1'5(/*/$66$7*$%/(67<3 0,'32,172)522) $/80,1806725()52176<67(0$63+$/76+,1*/(6&(0(17,7,286/$36,',1*&8/785('6721(&(0(17,7,2866+,1*/(6$1'%$77(160$1'2253$,17(' / / 75866%($5,1* $63+$/76+,1*/(6&(0(17,7,2866+,1*/(6$1'%$77(1663$1'5(/*/$66$7*$%/(67<3&(0(17,7,286/$36,',1*&8/785('6721( 0,'32,172)522) $0&$5(77$$66,67('/,9,1* 0(025<&$5(0$3/(:22'01(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$ 1257+(/(9$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21 ($67:,1* :(67(/(9$7,21 E1, Attachment 15 CDRB Packet Page Number 33 of 47 / / 75866%($5,1* $63+$/76+,1*/(6&(0(17,7,286/$36,',1*&8/785('6721(&(0(17,7,2866+,1*/(6$1'%$77(1663$1'5(/*/$66$7*$%/(67<3 / / 75866%($5,1* $63+$/76+,1*/(6&(0(17,7,286/$36,',1*&(0(17,7,2866+,1*/(6:,7+%$77(16&8/785('6721(63$1'5(/*/$66$7*$%/(67<3 0,'32,172)522) 29(5+($''225/ / 75866%($5,1* $63+$/76+,1*/(6&(0(17,7,2866+$.(6:,7+%$77(16&(0(17,7,286/$36,',1*&8/785('6721( 0,'32,172)522) $0&$5(77$$66,67('/,9,1* 0(025<&$5(0$3/(:22'01(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$ :(67:,1* ($67(/(9$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,21E1, Attachment 15 CDRB Packet Page Number 34 of 47 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility 1910 County Road C PROJECT NO: 22-32 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Assistant City Engineer DAT E: 1-11-202 3 PLAN SET: Civil plans dated 11-23-2022 REPORTS: Hydrology Report dated 11-23-2022 The applicant is seeking city approval to develop the vacant parcel at 1910 County Road C into an assisted living and memory care facility. The applicant is requesting a review of the current design. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review. The following are engineering review comments on the design and act as conditions prior to issuing permits. Drainage and Stormwater Management 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 underground filtration systems. The current design meets the City’s stormwater management standards. 1)The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RW MWD) for review. All conditions of RWMWD shall be met. 2)A joint storm water maintenance agreement shall be prepared and signed by the owner for the proposed underground filtration systems and pretreatment devices. The Owner shall submit a signed copy of the joint storm-water maintenance agreement with the RWMWD to the City. 3)An emergency overflow for the filtration systems shall be identified on the plans. This overflow shall be properly stabilized to prevent erosion during an overflow event. The LFE of the building shall be set at least 1-foot above the designated emergency overflow elevation. E1, Attachment 16 CDRB Packet Page Number 35 of 47 Grading and Erosion Control 4)All slopes shall be 3H:1V or flatter. 5)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. 6)A double row of heavy-duty silt fencing is required along the wetland buffer edge to prevent sediment from leaving the site into the adjacent wetlands. 7)Adjacent streets and parking areas shall be swept as needed to keep the pavement clear of sediment and construction debris. 8)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 9) The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 10)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 11)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. 12)All modifications to the water system shall be reviewed by Saint Paul regional Water Services. All requirements of SPRWS shall be met. 13)All new sanitary sewer service piping shall be schedule 40 PVC or SDR35. Other 14)The proposed design includes a parking lot connection to the adjacent properties to the east. The applicant shall provide copies of cross-access agreements with adjacent parcels prior to the issuance of permits. 15)The applicant shall work with the adjacent car-wash parcel to the north to prevent traffic stacking issues on the shared-use drive. 16)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. E1, Attachment 16 CDRB Packet Page Number 36 of 47 Public Works Permits The following permits are required by the Maplewood Public W orks Department for this project. The applicant should verify the need for other City permits with the Building Department. 17)Grading and erosion control permit 18)Storm Sewer Permit 19)Sanitary Sewer Permit -END COMMENTS - E1, Attachment 16 CDRB Packet Page Number 37 of 47 Environmental Review Project: New 72-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Building Date of Plans: November 23, 2022 Date of Review: January 11, 2023 Location: 1910 County Road C Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner 651-249-2304, shann.finwall@maplewoodmn.gov Carole Gernes, Natural Resources Coordinator 651-249-2416, carole.gernes@maplewoodmn.gov Project Background: Galahad Development, LLC proposes constructing a 61,148-square-foot two-story assisted living and memory care community on the vacant land at 1910 County Road C East. The adjacent commercial building located at 2599 White Bear Avenue proposes a future expansion to their building to be located within the vacant land as well. There are significant trees and a creek located on the property and a Manage B wetland adjacent the property. The applicants must comply with the City’s tree, wetland, and solid waste ordinances, and landscape policies. Tree Ordinance 1.Tree Preservation Ordinance: a.Significant Trees: Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a healthy tree of the following size: 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. b.Specimen Trees: A specimen tree is defined as a healthy tree of any species that is 28 inches in diameter or greater. c.Tree Replacement: If greater than 20 percent of significant trees are removed, tree replacement is based on a calculation of significant trees located on the site and significant trees removed. Credits are given for all specimen trees that are preserved. If less than 20 percent of significant trees are removed, tree replacement is based on a calculation of one 2-caliper inch replacement tree per significant tree removed. d.Tree Replacement: The tree standards require that as many replacement trees be planted on the site as possible. An applicant can pay into the City’s tree fund at a rate of $60 per caliper inch for trees that cannot be planted on site. The City uses the tree fund to manage trees in parks and within the right-of -way. 2.Tree Impacts: There are 124 large trees on the site. Only 85 of the trees are defined as significant trees covered by the City’s tree ordinance (due to health of the tree or because they are an invasive species). Two of the significant trees are classified as E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page Number 38 of 47 specimen trees (28 diameter burr oak and 32 diameter white oak). There are 1,271 diameter inches of significant trees on the site. The applicants propose to remove 56 significant trees equaling 907 diameter inches (including one specimen tree). This represents 71 percent of the trees removed on the site. 3.City Code Requirements: City code requires 685 caliper inches of replacement trees on the site (342 – 2 caliper inches of replacement trees). 4.Proposed Tree Replacement: The landscape plan shows 54 new trees ranging in size from 2 to 4 caliper inches, totaling 172 caliper inches of replacement trees. This is 513 caliper inches less than city code requirement (685 caliper inches of required replacement trees – 172 caliper inches of proposed replacement trees = 513 caliper inches less than city code requirement). 5.Tree Recommendations: a.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must submit the following: 1)Revised Tree Preservation Plan: a)Tree Mitigation Requirements Table: Please note the following - 1.Screening trees can be used in the tree replacement requirements; 2.native and drought tolerant shrubs can only be counted for tree replacement if they are part of a raingarden or other stormwater management best practice (shrubs within the wetland buffer or foundation plantings do not count toward that replacement); 3.native seed planted as part of the wetland buffer re- establishment cannot be counted toward tree mitigation; 4.tree mitigation cannot be separated into east and west portion of the parcel, the city will require the full escrow and tree fund payment prior to issuance of the overall grading permit. 2)Revised Landscape Plan: a)Additional Trees: The revised landscape plan must identify 513 caliper inches of additional trees on the site. Alternatively, the applicant can pay into the City’s tree fund (see below). b)Maple Trees: Maplewood’s tree canopy consists of over 20 percent maples. To prevent future diseases from wiping out the same species or genera of trees, Maplewood discourages planting of maples, stands of identical species in a concentrated area or rows. Replace the Sienna Glen Maple, Acer x fremannii ‘Sienna’ with a climate resilient native tree such as hackberry, Celtis occidentalis; hickory, Carya ssp.; American basswood, Tilia americana; Kentucky coffeetree, Gymnocladus dioicus; river birch, Betula nigra; Ironwood, Ostrya virginiana; or a resistant American E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page Number 39 of 47 elm selection, (Ulmus americana) such as Patriot Elm, Prairie Expedition, New Harmony or St. Croix. c) Replace the following non-native or invasive tree species with a native, climate resilient, pollinator-supporting species: 1.Parkland Pillar Birch, Betula platyphylla “Jefpark” – replace with a native climate resilient tree species such as River birch, Betula nigra. 2.Swedish Aspen, Populus tremla ‘Erecta’ – replace with a native or climate resilient species such as Eastern rebud, Cercis Canadensis, American plum, Prunus americana; blue beech, Carpinus caroliniana, American hazelnut, Corylus americana; or nannyberry, Viburnum lentago. d)Tree Maintenance: Quaking Aspen is a clonal species, i.e, it spreads from root suckering. Keep in mind that this will increase maintenance. 3)Escrow: The applicant must submit a tree escrow in the amount of $60 per caliper inch of trees to be replaced on the site. The escrow will be released once the trees are planted with a one-year warranty. 4)Tree Fund: The applicants can pay into the City’s tree fund at a rate of $60 per caliper inch of replacement tree that cannot be planted on site. If no additional trees are planted, the applicant would owe the City’s tree fund $30,790 (685 caliper inches of required tree replacement – 172 caliper inches of trees planted on the site = 513 caliper inches of trees not planted on the site x $60 = $30,7 80). Wetland Ordinance 1.Wetland Ordinance: The City’s wetland ordinance requires buffers around wetlands based on their classifications. No mowing, grading, or building is allowed within the buffer. 2. Required Wetland Buffers: Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed and approved the wetland delineation report. Wetland 1 is located on the south side of the property and includes a creek. City code requires a 75 foot minimum, and 100 foot average wetland buffer be maintained around a creek. Wetland 2 is a Manage C wetland located on the adjacent property to the west. City code requires a 50-foot minimum wetland buffer be maintained around a Manage C wetland. Wetland 3 is located on the north side of the property. The watershed district has approved this wetland as an incidental wetland (manmade wetland). City code does not regulate incidental wetlands. 3.Wetland Buffer Impacts: The applicants propose to fill the incidental wetland (Wetland 3), the required 50-foot wetland buffer will be maintained around the Manage C wetland (Wetland 2), and grading will encroach into the creek buffer (Wetland 1) requiring a 100- foot wetland buffer variance approval from the City. Buffer disturbance is required to E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page Number 40 of 47 reroute the stormwater system with a new discharge into the creek and removal of the old system. The applicants propose to re-establish the creek buffer with native seed and increase the buffer area on the southwest side of the building to maintain the 75-foot wetland buffer averaging in all other areas of the buffer. 4.Wetland Buffer Recommendations: a.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must complete the following: 1)Revised landscape plan as follows: a)Wetland Buffer: Include native seed and or native plugs in all areas of wetland buffer encroachment, including the southwest corner of the lot. The stormwater pipe will be removed in this area. The landscape plan only shows native seed in portions of this disturbed area. b)Native Plugs: Include native plugs to be installed within the 100- foot creek buffer. Currently the landscape plan identifies a native seed mix. Using plugs will increase establishment success, decrease erosion during establishment due to seed washing away during rain events, and decrease weeds. It will lower maintenance costs. Plugs should be installed in a grid, 12 to 24 inches apart, depending on species. c)Native Seeding Installation Method: Topsoil should not be loosened. Seed should be drilled into topsoil. Loosening soil will expose weed seeds and aid in their germination. Fertilizer is not needed and will promote the growth of weeds. d)Wetland Buffer Signs: Identify the location of wetland buffer signs to be installed along the approved creek and Manage C wetland buffer. The signs should be placed every 100 feet at a minimum. The City of Maplewood supplies wetland buffer signs identifying that no building, mowing, or grading should take place within the buffer. There is a $35 fee per sign. 2)Install the wetland buffer signs. 3)Sign a wetland buffer mitigation and maintenance agreement with the City requiring that the applicant establish and maintain the required mitigation within the buffer for a three-year period. The City of Maplewood will draft the maintenance agreement once the wetland buffer mitigation plan is complete. 4)Submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the wetland buffer mitigation. The City will retain the escrow for up to three years as outlined in the maintenance agreement to ensure the wetland buffer mitigation is established and maintained. E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page Number 41 of 47 Landscape Policies Review of the overall landscape plan to ensure nonnative and invasive species are avoided, seed mix is appropriate for use in areas proposed, and plantings are climate resilient. Landscaping Recommendations: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit a revised landscape plan with the following changes: a.Replace Ruby Spice Clethra and Snowbell mock orange with native-pollinator supporting shrubs or monarch supporting perennials. Recommended species include: 1.New Jersey tea, Ceanothus americanus; 2.Blueberry, Vaccinium ssp; 3.Leadplant, Amorpha canescens; 4.Serviceberry Species, Amelanchier ssp; 5.Chokeberry, Aronia melanocarpa; 6.Sand Cherry, Prunus pumila; 7.Ninebark, Physocarpus opulifolius; 8.Meadowsweet, Spirea alba; 9.Butterfly W eed; Asclepias tuberosa; 10.Swamp Red Milkweed, Asclepias incarnate; 11.Meadow Blazingstar, Liatris ligulistylis. b.Lily of the Valley is an invasive plant that is spreading into nature preserves in the Twin Cities Metro Area, including Maplewood. It is extremely difficult to control once established. Because this site is adjacent to water resources and natural areas, replace with native perennial pollinator-supporting plants. Recommended species include: 1.False Lily of the Valley; 2.Jacob’s Ladder; 3.W ild Ginger; 4.W ild Geranium; 5.Blood Root; 6.Downy Yellow Violet; 7.Wild Leek 8.Rue Anemone; 9.False Rue Anemone; 10. Canada Violet; 11.Woodland Phlox 12.Wild Strawberry. More information on these Minnesota native plants can be found at Minnesota Wildflowers (www.minnesotawildflowers.info). Note that all species of plant in Minnesota are listed here, including non-native and invasive species. c.Hostas are non-native and a preferred food of our high population of white-tailed deer. You may want to plant a native alternative or Minnesota native woodland mix. Recommended species include: E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page Number 42 of 47 1.Virginia Bluebells; 2.Wild Ginger; 3. Bloodroot; 4.Early Meadow Rue; 5.Rue Anemone; 6.Jacob’s Ladder 7. Columbine; 8.Jack-in-the-Pulpit; 9.White Trout Lily; 10.Wild Geranium; 11.Virginia Waterleaf; 12.Solomon’s Seal; 13.Blood Root and May Apple, Podophyllum peltatum. d.Replace invasive Miscanthus sinensis with a native alternative. Recommended species include: 1.Yellow Prairie Grass, Sorghastrum nutans; 2.Big Bluestem, Andropogon gerardii; 3.Little Bluestem, Schizachyrium scoparium; 4.Side Oats Gramma, Bouteloua curtipendula; 5.Prairie Dropseed, Sporobolus heterolepis. e.Carl Foster grass is not currently considered invasive but is over planted and provides little wildlife/pollinator habitat. One of the above-mentioned native grasses would also be attractive and provide habitat for pollinators. Solid Waste Ordinance All multi-family properties are included in the City’s recycling program. The City of Maplewood contracts with Tennis Sanitation for multi-family recycling. Tennis Sanitation supplies 95-gallon recycling carts or recycling dumpsters collected weekly. The City of Maplewood adds the recycling fee onto the water bill. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must ensure recycling service is set up through the City’s recycling program. E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page Number 43 of 47 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Meeting Date February 21, 2023 REPORT TO: Bill Kempe, Community Design Review Board REPORT FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: 2022 Community Design Review Board Annual Report Action Requested: ☐ Motion Discussion ☐ Public Hearing Form of Action: ☐Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐ Contract/Agreement ☐ Proclamation Policy Issue: Maplewood City Ordinance requires the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) to: Prepare a report to the City Council each year outlining the board's actions and activities during the preceding year. The report may include recommended changes, including but not limited to ordinances and/or procedures. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the CDRB’s 2022 Annual Report. 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: ☐Financial Sustainability ☐Integrated Communication ☐Targeted Redevelopment Operational Effectiveness ☐Community Inclusiveness ☐Infrastructure & Asset Mgmt. City of Maplewood’s board and commissions annually report the activities of the past year to the City Council. Background At the February 21, 2023, CDRB meeting, staff will present the board’s 2021 Annual Report. Staff will also request that the board take a photo for inclusion in the annual report. The CDRB’s Annual Report is part of the larger Community Development Annual Report that includes the Planning Commission's annual report. In coordination with staff from the Community Development Department, many projects and initiatives the City and the department work on require and rely on feedback and guidance from multiple boards and commissions. E2 CDRB Packet Page Number 44 of 47 Attachments 1. 2022 CDRB Annual Report E2 CDRB Packet Page Number 45 of 47 2022 Community Design Review Board Annual Report 2022 Actions and Activities In 2022 the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) reviewed a wide variety of projects for design approval. In commercial development, the CDRB reviewed multiple projects in the city’s North End neighborhood. Notably, Becker Furniture purchased and rehabbed the former Toys ‘R’ Us building. Birch Run Station received approval for façade and parking lot improvements and that work is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2023. The CDRB approved a new building for Scooter’s Coffee’s second Maplewood location, providing an additional café option along Highway 61. Saint Paul Regional Water received approval and has started work on a significant expansion and upgrade to its McCarrons Water Treatment Plant. This project will work to provide quality drinking water to Maplewood and other east metro communities for decades to come. On the residential side, the CDRB reviewed the design of three projects which will add 463 more units of housing in Maplewood. Late in 2022, a new multifamily building was approved on what is currently the site of the Myth Nightclub. This redevelopment is a major step forward in the city’s effort to implement the North End Vision Plan. The CDRB also reviewed a proposed multifamily project in the Gladstone Neighborhood. While the CDRB did not approve a motion recommending approval, the City Council incorporated many of the CDRB’s comments and suggestions into its approval. Finally, a 72-unit multifamily project was reapproved for a vacant site along Highway 61. The CDRB met eight times and reviewed 16 items in 2022. This is a slight decrease from the previous year but consistent with the number of items being reviewed annually compared to the last several years. The CDRB also approved a number of comprehensive sign plans and 10 projects via the city’s administrative minor construction 15-day review process. Major Projects Reviewed in 2022 • Scooters Coffee, 2228 Maplewood Dive North • Becker Furniture, 1852 County Road D E • McCarrons Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project, 1900 Rice Street North • Maplewood Assisted Living, 1744 County Road D East • Multifamily Residential Project, 1136/1160 Frost Avenue East • Multifamily Residential Project, 2615 Maplewood Drive • Multifamily Residential Project, 3090 Southlawn Drive • Birch Run Station, 1715 Beam Avenue East E2, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 46 of 47 Looking Ahead to 2023 In 2023, the CDRB will continue its design review responsibilities, ensuring high-quality development in Maplewood. In addition, over the next year, the City will be looking at its ordinances surrounding the R-3 – multiple dwelling district and sign requirements. The CDRB will be integral in the updating of these ordinances which will work to ensure Maplewood’s regulations meet the needs of development while also implementing the City’s goals. E2, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page Number 47 of 47