Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024 10-15 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, October 15, 2024 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. July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Design Review and Parking waiver, Multifamily Residential Project, 2615 Maplewood Drive 2. Comprehensive Sign Plan, Saint Paul Rugby Club, 63 Sterling Street North F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None G. BOARD PRESENTATIONS H. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None I. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS – 3 minute time limit per person J. ADJOURNMENT PLEASE NOTE—One Board member will participate in the meeting using interactive technology as allowed under Minn. Stat. §13D.02. The location where the Board member will participate is the Hampton Inn Clemson-University Area, 851 Tiger Blvd, Clemson, SC. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6:00 P.M. Tuesday, July 16, 2024 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 6:00 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Oszman B.ROLL CALL Bill Kempe, Chairperson Absent Tom Oszman, Vice Chairperson Present Jason Lamers, Boardmember Present Amanda Reinert, Boardmember Present Ananth Shankar, Boardmember Absent Staff Present: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director Elizabeth Hammond, Planner C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Boardmember Reinert Ayes – All The motion passed. D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.May 21, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Boardmember Reinert moved to approve the May 21, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers Ayes – All The motion passed. E.NEW BUSINESS 1.Design Review Resolution, Gladstone Village II, 1880 English St N Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director, gave the presentation. Ashley Bisner, JB Vang, addressed the board and answered questions. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve a resolution for design review approving a four-story, 56-unit multifamily apartment project to be constructed at 1880 English Street North. D1 CDRB Packet Page 3 of 55 July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Ashley Bisner, of JB Vang, has requested approval of design review to construct a four- story multifamily building. 1.02 The property is located at 1880 English Street North and is legally described as: PIN: 152922320077. The South 7 feet of Lot 7, and all of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 3, Gladstone, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Section 2. Site and Building Plan Standards and Findings. 2.01 City Ordinance Section 44-512(4) requires a Conditional Use Permit for the exterior storage of goods or materials. 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 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 July 1, 2024. 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 fire marshal and building official requirements must be met. 4. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the engineering review authored by Jon Jarosch, dated July 9, 2024 D1 CDRB Packet Page 4 of 55 July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 5.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the environmental review authored by Shann Finwall, dated July 8, 2024 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 city's mixed-use sign ordinance requirements and 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 photometric plan that meets city code requirements. c.A revised landscaping plan that meets the city’s tree replacement requirements or pay into the city’s tree fund. d.Elevations of the proposed trash enclosure that meet ordinance requirements. 10.The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a.Replace any property irons that were 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 City of Maplewood holds the above-required letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. If the building is occupied in the fall or winter, the owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year or within six weeks of occupancy if it is occupied in the spring or summer. 12.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. D1 CDRB Packet Page 5 of 55 July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 Seconded by Boardmember Reinert Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Design Review Resolution, Hampton Companies, 2694 Maplewood Drive North Elizabeth Hammond, Planner, gave the presentation. Todd Francis, Hampton Companies, addressed the board and answered questions. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve a resolution for design review of an office and warehouse building to be constructed at 2694 Maplewood Drive North, subject to conditions of approval and with the friendly amendment to Section 3, Item 12 to include that “the site’s trash receptacles are not required to be within an enclosure if they are located behind the building and within the fenced-in parking area, accessible by a self-closing locked gate at all times. The gate must be shut when not in use, and the dumpsters cannot be visible from the public right-of-way. If they are located elsewhere on the site, the trash receptacles must be screened and located within an enclosure per code requirements.” DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Hampton Companies LLC has requested approval of design review to construct an office and warehouse building on the property located at 2694 Maplewood Drive North. 1.02 The property located at 2694 Maplewood Drive North is legally described as: That part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 477, which lies Southerly of a line parallel with the South line of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, and 120.55 feet South of the Northwest corner of Lot 6, Kohlmans Lakeview Addition. AND That part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 477, lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 6, Kohlman's Lakeview Addition, thence Southerly along the Westerly line of Lot 6, 120.55 feet to the point of beginning of the line to: be described; thence Westerly parallel to the South line of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, to the Westerly line of Tract C and said line terminating. Tax Parcel Identification: 042922440044 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, D1 CDRB Packet Page 6 of 55 July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 5 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. 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, city engineer, and building official must be met. 4.The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) must review the proposed project. The applicant is responsible for meeting any MnDOT review requirements. 5.Satisfy the requirements in the engineering review authored by Jon Jarosch, dated July 9, 2024. 6.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the environmental review authored by Shann Finwall, dated July 5, 2024 7.The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 8.Rooftop vents and any mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view from all sides of the property and screened as required by city ordinance. 9.This resolution approves the 16-foot-wide drive aisle along the site’s north end, as approved by the city’s Fire Marshal. The drive aisle is approved as long as the door, as shown on the plan, remains on the building's north side for fire access and that the building has a fire sprinkler system installed. 10.This resolution approves the site’s east side employee parking stalls in the fenced-in parking lot to be 9 feet wide. This parking area must be signed for employee parking only. 11.This approval does not include signage. Any signs for the project must meet the city’s ordinance requirements, and the applicant must apply for a sign permit before installation. 12.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. D1 CDRB Packet Page 7 of 55 July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 6 b.Elevation perspectives of the proposed trash enclosure must be submitted to staff for review. The elevations must include all sides of the enclosure and detail the height, materials, and colors. The enclosure must meet ordinance requirements. c.Before a building permit is issued, the applicant must submit additional elevation details on the proposed fence showing the height, materials, colors, and opaqueness. Staff must also approve the final design and materials. d.The applicant must incorporate the requirements outlined in the environmental review and submit an updated tree and landscape plan. 13.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. 14.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. 15.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Boardmember Reinert Ayes – All The motion passed. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None G.BOARD PRESENTATIONS None H.STAFF PRESENTATIONS None I. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None D1 CDRB Packet Page 8 of 55 July 16, 2024 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 7 J.ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Lamers moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m. Seconded by Boardmember Reinert Ayes – All The motion passed. D1 CDRB Packet Page 9 of 55 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CDRB Packet Page 10 of 55 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 15, 2024 REPORT TO: Michael Sable, City Manager REPORT FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Design Review and Parking Waiver Resolution, Multifamily Residential Project, 2615 Maplewood Drive Action Requested:  Motion ☐Discussion ☐ Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐ Contract/Agreement ☐ Proclamation Policy Issue: In September 2020, Matt Frisbie of Frisbie Companies received approval from the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) to construct a new three-story, 72-unit apartment building on vacant land at 2615 Maplewood Drive. This approval was valid for two years and expired in 2022. At the developer’s request, the project received renewed approval from the CDRB in September 2022, extending its validity for another two years. Construction of the building has yet to begin, and the developer has requested the city approve the project for this site again, allowing another two years to start construction. In addition to requesting project renewal, the developer is seeking city council approval of a change to the previously approved site plan to eliminate 16 surface parking spaces on the site's north side and 15 parking spaces within the underground garage. The apartment building is a permitted use on this site. Recommended Action: Motion to approve a resolution for design review and a parking waiver for constructing a 72-unit multi-family housing building at 2615 Maplewood Drive. 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 August 28, 2024. The initial 60-day review deadline for a decision is October 27, 2024. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days, if necessary, to complete the review. E1 CDRB Packet Page 11 of 55 Background: As mentioned, the CDRB reviewed and approved this project twice in 2020 and 2022, but the applicant did not move forward due to construction costs. The city council was not required to review this project in 2020 or 2022 because the proposed use is permitted in the zoning district, and all ordinance requirements were being met. The proposed use is still permitted, but the requested parking waiver requires city council review. The applicant has communicated to staff that if this project is approved, he will finalize the construction financing this winter and be ready to break ground in April 2025. The applicant stated that the project has been re-bid, and he will meet the outstanding requirements to pull a building permit next spring. Parking Waiver The applicant requests one change from this project's previous two approvals in 2020 and 2024. The city’s zoning ordinance states that multi-family buildings must provide two parking spaces for each unit, with one parking space covered. For a 72-unit building, 144 parking spaces are required. The project, as previously proposed, met this requirement. In refining this project's scope, the applicant requests that the city council consider the 31 studio units proposed in the building and reduce their parking requirement from two to one space. The rest of the units within the project would still maintain the two-space per-unit ordinance requirement. The applicant also proposes 16 proof-of-parking spaces to the north of the building the city council can require to be built if parking becomes an issue. The table below breaks down how spaces would be allotted. Number of and Type of Unit Spaces Proposed Per Unit Spaced Allocated 31 Studio Units 1 31 36 One-Bedroom Units 2 72 5 Two-Bedroom Units 2 10 Total Spaces 113 Parking requirements were reviewed as part of the city’s recent zoning ordinance updates, and ultimately, revisions were not considered as part of that process. Staff reviewed the project’s proposed parking with ordinances in peer cities that use bedroom mix as part of their standards, and what the applicant proposes falls in line with those ordinance requirements. Parking requirements within those cities fell between 92 and 115 spaces. The reduction of the 31 parking spaces would result in the reduction of 9,300 square feet of impervious surface to the entire site. Of the 31 parking spaces proposed to be waived, 15 would be from the underground garage, and 16 would be from the surface lot to the north of the building. The project’s original plans included an external concrete raised terrace west of the building’s footprint with 15 parking spaces in the parking garage below it. By reducing underground parking by 15 spaces, the remaining 57 underground spaces fit within the footprint of the building. By reducing the building’s footprint and removing this raised concrete terrace, the applicant proposes a larger buffer to the existing wetland, a more natural grading plan, and more landscaping to tie the project into the natural setting. A small 420-square-foot concrete patio is proposed to be west of the building to provide an area outside for residents to grill and view the natural area to the west. For the 16 proposed waived surface spaces north of the building, the applicant states that the design change will help provide a larger landscape buffer to the existing neighbors to the north, more pervious area, and a rain garden that serves as a visible amenity. E1 CDRB Packet Page 12 of 55 Design Review Site Plan The site will be accessed by three drives coming off Maplewood Drive. A single access point would be north of the building, leading to the underground garage. Two access points provide access to a one-way drive and parking lot south of the building. The proposed apartment building and parking lots are concentrated on the east side of the lot, preserving buildable land on the west side of the lot. The area of land on the west side of the site, which is also west of a wetland, will not be built on as it is needed for residential density calculations. The building and parking lots meet all required setbacks, including the 100-foot building setback required to the north property line. As mentioned in the parking discussion in this report, the applicant is proposing a revised site plan that reduces the amount of impervious surface by 9,300 square feet. The reductions would occur near the surface parking lot to the north of the building and to the courtyard area to the west of the building. The applicant is required to submit a survey – signed by a licensed surveyor – confirming property lines. Building Elevations The three-story building's height is 34’ 8 7/8” feet, which meets city requirements. Its exterior will be comprised of brick, stone, metal panels, and cementitious siding with a flat roof. All rooftop equipment will be required to be screened on all sides. Landscaping and Screening Per the original plans, there are 143 significant trees equaling 1,996 diameter inches of trees on the property. The applicant is removing 35 significant trees equaling 533.5 diameter inches. Because so many trees are being preserved, the tree ordinance does not call out tree replacement for the development. The applicant’s landscape plan includes 25 new trees, for a total of 50.5 caliper inches. In addition to the trees, numerous shrubs and perennials will be planted around the building. Due to the amount of time since the original plans were developed, staff is recommending the applicant be required to submit an updated tree plan which will account for any trees that did not show up on the original plan and will accurately identify healthy and dead trees. City ordinance requires screening to be installed when light from automobile headlights and other sources would be directed into residential windows – in this case along the north property line in the area of the proposed parking lot. The ordinance states that minimum screening shall consist of a barrier at least six feet in height which provides a minimum opaqueness of 80 percent. If vegetation is used it must provide year-round screening, otherwise, a fence or combination of the two may be used. Prior to a building permit being issued, the applicant shall be required to provide a plan showing that the screening requirement is met. Floor Area City ordinance requires a minimum of 580 square feet for both efficiencies and one-bedroom units. The applicant is proposing 31 efficiency units at 580 square feet in size and 36 one-bedroom units ranging from 849 to 907 square feet in size – exceeding the city’s minimum requirement. Two- bedroom units are required to be at least 740 square feet in size. This proposed project’s five two- E1 CDRB Packet Page 13 of 55 bedroom units will be 1,024 to 1,058 square feet in size, again exceeding the city’s minimum requirement. Wetlands and Shoreland There is a Manage B wetland located in the center of the parcel. The city’s wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot minimum and 75-foot average wetland buffer. The wetland ordinance allows flexibility in instances where, because of the unique physical characteristics of a specific parcel of land, the averaging of buffer width for the entire parcel may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the land during a development or construction project. In such cases decreasing the minimum buffer width will be compensated for by increased buffer widths elsewhere in the same parcel to achieve the required average buffer width. This project is meeting the city’s wetland setback requirements. As discussed in this report, the applicant’s proposed site plan revision will increase the setbacks from the parking lot and building to the wetland on site. The Shoreland Overlay District for Kohlman Lake allows for 30 percent impervious surface coverage for an apartment complex. The parcel is 8.96 acres. The impervious surface area, including the building, parking lot, and sidewalks, was originally proposed to cover 1.26 acres. If a parking waiver is granted the amount of impervious surface is reduced to 1.05 acres. Similarly, the overall impervious surface area would be reduced from 14 percent of the parcel to 12 percent – in which both scenarios meet the Shoreland Overlay District requirements. Lighting The applicant’s submitted photometric plan meets all city requirements. Trash Enclosure All trash and recycling containers will be stored within the building. Department Comments Engineering Please see Jon Jarosch's original engineering report, dated September 2, 2020, attached to this report. Before any permits are issued, all civil plans will need to be updated for review and approval by the city engineer. Environmental Please see Shann Finwall's updated environmental report, dated September 10, 2024, attached to this report. Building Official – Randy Johnson The proposed building is required to meet the minimum requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code. Commission Review Community Design Review Board October 15, 2024: The community design review board will review this project. E1 CDRB Packet Page 14 of 55 Photo A Photo B Photo C Citizen Comments Staff sent notices to the 130 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject site regarding this proposed project and parking waiver. Staff also sent notices to this same radius in 2020 and 2022. In 2020, the city received seven responses, which are included in the attachments of this report. In 2022, no responses were received. For the most recent 2024 notice, staff received one comment, which is included below. It should be noted that the comments regarding trees in the response below are being addressed within the environmental review. The dead trees will be required to be removed, and the applicant has indicated that the two maple trees the resident identifies will be preserved. All other tree replacement requirements will be met. •Thank you for the notice of the public meeting on September 17. I will be unable to attend, but I wanted to pass along some information. We are happy to see the reduction in parking spots on the north side. I did see that another change was an addition of a storm water retention area on the north side. I have enclosed photos of two maple trees that were planted by a previous landowner in response to a tree violation. These trees do not appear on the site plans (see page 4 of the 28-page C-100 General Notes). Also see photos a and b. They seem be just to the north of the storm water retention area, but I wanted to point them out since they are still alive and we wish that they could be saved. They are beautiful trees! Also on the site plans there are five large green ash trees that were slated to be saved (numbers 35-39 on page 4.) Also see photo c. These are just to the west of the maple trees in a cluster. I brought up a concern about these four years ago. They are now long dead with large branches falling from them. They should be removed. (Pete Boulay, 1100 County Road C East) E1 CDRB Packet Page 15 of 55 Reference Information Site Description Campus Size: 8.96 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Land Surrounding Land Uses North: Single Family Homes East: Maplewood Drive and Highway 61 South: Town and Country Manufactured Home Park West: Kohlman Park and Town and Country Manufactured Home Park Planning Existing Land Use: Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning: R3 – Multiple Dwelling Attachments: 1.Design Review and Parking Waiver Resolution 2.Overview Map 3.2040 Future Land Use Map 4.Zoning Map 5.Wetland Map 6.Shoreland Overlay Map 7. Applicant's Narrative 8.Original Site Plan 9.Revised Site Plan 10. Proof-of Parking Site Plan 11.Building Elevations 12.Landscape Plan 13.Engineering Report, dated September 2, 2020 14.Environmental Report, dated September 10, 2024 15.Citizen Comments from 2020 16.CDRB Minutes, September 15, 2020 17.CDRB Minutes, September 20, 2022 18. Applicant's Plans (separate attachment) E1 CDRB Packet Page 16 of 55 DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING WAIVER RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Matt Frisbie of Frisbie Companies, has requested approval of design review and a parking waiver to construct a three-story multi-family building. 1.02 The property is located at 2615 Maplewood Drive and is legally described as: PIN: 09-29-22-12 -0014. Real property in the City of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, described as follows: Parcel 1: That part of Lot 8, W.H. Howard's Garden Lots, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying westerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 50 feet westerly of Line A described below. Except the east 455 feet of the west 715 feet of the north 203 feet of said Lot 8.Also except the west 260 feet of said Lot 8. Parcel 2: That part of Lot 7, W.H. Howard's Garden Lots, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying westerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 50 feet westerly of Line A described below. Except that part thereof lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the north line of said Lot 7 distant 200.00 feet east of the northwest comer of said Lot 7 to the southwest comer of said Lot 7. Parcel 3: That part of Lot 6, W.H. Howard's Garden Lots lying westerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 50 feet westerly of Line A described below and that lies northerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at a point on the north and south center line of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West in Ramsey County, Minnesota, 19.7 feet north of the true northwest comer of the South 66 feet of said Lot 6; running thence in a southeasterly direction to a point on the west line of the St. Paul and White Bear Road, 19. 7 feet south of the true northeast comer of said south 66 feet of said Lot 6, W.H. Howard's Garden Lots, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, in and for the County of Ramsey. Line A: Beginning at a point on the north line of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota distant 755.6 feet east of the north quarter comer thereof; thence run southerly at an angle of 90 degrees with said north section line for 540.9 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 20 degree 00 minute curve (delta angle 30 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds) for 154.35 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 125.26 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 20 degree 00 minute curve (delta angle 31 degrees 36 minutes 04 seconds) for 158.01 feet: thence on tangent to said curve for 93.03 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 02 degree 30 minute curve (delta angle 16 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds) for 659.67 feet and there terminating. (Abstract Property). E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page 17 of 55 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 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 August 18, 2020. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1.If the city has not issued a building permit for this project, repeat this review in two years. 2.All fire marshal and building official requirements must be met. 3.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the engineering review authored by Jon Jarosch, September 2, 2020. 4.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the environmental review authored by Shann Finwall, dated September 10, 2024. 5.The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6.Rooftop vents and equipment shall be located out of view from all sides of the property. 7.Any identification or monument signs for the project must meet the city's sign ordinance requirements and be designed to be consistent with the project's building materials and colors. 8.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the following items: E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page 18 of 55 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.Submit to staff a screening plan detailing that all ordinance requirements regarding screening on the north parking lot's north side are met. c.All civil plans must be updated to meet all requirements of the city engineer. d.Revised building elevations showing that all exposed walls of the basement of this building, on all sides, are faced with material and color that matches the material and color shown on the third floor of the building façade. e.A revised site plan showing at least one speed bump in the north and southeast parking lots, approximately halfway in the middle of each parking lot. f.Submit a revised tree plan that preserves the two maple trees near the north property line. g.Submit a survey of the property, signed by a licensed surveyor. 9. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a.Replace any property irons that were 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. 10.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 City of Maplewood holds the above-required letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. If the building is occupied in the fall or winter, the owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year or within six weeks of occupancy if it is occupied in the spring or summer. 11.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 12.A parking waiver of 31 spaces is approved. The applicant shall maintain at least 56 surface and 57 underground parking spaces. If a parking shortage develops, E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page 19 of 55 the city council may require an additional 16 parking spaces as identified by the applicant’s proof-of-parking plan. E1, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page 20 of 55 2615 Maplewood Drive - Overview Map City of Maplewood September 4, 2024 Legend !I 6XEMHFW3URSHUW\ 0 475 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page 21 of 55 2615 Maplewood Drive - Future Land Use Map City of Maplewood September 4, 2024 Legend !IFuture Land Use - 2040 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed-Use - Community Commercial Public/Institutional Open Space Park 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 3 CDRB Packet Page 22 of 55 2615 Maplewood Drive - Zoning Map City of Maplewood September 4, 2024 Legend !IZoning Single Dwelling (r1) Multiple Dwelling (r3) Farm (f) Open Space/Park Light Manufacturing (m1) 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 4 CDRB Packet Page 23 of 55 2615 Maplewood Drive - Wetland Map City of Maplewood September 4, 2024 Legend !IWetlands Manage A Manage B Manage C 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 5 CDRB Packet Page 24 of 55 Maplewood Living Development City of Maplewood August 20, 2020 6KRUHODQG2YHUOD\0DS Legend !I Shoreland Overlay PURMHFW$UHD 0 350 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E1, Attachment 6 CDRB Packet Page 25 of 55 E1, Attachment 7 Partnering in Architecture, Developing, Consulting CDRB Packet Page 26 of 55 Date: 8/5/24 From: Matt Frisbie, Frisbie Companies, LLC and EF Maplewood, LLC Subject: Maplewood Apartment Land – Parking Waiver/Variance We are asking the City of Maplewood staff and leadership to consider a parking waiver/variance for the proposed 72‐unit apartment building located at 2614 Maplewood Drive North in Maplewood, Minnesota in order to create less of an environmental impact on the site and align parking with the building’s unit mix. The following information highlights the reasons for the parking waiver/variance and the proposed parking plan: The current design of the 72‐unit project fits within the zoning, setbacks, height, and all other city and watershed requirements. Specifically for parking, the previously‐approved plan includes 72 underground parking stalls and 72 surface parking stalls for a total of 144 parking stalls. The apartment building’s unit mix includes: •31 studios •36 one‐bedroom units •5 two‐bedroom units The parking needs for studios, which are usually occupied by just one person, are typically just one parking stall per unit. Many residents in the one‐bedroom units will also likely only have one car. So, of the apartment building’s 72 units, 67 of the units are very likely to have a need for just one parking stall. Providing two parking stalls for each of these 67 units is excessive and creates more of an impact to the site. Our request is that, of the 31 studio units, we would ask for the waiver to provide one stall per unit thus reducing the parking count by 31 stalls – 15 underground and 16 surface parking stalls. The reduction of the 31 parking stalls would give back 9,300 s.f. of impervious surface to the site for more of a natural and open setting by reducing the size of both the surface parking lot and the building’s footprint. The building’s footprint for the previously approved plan included an external concrete raised terrace, with 15 parking stalls below it in the parking garage. By reducing underground parking stalls by 15 units, the remaining 57 underground parking stalls fit within the footprint of the three‐story building. By reducing the building’s footprint and removing this raised concrete terrace, we can provide a larger buffer to the existing wetland, more impervious areas, a more natural grading plan, and more landscaping to tie the project in to the natural setting. For the surface parking stalls, we request a reduction of 16 parking stalls on the north side of the proposed building. This design change will help provide a larger landscape buffer to the existing neighbors to the north, provide more impervious area and a greater buffer to the existing wetland, and a more natural grading plan with a rain garden that serves as a visible amenity. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TMULTI-FAMILY HOUSING3 STORY PLUS LOWER LEVEL PARKINGBUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: ±21,291 SFLEVEL 1: 869.65'LEVEL 2: 881.00'24.0'9.5' (TYP.)5.0'(TYP.)8.0'30'-0" BUILDING SETBACK100'-0" SETBACKSTORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREA15'-0" PARKING BUFFER TO BUILDING24.0'(TYP.)22.6'15.0'22.6'45.0°10.6'22.6'10.6'5.0' (TYP.)EXISTINGTREE (TYP.)EXISTING PROPERTYLINE (TYP.)50' WETLAND SETBACKAAAAADEFFGGCCHHEEXISTINGWETLAND15.0'9.5'MAPLEWOOD DRIVE15'-0" BUILDING SETBACKIVIVR5.0'R5.0'R15.0'R15.0'R2.0'R2.0'R4.5'R10.0'R10.0'QRSEXISTING WATEREDGE (TYP.)EXISTINGWETLANDDELINEATION(TYP.)UU75' WETLAND SETBACK"ONE WAYTRAFFIC" SIGNVVVPP11.1'8.0'18.0'TYP.24.0'TYP.18.0'TYP.21.7'15.8'15.0'28.0'6.0'64.4'66.5'68.7'1.5'TYP.16.8'29.9'17.3'23.0'28.4'6.0'"DO NOTENTER" SIGNCAXXXWWWWBUILDING DATA SUMMARYAREASPROPOSED PROPERTY8.96 ACBUILDING AREA21,291 SF (8% OF TOTALPROPERTY AREA)PARKINGREQUIRED PARKING144 SPACES @ 2 PERDWELLINGPROPOSED PARKING144 SPACES: 72 INSIDE AND72 OUTSIDEADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED5 STALLS / 8 STALLSPROPERTY SUMMARYMAPLEWOOD LIVING DEVELOPMENTTOTAL PROPERTY AREA8.96 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)0.00 ACEXISTING PERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)2.52 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)1.26 ACPROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)1.26 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (OFF-SITE)0.23 ACPROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (OFF-SITE)0.13 ACON-STE DISTURBED AREA2.52 ACOFF-SITE DISTURBED AREA0.36 ACTOTAL DISTURBED AREA2.88 ACZONING SUMMARYEXISTING ZONINGR3-BPROPOSED ZONINGR3-BPARKING SETBACKSSIDE/REAR = 15'ROAD = 15'BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT = 100'SIDE = 30'REAR = 30'WETLAND SETBACK50' MINIMUMPROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED FENCESETBACK LINERETAINING WALLPROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKLEGENDThis document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER2020 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\Frisbie Properties, LLC\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C4-SITE PLAN.dwg August 12, 2020 - 10:25pm©BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSITE PLAN NOTES1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONSAND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACTLOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXITPORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDINGUTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.3. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10'UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'.4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.5. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED,REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASEBID.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES,STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALLWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTSAND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALLCOST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.7. SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM ASURVEY BY DEMARC, DATED 05/08/2020.KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OROMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.8. TOTAL LAND AREA IS 5.96 ACRES.9. PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARESHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TOVERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THECONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING ANDELECTRICAL PLAN.11. NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE ANDUNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATEDWITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESSSPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE.12. REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTYBOUNDARY DIMENSIONS.13. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.14. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.15. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9.5' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED.NORTHKEYNOTE LEGENDCONCRETE SIDEWALKEXISTING PIPE BOLLARDMATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTERACCESSIBLE CURB RAMPACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKINGAREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C.STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTLANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANSMILL AND OVERLAY RESTRIPPED AREASHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTB612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)TRANSITION CURBFLAT CURBCOMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRONRETAINING WALLPROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN BY OTHERSCOURTYARD - SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPOSED TRANSFORMERPROPOSED SITE SIGNAGESTOP SIGNRETAINING WALL WITH 4' HIGH DECORATIVE FENCELIGHT POLE (PER SIGN VENDOR PLANS)RIP RAP AT DOWNSPOUTABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXPREPARED FORSITE PLANC400MAPLEWOOD LIVINGDEVELOPMENTEF MAPLEWOODLLCMAPLEWOODMNE1, Attachment 8 CDRB Packet Page 27 of 55 TSMULTI-FAMILY HOUSING3 STORY PLUS LOWER LEVEL PARKINGBUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: ±27,345 SFLEVEL 1: 869.65'LEVEL 2: 881.00'24.0'9.5' (TYP.)5.0' (TYP.)6.0'30'-0" BUILDING SETBACK100'-0" SETBACKSTORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREA15'-0" PARKING BUFFER TO BUILDING24.0' (TYP.)22.6'15.0'22.6'45.0°10.6'22.6'10.6'5.0' (TYP.)EXISTINGTREE (TYP.)EXISTING PROPERTYLINE (TYP.)EXISTING SANITARYSEWER LINE (TYP.)EXISTING SANITARYSEWER LINE (TYP.)CONNECTION @ 855.050' WETLAND SETBACKAAAAADEFFGGCCHHEEXISTINGWETLAND15.0'9.5'MAPLEWOOD DRIVE15'-0" PARKING SETBACKIVIVQSEXISTING WATEREDGE (TYP.)EXISTINGWETLANDDELINEATION(TYP.)UU75' WETLAND SETBACK"ONE WAYTRAFFIC" SIGNVVRPP11.1' 8.0' 18.0' TYP. 24.0' TYP. 18.0' TYP. 22.1'15.0'15.0'23.2'66.6'69.0'1.5'TYP.16.8'29.9'17.3'23.0'22.8'"DO NOT ENTER"SIGNCXXXWWWW20.0'CCYY5.0'6.0'6.0'5.0'6.0'5.0'6.0'5.0'6.0'5.0'ZTYP.ZTYP.ZTYP.10.0'TYP.4.5' TYP.AA13.0'13.0'X5.0'TYP.14.0'30'-0" BUILDING SETBACKBB5.0'5.8'5.0'EXTERIOR STAIR FROM LEVEL 2 TOSIDEWALK. SEE ARCH PLANS.8.4'BBBB24.6'CCCC18.0'20.0' 9.5'8.0'9.5'8.0'8.0'9.0'15.0'28.0'5.0'AZTYP.ZTYP.10.0'TYP.4.5'TYP.BUILDING DATA SUMMARYAREASPROPOSED PROPERTY8.96 ACBUILDING AREA90,807 SF (23.3% OF TOTALPROPERTY AREA)PARKINGREQUIRED PARKING144 SPACES @ 2 PERDWELLINGPROPOSED PARKING113 SPACES: 57 INSIDE AND56 OUTSIDEADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED6 STALLS / 6 STALLSPROPERTY SUMMARYMAPLEWOOD LIVING DEVELOPMENTTOTAL PROPERTY AREA8.96 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)0.00 ACEXISTING PERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)2.52 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)1.15 ACPROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (ON-SITE)1.37 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (OFF-SITE)0.23 ACPROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (OFF-SITE)0.13 ACON-STE DISTURBED AREA2.52 ACOFF-SITE DISTURBED AREA0.36 ACTOTAL DISTURBED AREA2.88 ACZONING SUMMARYEXISTING ZONINGR3-BPROPOSED ZONINGR3-BPARKING SETBACKSSIDE/REAR = 15'ROAD = 15'BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT = 100'SIDE = 30'REAR = 30'WETLAND SETBACK50' MINIMUMPROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED FENCESETBACK LINERETAINING WALLPROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKLEGENDSITE PLAN NOTES1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONSAND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACTLOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXITPORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDINGUTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.3. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10'UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'.4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.5. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED,REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASEBID.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES,STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALLWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTSAND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALLCOST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.7. SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM ASURVEY BY DEMARC, DATED 05/08/2020.KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OROMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.8. TOTAL LAND AREA IS 5.96 ACRES.9. PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARESHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TOVERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THECONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING ANDELECTRICAL PLAN.11. NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE ANDUNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATEDWITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESSSPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE.12. REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTYBOUNDARY DIMENSIONS.13. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.14. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.15. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9.5' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED.KEYNOTE LEGENDCONCRETE SIDEWALKPIPE BOLLARDMATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTERACCESSIBLE CURB RAMPACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKINGAREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C.STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTLANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANSMILL AND OVERLAY RESTRIPPED AREASHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTB612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)TRANSITION CURBFLAT CURBCOMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRONSEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALLPROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN BY OTHERSPATIO - SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPOSED TRANSFORMERPROPOSED SITE SIGNAGESTOP SIGNRETAINING WALL WITH 4' HIGH DECORATIVE FENCE (DESIGN BYOTHERS)LIGHT POLE (PER SIGN VENDOR PLANS)RIP RAP AT DOWNSPOUT4' BROWN VINYL FENCE - SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANSRESIDENTIAL PATIOS & RAILINGS - SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANSCONCRETE PAVEMENTCONCRETE CAST-IN-PLACE STAIRS AND RAILINGSSPEED BUMP - SEE DETAILABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAABBCCPREPARED FORSITE PLANC400MAPLEWOOD LIVINGDEVELOPMENTEF MAPLEWOOD LLCMAPLEWOODMNNORTH333100'-0" SETBACKBTE00BTE00ABBRR15.0'15.028.028.0'28.05.0'5.0AAZZTYP.TYP4.54.5TYPTYPTYP.T5'5P.PE1, Attachment 9 CDRB Packet Page 28 of 55 E1, Attachment 10 CDRB Packet Page 29 of 55 E1, Attachment 11 CDRB Packet Page 30 of 55 E1, Attachment 11 CDRB Packet Page 31 of 55 E1, Attachment 11 CDRB Packet Page 32 of 55 E1, Attachment 12 CDRB Packet Page 33 of 55 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Maplewood Drive at County Road C Apartments PROJECT NO: 20-24 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Assistant City Engineer DATE: 9-2-2020 PLAN SET: Engineering plans dated 8-13-2020 REPORTS: Stormwater Management Plan – Dated 5-18-2018 The applicant is seeking city approval to develop a 72 unit apartment project on roughly 9 acres of vacant land near the southwest corner of County Road C and Maplewood Drive. 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 an iron- enhanced filtration basin, infiltration basins, and an underground stormwater storage system. From the information submitted, it appears that the proposed design meets the City and Watershed District stormwater management requirements. 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)The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) 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 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. 3)One of the methods being proposed to meet volume reduction requirements is iron- enhanced filtration. While the City is supportive of this method, our stormwater management standards don’t currently address iron-enhanced filtration. As such, the City will defer to the RWMWD methodology for calculating volume reduction credits generated through this method. E1, Attachment 13 CDRB Packet Page 34 of 55 4)The applicant shall show how the proposed trench drain near the garage entrance at the northwest corner of the building will be routed on the utility plan. The trench drain shall not be connected into the sanitary sewer system. 5)The applicant shall aim to achieve 1-foot of freeboard between the emergency overflow for the underground detention system and the high-point near the top of the garage entrance ramp. The applicant shall work with the City to meet the intent of the City’s freeboard requirements in the City’s stormwater standards. 6)The 100-year HWL shall be displayed on the plans for the infiltration basin between the proposed building and Maplewood Drive. The emergency overflow for this basin shall be identified on the plans. 7)Outlet pipes discharging into wetlands and basins shall have minimal slopes to prevent scour at the outlet areas (0.5% Typical). 8)The 100-year HWL shall be depicted on the plans for the southerly infiltration basin. 9)While this project lies within the shoreland overlay district for Kohlman Lake, the amount of impervious surface coverage falls well beneath the allowable 30% coverage allowed by ordinance. Grading and Erosion Control 10)All slopes shall be 3H:1V or flatter. 11)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. 12)Adjacent streets and parking areas shall be swept as needed to keep the pavement clear of sediment and construction debris. 13)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 14)The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 15)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 16)The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. E1, Attachment 13 CDRB Packet Page 35 of 55 17)All modifications to the water system shall be reviewed by Saint Paul regional Water Services. All requirements of SPRWS shall be met. 18)All new sanitary sewer service piping shall be schedule 40 PVC or SDR35. 19)The proposed bored sanitary sewer line shall be pressure tested to ensure it is completely sealed to groundwater infiltration. Other 20)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, aggregate base, and paving. 21)The proposed sanitary sewer service line is shown crossing onto the neighboring property. The applicant shall verify that applicable easements are in place to allow for said connection. New easements may be required. 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. 22)Right-of-way permit 23)Grading and erosion control permit 24)Storm Sewer Permit 25)Sanitary Sewer Permit -END COMMENTS - E1, Attachment 13 CDRB Packet Page 36 of 55 Environmental Review Project: 2615 Maplewood Drive - Maplewood Living Apartments Location: 2615 Maplewood Drive Date of Plans: May 10, 2021, Landscape Plan, Wetland Buffer Plans August 13, 2020 Tree Preservation Plan (original submittal) Date of Review: September 10, 2024 Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@maplewoodmn.gov Background: The applicant is requesting the renewal of a previously approved 72-unit apartment building to be constructed on an 8.96-acre vacant lot at 2615 Maplewood Drive. The updated plans include a reduction of 16 surface parking spaces and 15 underground parking spaces. The lot is located in the Shoreland Overlay District for Kohlman Lake. There is a Manage B wetland and significant trees located on the lot. The proposal must comply with the City’s shoreland, wetland, and tree preservation ordinances, and landscape policies. Shoreland Overlay District: The Shoreland Overlay District for Kohlman Lake allows for 30 percent impervious surface coverage for an apartment complex. The lot is 8.96 acres. The impervious surface area including the building, parking lot, and sidewalks will cover 1.15 acres (previous plans included 1.37 acres of impervious surface). This is 12 percent impervious surface coverage on the lot, which meets the Shoreland Overlay District requirements and reflects a 2 percent reduction from the original plans. Trees: 1.Tree Preservation Ordinance: a.Significant Trees: Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a healthy tree as follows - 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 which is 28 inches in diameter or greater. c.Tree Replacement: Tree replacement is based on a calculation of significant trees located on the parcel and significant trees removed. Credits are given for all specimen trees that are preserved. E1, Attachment 14 CDRB Packet Page 37 of 55 2.Tree Impacts: The August 13, 2020, tree preservation plan showed 143 significant trees equaling 1,996 diameter inches of trees on the property. The applicant was proposing to remove 35 significant trees equaling 533.5 diameter inches. 3.Tree Replacement: The May 10, 2021, landscape plan includes 43 new trees, for a total of 93 caliper inches. 4.Tree Recommendations: a.Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit the following: 1)Tree Plan: An updated tree plan that reflects the correct size, location, species, and health of all significant trees on the site. The previous plan was complete August 13, 2020, which is four years old and may not accurately portray the trees on the site. Wetland: 1.Wetland Ordinance: There is a Manage B wetland located in the center of the parcel. The City’s wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot minimum and 75-foot average wetland buffer. The wetland ordinance allows flexibility in instances where, because of the unique physical characteristics of a specific parcel of land, the averaging of buffer width for the entire parcel may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the land during a development or construction project. In such cases decreasing the minimum buffer width will be compensated for by increased buffer widths elsewhere in the same parcel to achieve the required average buffer width. Averaging is allowed based on an assessment of the following: a.Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the average buffer, or would otherwise not be in the public interest. b.Size of parcel. c.Configuration of existing roads and utilities. d. Percentage of parcel covered by wetland. e.Configuration of wetlands on the parcel. f.Averaging will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream. g.Averaging will ensure the protection or enhancement of portions of the buffer which are found to be the most ecologically beneficial to the wetland or stream. E1, Attachment 14 CDRB Packet Page 38 of 55 h.A wetland buffer mitigation plan is required for construction of development projects that will require averaging. In reviewing the mitigation plan, the city may require one or more of the following actions: 1)Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as by using appropriate technology. 2)Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the buffer. 3)Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life of the actions. 4)Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer land at a two-to-one ratio. 5)Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. 6)Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A restoration plan must be approved by the city before planting. 7)Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the soil and water conservation district shall apply. 8)A wetland or buffer mitigation surety, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit, of 150 percent of estimated cost for mitigation. The surety will be required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by the administrator. Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of restoration as determined by the city after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any other provision of city ordinance or city directive. 2.Wetland Impacts: The development will have grading to within 50 feet along the eastern edge of the Manage B wetland. The entire western edge of the wetland will remain undisturbed allowing for wetland buffer averaging. Wetland buffer averaging is being requested due to the percentage of parcel covered by wetland and the configuration of the wetland on the parcel. 3.Wetland Buffer Recommendations: a.Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit the following: 1)Landscape Plan: During the previous City approval process, City staff reviewed a landscape plan dated May 10, 2021, and sent the developer comments with the last correspondence dating back to December 2021. It was at that point that the development stalled and those updates were never formalized. The plan submitted with the current proposal is also dated May 10, 2021. However, E1, Attachment 14 CDRB Packet Page 39 of 55 the plan is different than the landscape plan staff reviewed in 2021 and does not reflect the removal of the parking spaces on the north of the site. The developer must submit a revised landscape plan with clarification on the updated date and whether the plan is addressing City staff’s original comments, or other revisions have been made. 2)Utility and Grading Plans: Updated utility and grading plans were not submitted with the new proposal. The utility plan submitted with the original proposal showed storm and sanitary sewer lines being bored under the wetland and wetland buffer. The applicant must supply detailed utility and grading plans for these areas to ensure there is no impact to the wetland and wetland buffer. 3)Wetland Buffer Easement: An easement over the 50-foot wetland buffer on the eastern side of the wetland, and over the increased wetland buffer on the western side of the wetland. The easement will be recorded with the County and will identify that no mowing, grading, or building is allowed within the wetland buffer. 5)W etland Buffer Sign Installation: Install the city wetland buffer signs that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the buffer. 6)Maintenance Agreement: Sign a wetland buffer mitigation agreement with the City requiring that the applicant establish and maintain the required mitigation within the buffer for a three-year period. 7)Surety: A cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the wetland buffer mitigation. The City will retain the surety for up to three years as outlined in the maintenance agreement to ensure the wetland buffer mitigation is established and maintained. 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. 1.Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit the following: a.Landscape Plan: During the previous City approval process, City staff reviewed a landscape plan dated May 10, 2021, and sent the developer comments with the last correspondence dating back to December 2021. It was at that point that the development stalled and those updates were never formalized. The plan submitted with the current proposal is also dated May 10, 2021. However, the plan is different than the original landscape plan reviewed by staff in 2021 and does not reflect the removal of the parking spaces on the north of the site. The developer must submit E1, Attachment 14 CDRB Packet Page 40 of 55 a revised landscape plan with clarification on the updated date and whether the plan is addressing City staff’s original comments, or other revisions have been made. E1, Attachment 14 CDRB Packet Page 41 of 55 2020 Citizen Comments 1.One of the reasons we moved here is due to the space around us that protects wildlife habitat. That is incredibly important to us and our values. Building these apartments would have a significant negative impact on the habitat of native wildlife, resulting in displacement. In addition, I am concerned about the increase in traffic. I am a runner, and oftentimes run in the early hours of the morning. I am concerned about the impact increased traffic could have on my safety and comfort level running around the neighborhood. I truly hope this development does not go through and hope you take this into consideration. (Stacey Meade, 1117 County Road C East) 2.My uncle, Neal McClellan, who used to live at 1091 County Road C East, died in December and I have inherited his property. I am having the house demolished, per his wishes, and will be selling the property. You asked for input on the proposed apartment. I actually grew up a few houses down from my uncle, and so am familiar with the property and area. I do have a couple of concerns: i.There will be a lot of people moving in there, and I am assuming there will be interest in visiting the park that is west of the development. County Road C does not have a very good shoulders on the street, which is much busier than when I lived there. Will there be constructed a walkway to the park over the wetlands so people can safely access the park? ii.There is no room to park on County Road C. I am wondering, even though there are houses between Co Rd C and the development, if people will want to park on Co Rd C. Are there any plans to expand Co Rd C with wider shoulders that people can park on it? iii.Along with # 2 above, what are Maplewood's plans for Co Rd C, given the increase in traffic that will come with the development? (Lynn Schurrer, 1091 County Road C East) 3.I was pleased to learn that there was not a variance requested and that the construction materials seem to be better than the usual “bricks and sticks” apartments. It sounds like the developer would like to work with the neighbors and I’m glad to hear that. While we all knew that someday development would probably happen behind us, it will certainly impact the value of our properties. Back when we were looking for homes, we passed on any that had an “apartment view.” In fact, having rental property or an apartment nearby was one of the first things our realtor disclosed. Here are some of my concerns and questions. Car noise. I see from the plans the main entrance to the apartment is the parking lot on the north side, along with the garage door on the northwest end of the apartment. My concern is that we will be hearing the cars driving into the lot with the walls of the apartment reflecting the noise. I'm concerned about the noise of the of the garage door opening and closing. With the 9% grade into the garage I worry that our backyards will be lit up with the lights from the cars exiting the building at night. Trees. The trees behind my property are numbers 35-39 green ash on the plans. What is missing on the plans are the two sugar maples nearby. If possible, we would like to have the two sugar maples saved behind our property. They are beautiful and in great shape. I would think it would be a good aesthetic view for the residents of the apartments too. As for Trees 35-39, what is the point of saving any green ash? They will likely be taken by Emerald Ash Borer E1, Attachment 15 CDRB Packet Page 42 of 55 soon enough. It would be interesting if something like tamarac would take root there, since that was what was in the wetland. The green ash was only able to grow because someone dumped construction debris and fill there. We would be O.K. if some or all of the green ash trees (35-39) were removed to spare the sugar maples. Property to the west of the wetland. From the plans, we were not able to determine what would be plans be for the land west of the wetland. There have been attempts over the years to place a road across the wetland without permission by the city to link up the parcels together. My concern is that there might be a phase 2. (Pete and Nancy Boulay, 1100 County Road C East) 4.In a call made to and summarized by staff – Concerns include disagreement on the location of the property line between resident and projects properties; who is included in the ownership group, concerns about ground water contamination because of this project and concerns about light and noise from apartment residents affecting existing residents. (James Nygard, 1110 County Road C East) 5.Three main opinions that I have – how it changes the existing neighborhood, safety concerns and nature preservation. i.Based on the surrounding neighborhood, three-story building will definitely stick out. There didn’t seem to be enough tree coverage to help it blend in at that height and would easily make it the tallest structure, making lighting a concern. It wasn’t clear to me what lighting would be included in the design and have reservations on how visible / disruptive it would be given the current neighborhood. ii.Concerns on traffic – The addition of potentially 50+ cars daily on County Road C creates a lot of anxiety for me. As it stands today, rarely is the speed limit adhered to and instead folks are going 50+mph on the road. This proposed development would only add to the number of cars using County Road C and have not seen any plans or proposals for minimizing this safety risk. iii.Impact on the wetlands and nature preserve, both in construction and on-going. One of the great things I love about the neighborhood is the nature preserve and the benefit it brings. Concerned about how much additional stress this would place on the ecosystem. During a neighborhood meeting last Winter, there was some discussion around the zoning of this property overall. While in your note it mentions the building is an approved use for the site, there was concern raised at that time that proper community notification was not given for the rezoning of that property in the past and caught everyone by surprised. Do you have any background on when the property was rezoned and how that was resolved? Just want to make sure I fully understand how that process works. Would prefer to see 2-story apartment building or townhomes on this development instead of what is proposed, along with specific details on how it would improve safety / traffic in the area. Feels like that would fit better within the current aesthetics of our neighborhood without placing more burden on the surrounding nature habitat. (Sheryl Sukolsky, 1085 County Road C East) 6.I totally oppose the apartment building going into the vacant lot. Roughly about 20 years ago the owner wanted to build more sites for the manufactured homes (Mobile Homes) and the city denied him, because it was considered wetland and could not be built on. Now 20 years later you are looking to build an apartment complex. This is the opinion of not only myself, but the majority of the residents here, some of which do not have access to, or own computers. There is also some residents of whom DID NOT receive your letter. E1, Attachment 15 CDRB Packet Page 43 of 55 I have reviewed the crime statistics for our area and it is increasing, if you allow an apartment complex in the area, this will draw more crime to the area with an above ground parking for them to rifle through or steal the entire car. Traffic will increase. Property value will go down, making it harder to sell homes in the area, because nobody wants to look at an apartment building and parking lot. The wildlife that we have here will decrease, the kids love feeding the ducks and geese and this year has been the best year for the wood ducks. The eagles and Hawks that prey on the source will be extinct. We have also seen the occasional coyote, deer, mink, raccoon. The geese and ducks have been fed for over 40 years and make this their home. We look forward to them coming back year after year. There was a stream that went from the pond over to County Road C, I do believe that there is an underground water source to Llake Kolhman , when the lake rises and lowers so does the pond. If you build an apartment complex on the land with a few hundred thousand pounds of concrete and steel we will watch it slowly sink. That's why we have our homes releveled every couple of years in the park. Mathew Frisbie from Frisbie Properties says its a short drive to major shopping, yes it is but Maplewood Mall is slowly going down hill, shops are closing because of cost so within 10 years it will be closed all together. why not utilize some of the property at the mall for an apartment complex and maybe it will bring in some new businesses. Please consider the opinion of the residents of Town and Country Mobile Home Park. Most are longtime residents, some have been here between 20-40 years. (Robert McGovern, 1102 Alvarado Drive) 7.Overall I think the plan looks good. It seems to save the wetland areas and the ponding areas. Which is good. Any place with a dog washing station has to be a nice place! The buildings look a little dark and foreboding to me, but I don’t know what current architecture looks like. Maybe they could be a little brighter? I think the whole thing could be moved another 20 to 30 feet south so as not to be so close to the homes on County Rd C. I also hope that there will be some trails down around the pond for those dog owners to walk their dogs. (Donald Christianson, 1111 County Road C East) E1, Attachment 15 CDRB Packet Page 44 of 55 September 15, 2020 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 approve minor changes. 11. The applicant shall use the Belden Norman EFW-1 brick as defined on the building elevation for the trash enclosure for site continuity of building materials. 12. The applicant shall work with staff regarding the landscaping plan and taking another look at the existing vegetation, particularly along the south boundary of the site in an effort to preserve the existing trees. Seconded by Boardmember Kempe. Ayes – All All friendly amendments were agreed upon. The motion passed. 2. Design Review, Maplewood Living Development, 0 Maplewood Drive i. Assistant Community Development Director, Michael Martin gave the report on the Design Review for Maplewood Living Development, 0 Maplewood Drive and answered questions of the board. ii. Pete Boulay, 1100 County Road C East, Don Christianson, 1111 County Road C East and Nicole Evenson, resident of Town and Country Mobile Home Park addressed the board. Boardmembers Shankar, Ledvina and Lamers made friendly amendments that are reflected in the motion below in bold and underlined. Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the resolution for design review for project plans date- stamped August 18, 2020, for a new apartment building to be constructed at 0 Maplewood Drive. changes to the staff conditions are underlined and in bold): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 3. Meet all requirements in the engineering report, dated September 2, 2020. 4. Meet all requirements in the environmental report, dated September 8, 2020. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. Rooftop vents and equipment shall be located out of view from all sides of the property. 7. 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. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for staff approval the following items: E1, Attachment 16 CDRB Packet Page 45 of 55 September 15, 2020 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 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. Submit to staff a screening plan detailing that all ordinance requirements are met in terms of screening on the north side of the north parking lot. 9. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Apply for and receive approval for a lot division to combine the three parcels into one. Applicant shall be required to provide proof of Ramsey County recording to city staff. b. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. c. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lots and driveways. d. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. 10. 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. 11. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 12. All exposed walls of the basement of this building, on all sides, shall be faced with material and color that matches the material and color shown on the third floor of the building façade. 13. The applicant shall provide at least one speed bump on the north parking lot and the southeast parking lot approximately halfway in the middle of the parking lot. 14. The city and the applicant shall work together at this point or at a future date in terms of making a trail connection to the park to the west. 15. The applicant shall provide to the CDRB for review, a copy of the screening plan detailing that all ordinance requirements are met in terms of screening on the north side of the north parking lot. Seconded by Boardmember Ledvina. Ayes – All All friendly amendments were agreed upon. E1, Attachment 16 CDRB Packet Page 46 of 55 September 20, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 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. 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. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Design Review, Multifamily Residential Project, 2615 Maplewood Drive Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the Design Review, Multifamily Residential Project, 2615 Maplewood Drive, and answered questions of the Board. Matt Frisbie, Frisbie Properties and EF Maplewood LLC, addressed the Board and answered questions. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve a resolution for design review for project plans date- stamped August 18, 2020, for the 72-unit multi-family housing building to be constructed at 2615 Maplewood Drive as proposed by staff, with the friendly amendment that conditions added to the 2020 approval be included with this approval (changes to the staff conditions are underlined and in bold): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 3. Meet all requirements in the engineering report, dated September 2, 2020. 4. Meet all requirements in the environmental report, dated September 8, 2020. E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page 47 of 55 September 20, 2022 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 4 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. Rooftop vents and equipment shall be located out of view from all sides of the property. 7. 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. 8. 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. Submit to staff a screening plan detailing that all ordinance requirements are met in terms of screening on the north side of the north parking lot. 9. 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 lots and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Install all required outdoor lighting. 10. 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. 11. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 12. All exposed walls of the basement of this building, on all sides, shall be faced with material and color that matches the material and color shown on the third floor of the building façade. 13. The applicant shall provide at least one speed bump on the north parking lot and the southeast parking lot approximately halfway in the middle of the parking lot. 14. The city and the applicant shall work together at this point or at a future date in terms of making a trail connection to the park to the west. 15. The applicant shall provide to the CDRB for review, a copy of the screening plan detailing that all ordinance requirements are met in terms of screening on the north side of the north parking lot. E1, Attachment 17 CDRB Packet Page 48 of 55 COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 15, 2024 REPORT TO: Michael Sable, City Manager REPORT FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Sign Plan, Saint Paul Rugby Club, 63 Sterling Street North Action Requested:  Motion ☐Discussion ☐ Public Hearing Form of Action: ☐Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐Contract/Agreement ☐ Proclamation Policy Issue: Kevin White of the Saint Paul Rugby Club is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan to put up a team and sponsorship sign in the city’s Afton Heights Park, located at 63 Sterling Street North. Maplewood’s sign ordinance allows sports facility sponsorship signs with a comprehensive sign plan approved by the city’s Community Design Review Board. The city’s park and recreation department supports this application. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the comprehensive sign plan for the Saint Paul Rugby Club at 63 Sterling Street North, subject to conditions of approval: 1.The applicant shall submit a freestanding sign permit application. 2.Approval of this sign plan shall be terminated upon the end of the lease between the City of Maplewood and the Saint Paul Rugby Club for the use of Afton Heights Park. 3.All other signs on the site must meet the city’s sign ordinance and obtain sign permits as required. 4.The applicant is allowed one 8-foot-tall freestanding sign as part of this approval. 5.Any changes to the approved comprehensive sign plan require review by the community design review board. Staff may approve minor changes. 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 E2 CDRB Packet Page 49 of 55 ☐Integrated Communication  Operational Effectiveness ☐Targeted Redevelopment The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on October 7, 2024. The initial 60-day review deadline for a decision is December 6, 2024. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city can take an additional 60 days, if necessary, to complete the review and make a decision. Background: Kevin White of the Saint Paul Rugby Club has submitted a comprehensive sign plan request to install an approximately 12-foot tall by 8-foot wide sign at Afton Heights Park. The sign face will be 60 square feet in size. The city’s park and recreation department supports this application, and the applicant worked with engineering staff to determine an acceptable location for the sign. The sign is proposed to be located south of the rugby field and north of the main drive entrance to the park. The sign will be designed with the Saint Paul Rugby Club’s logo as the main identifier but will also allow for two sponsorship areas and four associated club areas. Maplewood’s sign ordinance allows sports facility sponsorship signs with a comprehensive sign plan approved by the city’s Community Design Review Board. As background, the city’s sign ordinance allows park identification signs up to six feet in height. The proposed rugby sign is approximately double the height of a sign that the city would be allowed to install to identify the part itself. The comprehensive sign plan allows the Community Design Review Board to consider flexibility from ordinance requirements. Staff understand the desire of the applicant to not have a monument sign and for the sign to be set off the ground. However, the Community Design Review Board should consider the scale of a new sign within a city park. Park, engineering, and planning staff have reviewed the applicant’s request and are comfortable with scaling the applicant’s proposed sign down to not exceed eight feet in height. Department Comments No comments. Citizen Comments Staff sent public meeting notices to the surrounding 43 property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff did not receive any comments. Reference Information Site Description Project Area: 17.95 Acres Existing Land Use: Park and Athletic Fields Surrounding Land Uses North: Ramsey County’s Battle Creek Park East: Single-family homes South: Ramsey County’s Battle Creek Park West: Ramsey County’s Battle Creek Park E2 CDRB Packet Page 50 of 55 Planning Existing Land Use: Park Existing Zoning: Open Space/Park Attachments: 1.Overview Map 2.Applicant Narrative 3. Sign Renderings E2 CDRB Packet Page 51 of 55 Overview Map - Afton Heights Park City of Maplewood October 2, 2024 Legend !I Afton Heights Park Proposed Sign Area 0 475 FeetSource: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County E2, Attachment 1 CDRB Packet Page 52 of 55 Request: The 5t. Paul Pigs Rugby Club has been using Upper Afton Park as both a practice and home field site for the last 10 years. We have coordinated closely with the City of Maplewood Parks team to add improvements to the field, including professional goal posts and a set of bleachers on a slab. Recently, we signed a s-year probationary lease with the City for use of the park. The main reason behind this was to allow the Club to continue to add small capital improvements. lt is understood that any of these improvements will need to be removed at the Club! expens€ once the lease is no longer valid or has been terminated. This sign will be facing Upper Afton Rd from the entrance (overhead view in red, street view in black). We have assessed the area to be free from any utility lines; however, this would again be verified prior to posts being sunk. The bottom ofthe sign would be 5'above ground levelto minimize ability for people to inteftrct with it. The design will allow for 2 sponsorship spots (shown in the image as SPONSOR) and 4 associated club spots (shown in the image as CLUB). We have a long-time sponsor we hope to be able to put up (Halftime Rec), and our initial thoughts for the first 2 club associations will be the East Metro High School team and the Amazons Woment Rugby team. Proposed custom fabricated post and panel sign details (from vendor, lmpression Signs and Graphics): 90' X 95' X 3-114 SINGLE FACE NON.ILL SPECIAL SHAPE POSTAND PANEL. PAINTED SATIN BLACK. BACK PANEL REMOVABLE WITH TAMPERPROOF SCREWS DECORATED 1ST SURFACE DIE CUT 3M VINYL GRAPHICs (RED, WHITE AND GREY). .O8O ALUMINUM PANE6 MOUNTED TO FACE WITH TAMPERPROOF SCREWS. PAINTED ONE COTOR (TBD). (2X) 19' X 19' 1ST SURFACE DIGITALLY PRINTED VINYL GRAPHICS. (4X) 9, X 18" lSTSURFACE DIE CUT 3M BTACK VINYL GRAPHICS. CABINET MOUNTED BETWEEN TWO 5'' X 214" STEEL SQ TUBES WITH WEIDED TOP CAPS PAINTED ONE COLOR TBD. INCLUDED TUBES WILL BE SEPEATE FROM CABINET. Sign Proposal E2, Attachment 2 CDRB Packet Page 53 of 55 Upper'Afton"Rd*' Uirper"Afton"Rd t Paul Pigs Rugby Pitch qx 2493 Upper Afton Rd 9 : c r J. *,. 3 )-_' " '1, ! L t+l- - Upp€r Google E2, Attachment 3 CDRB Packet Page 54 of 55 !f.oi! !c Elc lo A Custom Fabricated Post & Panel lign -{ w St. Paul Jaaz PiEs Contsct: Kevin white kewhitejr04@gmail.com Lmtlon Address: 63 sterling Stre€t llorth M@lewood, MN,5sll9 Dimensions: See Proof Descriptlon: Custom Fabricated Post & Panel Sign Ouantlty: Colo? K.I 3 Dg*tally Printed Logo I Red (1Bg) I Grey6gP; Et white I Back @ ANDRE OPITZ andreOimpressionsigns com 651.32A 6502 EaPmovEo fl aeenovso as Noreo E nEvrsE a nesueMrt T&@4il[.tu.B€Lrrffidr@ed'4rd&rpilG 6il@.oddEddsqnBr.,rabyddlsdcidyil&sqh':ruyndb@otdBofudGd.&bb*r.Bd!16*tu Signature t .., .. '-. . :,. -i. -'.. ::. ". :.: l'l gF THE 57 1rJ74EST. i t E r "i.ffim Ordor 20266 E2, Attachment 3 CDRB Packet Page 55 of 55