Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 05-05 SMSPECIAL MEETING AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, May 5, 2008 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 13 -08 B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Carver Crossing Development — Consider Litigation Settlement. a. Consider Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development b. Consider Directing Vacation of Existing Easements. c. Consider Preliminary Plat. d. Consider Approval of Settlement of Litigation through Approval of Development Contract. D. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 249 -2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager John Baker, Greene Espel, PLLP Alan Kantrud, City Attorney Agenda Item C1 SUBJECT: Carver Crossing Development— Consider Litigation Settlement DATE: April 30, 2008 INTRODUCTION /SUMMARY The City Council has previously denied a proposed 191 -unit proposal for Carver Crossing. That denial occurred on September 28, 2006. The developer of that plan, CoPar Companies, litigated the denial decision. The court proceedings on that litigation are scheduled to begin on June 8, 2008. The consideration of this item is to settle the litigation prior to the beginning of the court proceedings. The City Council has previously directed that this plan be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Attached is the report of that action, which was led by Mr. Ekstrand. Mr. John Baker will be available at the meeting to present this information, along with additional information on the settlement. The staff and attorneys are recommending that if the Council chooses to accept the settlement, that we break the approvals up with approval of execution of the development agreement and the exact terms of it deferred to the May 12` meeting, with protective language in the May 5 approvals: "The applicant and the City intend to enter into a development agreement that is consistent with the development plans of the application and with financial terms if approved by the City Council contemporaneously with the applications, and the effectiveness of this approval is conditioned upon the parties' execution of such development agreement." Proposed Settlement Conditions A number of meetings with the CoPar representatives have been held over the past months to prepare a final settlement proposal prior to litigation. Included within the Planning Report are two maps [Attachment 6 and Attachment 7] indicating that final settlement layout. Some of the conditions are: • The plan is reduced to 165 units from the original 191 unit proposal. • A portion of the site is shown as Conservation Easements. This provides a 300 - foot protected corridor for Fish Creek. • Building pads are indicated to be 40X60 which would also allow for a 20 -foot deck without impacting the Conservation Easement area. The pads are at a 25- foot setback from the public roads. • The road right of way for a majority of the roads is shown as 50 -foot in width. The streets are 24 -foot in width and include a 10 -foot wide trail along a majority of the streets. Carver Crossing Proposal Page Two No median exists on Henry Lane across Fish Creek. A guard rail system for protection from vehicles potentially leaving the 494 Corridor will be designed by a register engineer to MnDOT specifications. CoPar Companies have agreed to limit 2008 construction to the northern portion except that they would build across Fish Creek to and including the roundabout. They would be allowed to build one or two model homes on the south side but would hold off on anything major for the southern portion until after Maplewood conducts a referendum. CoPar indicated that they might want to grade in a couple of trails that could also be used to show prospective lot buyers of general lot locations until after the Referendum decision. CoPar has shown a second exhibit [Attachment 7] that included 16 lots on the far southwestern side of the site highlighted to be on hold for the Referendum. The submittal shows the reduced site as it would be reduced if a Referendum is passed for 149 units. The overall site plan with a referendum passed and combined with Conservation Easement coverage and public dedication creates a site where 50% of the site would be "green ". The financial proposals and the conditions of settlement are: City agrees to prepare all public improvements as a City project. • All design, engineering by the city. • City will assess the improvements at the exact cost of the bond sale over a 15 -year term. • CoPar will have joint approval over final design. • Cost sharing will be based upon percentage of work completed based upon $3.0 million cost estimate. • The City and CoPar will agree that the City shall pay 33.33% of all public improvements. The City's share is currently estimated to be $1.0 million. Said contribution shall be based upon the improvements estimated by Alliant Engineering dated 4/4/08. • The City and CoPar will agree that the City's share of any contaminated soil issues related to the entire Carver Crossing site shall be limited to the 1/3 share of the $48,125 estimated work by Alliant Engineering dated 4/4/08. Basis of cost sharing agreement: this section is for the City's use in determining the contribution toward the project and is provided as information. o Basic city contribution: 26 units at $135,000 X 50% _ $1,755,000 • Reduction from 191 units to 165 units = 26 units • The $135,000 has been established by appraisers. Carver Crossing Proposal Page Three Deductions • / of median share: 50% X $200,000 = • Project Admin charge: 3% X $3,100,000 = • Interest savings: 1.5% X $3,100,000 x 8 years = • / of PAC Charge: 50% X $3,300 X 165 = • Settlement Provision: 5% x $1,755,000 = • TOTAL Deductions = ($100,000) ($ 93,000) ($202,000) ($272,250) ($ 87,750) ($755,000) Settlement Agreement: $1,000,000 • This will be Maplewood's contribution to public improvement project expenses, which shall be applied on a percentage of construction basis. Maplewood shall assess the Carver Crossing development property on an annual basis. The following will be part of a final development agreement: • Carver Crossing development shall be approved as proposed in plans submitted on March 31, 2008. • CoPar reserves the provision to retain vested interests in Carver Crossing, which provides that Maplewood recognizes that the project will be phased in construction and development. • CoPar agrees that Phase 1 will not include anything beyond the roundabout in the southern portion of the development in calendar year 2008. • CoPar will agree to the identified 16 lots in the southern phase, shown as referendum lots are available for purchase by the city as follows: First 16 lots: $150,000 per lot • After 16 lots: appraised value, with CoPar having right of refusal • CoPar agrees that if the City purchases at least 1 lot under this provision, all green space identified in the March 31, 2008 plans shall be dedicated to the City at the cost of $1.00 and all other valuable considerations. • CoPar agrees that the City may choose to declare / identify trail corridors through the open space areas and conservation easement areas that will be disclosed to all potential lot purchasers to avoid confusion on future intents to improve the open space area. • Note: The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust will not help pay any of those costs. The City does not have land use claim coverage. Note: The City's estimated share of this is $1.0 Million. The proposed settlement allows that to be provided as contributions to the public improvements. It is proposed that this amount be part of a General Obligation Improvement Bond. Should the City Council consider this approach, the City would likely pay an annual contribution for this $1.0 Million bond of $79,535 for a 15 -year period. The $79,535 is approximately 0.5% of the annual levy. The impact on a typical Maplewood home valued at $200,000 and paying $1,900 in total property taxes would amount to approximately $2.75 annually to that typical Maplewood home. Carver Crossing Proposal Page Four RECOMMENDATION If the City Council chooses to settle the litigation with CoPar Companies through this revised proposal, the necessary action [individual motions required] is: 1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit for the 165 -unit planned unit development as provided beginning on Page 14 of Mr. Ekstrand's planning report. 2. Approve the resolution vacating the unused easements within Carver Crossing as noted beginning on the bottom of Page 15 of Mr. Ekstrand's report. 3. Approve the Carver Crossing Preliminary Plat for the 165 -unit plan (dated March 31, 2008) as noted beginning on Page 16 of Mr. Ekstrand's report. 4. Approve the terms of the financial settlement by adopting the following statement: a. CoPar Companies and the City of Maplewood intend to enter into a development agreement that is consistent with the development plans of the application and with financial terms that generally provide for the City contributing 1/3 of the cost of the estimated public improvements [with specific terms as listed within this report] and the effectiveness of this approval is conditioned upon the parties' execution of such development agreement, which shall be presented for final approval by the City Council at their next regular meeting on May 12, 2008. Attachments: 1. Carver Crossing Planning Report Agenda Item C1 IMI:IM[a]:L1ki Bill MI TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Carver Crossing LOCATION: South of Carver Avenue, west of 1 -494 DATE: April 30, 2008 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted revised plans to the city for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He has prepared project plans that now show lots for up to 165 detached single dwelling housing units (100 on smaller lots and 65 on larger lots). This latest plan replaces a plan from 2006 that showed 191 housing units. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 28 -32 and the maps on pages 33 -49. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Mr. Hansen has not yet applied for design approval for this latest proposal. He will do so (including the architectural, final landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings after the city council acts on his current requests. However, based on comments from the applicant, staff expects that each unit would have horizontal -lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors. In addition, each unit would have a two -car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project to have a variety of setbacks, to have a long dead end street and to allow the units and single dwellings to be on lots smaller than code usually allows (in area and in width). 2. The vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within the development. 3. The proposed preliminary plat to create the new public street right -of -ways, the lots for the structures and for the outlots. (See the preliminary plat on page 40 and in the project plans BACKGROUND In 1992, the city considered parts of the subject property in the inventory of possible properties to buy for open space. Of the approximately fifty properties the city considered, the open space committee ranked this site 20 overall and first out of 15 in the neighborhood. The city, however, was unable to negotiate a purchase of any of the property with a willing seller. As such, the city did not buy any of this property for open space and instead bought two parcels north of Carver Avenue for open space. There were several city meetings and reviews for this site in 2005 and 2006. (Please see the complete listing of these actions in the Past Actions section starting on page 22 of this report.) On September 28, 2006, the city council considered the 191 -unit Carver Crossing proposal including a CUP for a PUD, street and easement vacations and preliminary plat. After much discussion and testimony, the city council voted to deny the proposed PUD thus denying the project. (See the city council minutes on pages 89 and 90.) DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map The land use plan, as set by the city council in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, is the city's long - range guide and expectation as to how the city expects land to be used or developed. The zoning designation for a property defines how a property owner may develop or use the property. The city has designated the entire site on the land use maps R -1 (single - dwelling residential). (See the land use map on page 34.) The city now intends R -1 areas on the land use plan for developments with single dwellings (no attached units) of up to 4.3 units per gross acre. The zoning map shows the designations of F (farm residence) (between Carver Avenue and Fish Creek) and R -1(R) (south of Fish Creek) for the site. For areas the city has zoned F or R -1, the city allows single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area (when sanitary sewer is available). The R -1(R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on two -acre or larger lots (where sanitary sewer is not available). As adopted by the city council in 2003, the intent of the R -1(R) zoning district was "to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R -1(R) code also states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely." City staff will discuss the location and availability of public utilities later in this report. Land Use Plan There are several goals in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, five apply to this proposal including: • Provide for orderly development. • Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. • Minimize the land planned for streets. • Minimize conflicts between land uses. • Provide a wide variety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: 2 • Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. • The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. • Include a variety of housing types for all residents ... including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing, low- and moderate - income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. • Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The applicable development policies (to implement the plan goals) include: • The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. • Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. • Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. • Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man -made or natural barriers. • Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. The proposed development, with 165 detached housing units, would meet these goals and policies. Compatibility and Density This proposal, if approved by the city, would be a change for this area of Maplewood. It would transform a semi - rural, very low- density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban -style residential development with public sewer and water and common areas. This proposal is a departure from the existing land uses on the property but would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and would be in keeping with the types of housing in the area (including the housing on Carver Avenue, Dorland Road and Heights Avenue). It is important to note that the city does make changes to the land use plan, to the zoning map and to the approved use of a property when the city determines that such changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the city and when the changes would be, in the opinion of the city council, in the best interests of the city. A development such as this, if carefully planned and constructed, should meet the goals and policies of the city. Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The development would be next to I -494 and Carver Avenue, would be on a collector street (Carver Avenue) and is between two arterial streets (Century Avenue and McKnight Road). It is important to note that developers will often build townhomes (whether in attached or detached units) next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, planned and built 3 this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are other examples of this mix of housing types in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, The Gardens, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. As proposed, the 165 units on the 73 -acre site means there would be about 2.3 units per gross acre. This is consistent with (and in fact much lower than) the density standards in the current comprehensive plan for single family residential development. Zoning Map The city has zoned the project site F (farm residence) and R-1 (R). (See the zoning map on page 35). For areas the city has zoned F or R -1, the city allows single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area (when sanitary sewer is available) with a maximum density of 4.3 units per acre. The R -1(R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on two acre or larger lots where sewer is not available. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a PUD as an overlay designation for the proposal. The PUD would serve as the zoning approval for this request to be consistent with the existing land use classification for the property. The intent of the R -1(R) zoning district is "to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R -1(R) code also states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely." In this case, both municipal sanitary sewer and water are readily available to the site —from Carver Avenue on the north and from Heights Avenue on the west. Heights Avenue was constructed with a temporary cul -de -sac and public utilities so that a future landowner or developer could extend the street and the public utilities to the east (into what is now the Carver Crossing site). The project engineer, as part of this proposal, has designed the Carver Crossing project so most of the sanitary sewer will flow to the west to Heights Avenue. As such, this proposal does not create the need for a sanitary sewer lift station. Based on the proposed engineering plans and the city engineering staff review of the proposal, the location and depth of the existing public utilities make the installation of public utilities in this development possible and feasible. Mississippi River Critical Area Information Since 1976, Minnesota state law has required communities with land in the metropolitan Mississippi River Corridor to manage that land. The Mississippi River Critical Area covers the area of Maplewood that is west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue. The management of this area includes having a Critical Area Plan to guide development forthe land within the river corridor. Maplewood adopted a critical area plan in 1979 (and updated it in 1981) to meet this requirement. The intention of this plan is to manage development to protect resources and to protect the scenic qualities of the river corridor, including the bluffs within the Mississippi River Corridor. Critical Area Plan The 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan shows all the land area west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue as being in the "Mississippi River Critical Corridor." As part of this 2002 comprehensive plan update, the Metropolitan Council staff requested the city add language and information about the 0 Mississippi River Critical Area Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. We have included much of the language from the Comprehensive Plan in the reference section of this report. For reviewing this development, the following goals and policies from the Critical Area Plan are most relevant: Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the city has been designated as an "Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals: (1) The lands and waters shall be used and developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. (2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources. (3) Expand public access to and for the enjoyment of the river. The city may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if the proposals are compatible with these goals. Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards The following are the five relevant policies of the city's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area the city should consider when reviewing the Carver Crossing development. • The city shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. • The city will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies. • Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The city will review these effects when approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single - family homes. • The city shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct run -off onto adjoining streets and watercourses. • Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. The proposed project, if built with all changes the city engineer and the other permitting agencies will require, would be consistent with, and in some cases, exceed the standards established by these goals and policies. Vacations There are existing easements for roadways, driveways and for drainage areas within the development site that are not compatible with the proposed design and layout of the project. The applicant's 5 engineer is requesting that the city vacate these areas so they may record the proposed plat without any conflicts. As shown on the project plans, the developer will be dedicating new right -of -ways for the public streets (including Henry Lane) and new easements for the drainage and utility areas. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 44- 1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The planned unit development would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied to the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 165 -unit housing development. They have requested a PUD to allow the project to have code deviations and more flexibility with site design and development details than the standard city requirements. Such flexibility includes having: 1. A variety of building setbacks. 2. The housing units on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width). 3. Some of the public street right -of -ways being 50 feet wide instead of 60 feet wide. 4. A long dead -end street that would be more than 1000 feet in length. In this case, there are no other alternatives for street access to the southern part of the site because of existing street layout and the existing topography in the area, including Fish Creek. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on pages 36 and 37), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. A deviation included in this PUD approval is the long dead -end street or cul -de -sac that would provide street access to the south end of the site. This long street is necessary (and the only practical alternative) because the location of the existing public right -of -ways, Fish Creek and the existing topography do not allow any other alternatives for street access to the area of the site south of Fish Creek. 11 Having narrower street right -of -ways and reduced building setbacks for the structures will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property and will allow for more common area around each building and on the site. If the applicant followed all the standard city subdivision and zoning standards for the proposal, such a plan would have more of an impact on the natural features of the site. This is because having larger lots for each building with wider public street right -of -ways and increased building setbacks would require more tree removal and grading. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the density of the housing in the development over the density in other detached housing projects. The developer is proposing a separate lot for each housing unit. As proposed, the smaller units (similar to detached town houses) on Blocks 1 — 8 would be on lots 55 feet wide (at the front setback line) and would range from about 5,900 square feet to 12,000 square feet in area (with most lots being between 6,500 square feet and 8,000 square feet). For the single family homes (Blocks 9 — 12), the lots would be at least 65 feet wide at the front setback line and they would range in size from about 7,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet (with most of the lots ranging between 8,000 and 11,000 square feet in size.) The lots would have access from Henry Lane and from a series of public streets. There will be a privately owned lot around each dwelling unit and a homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including all the common areas of the development, retaining walls and the ponding areas. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed site design details and code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. Preliminary Plat Lot Size As proposed, the 165 units on the 73 -acre site means there would be 2.3 units per gross acre (an average of 18,939 square feet per unit). The individual lot widths and sizes, as proposed, will vary depending on the topography of the lot and the style of the unit. As I noted above, they all appear to be consistent in size and layout (if not larger) with other town house lots in Maplewood. The proposed overall project density of 2.3 units per acre is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential and low- density multiple - family development. Open Space and Common Areas A major element of the proposed plans is the open space and common areas within the project site. As shown the applicant's open space plan, there would be 31.8 acres of open space and common area in outlots and conservation easements within the 73 acre project site. The city and developer will need to decide the final ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the open space and common areas with the project. The applicant also has prepared a second plan for the southern part of the site showing 16 fewer lots along the west side of the public road B (between the west property line and the new street). (See the map dated 4 -04 -08 on page 38.) This is an area that, if the city approves the project, the developer 7 has agreed to not grade or construct in 2008. This delay will give the city an opportunity to decide whether to buy that part of the site (8.3 acres) for additional open space. Engineering Department Review Michael Thompson of the Maplewood Engineering Department has reviewed the project plans. He put his comments in the memo starting on page 72. The city engineers are generally satisfied with the latest project plans and they are recommending several minor design changes to the plans. His comments also include a statement from Kimley -Horn and Associates about the EAW (environmental assessment worksheet) that the city had prepared for the site in 2006. We also have included a summary of the EAW on pages 23 and 24 of this memo and a copy of a memo dated June 29, 2006 from Chuck AN (starting on page 51). This memo has additional information about the EAW and section with comments and questions about the EAW and the site and staff answers to those comments and questions. In addition, Kimley -Horn and Associates sent the city a letter dated April 9, 2008 that explains the issues that the city considered in the EAW in 2006 and how the current proposal relates to the 2006 EAW analysis. The consultants include several important points in their letter, including the following: 1. "The current proposal is of a lesser magnitude than the concepts originally reviewed in the EAW, and mitigation measures set forth in the EAW are sufficient to address potential impacts from the currently proposed development." 2. 'Based on our review of the current proposal and comparison with the EAW previously completed and approved, it has been determined that additional environmental review is not warranted. The EAW published in February 2006 satisfies the intent of environmental review process for the current proposal." Traffic and Access A concern of some of the neighbors near the site is the increase in traffic that their area would experience if the city approves the project. While staff recognizes that having a new development and new streets in the area with new neighbors driving past their homes would create changes for the neighborhood, we do not anticipate a large enough traffic increase from the proposal to justify denying the request. For example, if each of the 165 housing units would generate an average of ten vehicle trips per day, there would be 1,650 more vehicles (in total) using Carver Avenue. For a 12 -hour day, the 1,650 vehicle trips would mean an average of 138 vehicle trips per hour, or an average of about 2.3 additional vehicles every minute. The city traffic consultant confirmed for city staff that, on average, detached single - family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day and that town houses, whether attached or detached, usually generate about six vehicle trips per day. The difference in these numbers is because of the residents and the difference in the size of the families that live in the different units. Town houses are usually occupied by young couples starting out in life or by empty- nesters — that is, families with no children and thus fewer people in each unit. They also have found that more traditional families with children still prefer to live in detached single dwellings with more living and yard space. As such, these types of homes will create more traffic (on average) than town houses. As part of the redesign of the development in 2006, the project engineer moved the proposed location of the new Henry Lane to the west down Carver Avenue. (See the detail on page 50.) The proposed E3 location puts Henry Lane in alignment with the property line that is between the properties at 2431 and 2445 Carver Avenue. This change should help prevent the headlights from northbound vehicles on Henry Lane from shining into the houses on the north side of Carver Avenue and is the location of the proposed Henry Lane on the current proposal. We have included comments from Dennis Hagle of Ramsey County on page 79. For additional information about traffic, I have included the following section from the 2006 EAW responses prepared by city staff and city consultants: Traffic. As part of the initial analysis, the trip generation for typical single - family detached homes and senior adult housing - detached homes were compared to estimate the reduction in trips for a senior development. This comparison showed that a reduction in trips between 47 and 65 percent for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and the daily trip generation would be likely. That is the reason a 50 percent reduction was used to estimate the trip generation in the EAW. Additional dialog with Washington County staff has occurred since the completion of the EAW, and based on their comments as well as the comments received by Ramsey County, the apartment trip generation was modified. The original 50 percent reduction was reduced to a 25 percent reduction for the apartment trip generation. This modification was made to help ensure that the traffic impacts were conservatively assessed. Additional concerns from the Planning Commission resulted in another revision to the traffic analysis. This revision assumes no reduction in trips for the apartment trip generation portion of the senior housing development. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect this increase in traffic. The site trip distribution map caused some confusion because some of the percent distributions were not listed on the figure. This figure has been updated. The previous analysis assumed that 30 percent of the traffic would travel south to the interchange of TH 61 and 1 -494. This traffic was split between Point Douglas Road and Sterling Street. Fifteen percent of the site traffic was distributed to the north via Carver Avenue to Century Boulevard. After further discussion with Washington County, the percentage of site trips using Point Douglas and Carver Avenue were decreased by 5 percent each. The 10 percent of trips that used those roads were rerouted to the south on Sterling Street to obtain access to the TH 61 and 1 -494 interchange. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect the impacts of the changes in the site traffic trip distributions. The updated analysis is included at the end of the Response to Comments section. The traffic analysis using a more conservative trip generation number and an increased trip distribution to /from Sterling Street did not significantly change the traffic results. There was no significant change in the level -of- service values at any of the intersections included in the original analysis. The delay on the southbound approach to Sterling Street did not increase and remained similar to the no -build conditions. Therefore, the mitigation measures presented in the original EAW are still recommended and no further mitigation measures are recommended. The traffic mitigation measures recommended by the EAW include having traffic turn lanes on Carver Avenue at the new Henry Lane and the addition of a right turn lane for westbound Carver Avenue at McKnight Road. N ATM_ FTT.r The developer had a wetland delineation done for the property. The delineation found that there are four wetlands on the property — two Type 4 wetlands near Carver Avenue, a large Type 5 wetland between Henry Lane and Heights Avenue and a small (8,879- square -foot) Type 5 wetland north of Fish Creek. The city requires a 25- foot -wide no- disturb buffer area around Type 4 wetlands and a 10- foot -wide no- disturb buffer around Type 5 wetlands. The latest project plans show a 25- foot -wide no- disturb buffer around the northerly wetlands with possibly some areas of grading encroachments. City staff will have to work with the project engineer to ensure that the plans will meet the 25 -foot and 10- foot -wide city buffer requirements for these wetlands. The developer is proposing to fill the small southerly wetland that is 8,879 square feet in area and replace it with constructed wetland next to the existing wetlands near Carver Avenue. They also are proposing to construct eight rain gardens (new infiltration areas) totaling 28,491 square feet of area to create public value credits as part of their wetland mitigation plan. The watershed district will have to approve this replacement plan. Shann Finwall, the city's environmental planner, has reviewed the project plans and provided city planning staff with her comments (see them starting on page 77). Watershed District Review The Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District will be reviewing the project plans. The district did not find any major issues with the proposed plans from 2006 and city staff does not expect they will have any major concerns with the latest proposal. They will be requiring a permit before the contractor may start grading the site. Tree Removal /Replacement/Preservation The applicant had a tree inventory done for the property in 2005. This survey found 1,111 significant or large trees on the property, including pines, elms, spruce, ash and oak. (See the tree plans in the project plans.) The city considers large trees as those that are eight inches in diameter or greater or pines that are at least eight feet tall. Tree Preservation The city's tree preservation ordinance that was in effect in 2006 required that all "large" trees removed from a site be replaced one - for -one, up to 10 trees per acre. The ordinance defines a large tree as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4 -foot trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwood, and poplar. These are the standards that the city will be using to review this proposal. The applicant's proposed tree preservation plan shows them saving 709 large trees and removing 402 large trees with the proposed grading and construction of the project site. (This is a reduction of 63 trees to be removed compared to the 2006 proposal). Those they would remove would include pines, elms, spruce, locust and oak trees. Therefore, the applicant must plant at least 14 replacement trees on the site to have at least 10 trees per acre. The proposed project plans show the applicant planting at least 366 replacement trees as part of their overall landscape plan, including a mix of 137 deciduous or over story trees and a mix of 229 coniferous trees. The proposed number and size of the replacement trees exceeds the city's 2006 tree ordinance requirements. i[l] As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade much of the property to prepare the site for construction and to build the storm water ponds and infiltration basins. The proposed plans show the developer saving groups of existing trees in a few areas of the site — including along the west property line, near the southwest and southeast corners of the site, along the south side of Fish Creek, to the northwest of the large wetland and near the two wetlands near Carver Avenue. The 2006 city tree code required there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site after the contractor has finished construction. For this 73 -acre site, the code requires there be at least 730 trees on the property after the construction is complete. While city staff is encouraged by the level of interest expressed by the developer in saving and transplanting trees on the site, the devil in this will be in the details. In other words, how many and how well the trees survive will be in how the contractor handles the details of the project. The project engineer will need to prepare a detailed grading and tree plan for the entire site for city staff approval. This plan will need to show the proposed grading, the trees that will stay, those that the contractor will transplant and those that the contractor will remove. In addition, this plan should show the size and location of trees the developer would add to the site for screening purposes and where they would store the transplanted trees before the contractor puts them in their final locations. Trees and Landscaping As proposed, the developer would save, plant or transplant at least 1,075 trees on the site (including in the yards of each unit and along Henry Lane) and install eight rain gardens and five infiltration ponds /basins with landscaping. The detailed landscape plans in the project plan set show more details about the tree planting and seeding for the north one -half and the south one -half of the site. Staff expects the mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether the unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 '/ story, look out or full basement walkout unit. In addition, all yard areas near the buildings should be sodded (except for any mulched planting beds). The applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the ponds, infiltration basins and drainage basins. The contractor should plant the ponds with native vegetation including grasses with Forbes and plant the upland portions of the ponds with native shrubbery and trees. The project engineer also should change the Colorado blue spruce to another species of evergreen tree and must show the planting details on the final project landscape plans. All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must have an underground irrigation system. Any landscaping and turf establishment within the 1 -494 right -of -way should be subject to MnDOT's approval. Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials The plans show lots for up to 165 housing units — 100 smaller -sized lots for single dwellings (similar to detached town houses) and another 65 larger lots for single dwellings. As I noted earlier in the report, the applicant has not yet applied to the city for design approval. Staff expects, based on conversations with the developer, that the proposed units will be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They could have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with a stone veneer near the doors and on the fronts, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there would be a mix of look out, full basement and walkout units, and each unit would have aluminum 11 soffits and an attached two -car garage. Staff does not currently have any major concerns about the elevations of the proposed units since this development would be somewhat isolated from any nearby homes. Before the city issues a building permit, the city should require the developer or the builder(s) to submit their building plans to the city for review and approval by the community design review board (CDRB). This submittal should include building plans and elevations for each building type. These should show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, all elevations of all buildings, any shutters, window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide details about any brick or stone accents that the town houses might have. Noise A concern expressed by neighbors and the planning commission about this proposal was that of noise how the noise from traffic in the area might affect the new residents. The consultants studied traffic and noise in the area as part of the EAW. The EAW concluded that the noise levels on the site would exceed the nighttime standards for residential land uses as set by the state. As such, the developer and builders will need to design and build the new housing units in the development with measures to lessen and mitigate the noise in the housing units. To this end, city staff has included in the recommendations a condition requiring documentation that the units or town houses in the development will meet the state's noise standards. This construction might be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. Site Lighting The city's lighting ordinance has several standards for exterior lighting. It requires all new freestanding lights be no more than 25 feet in height, the light fixtures must have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view (to avoid nuisances), and they must have fixtures that direct light downward. In addition, the maximum light illumination from any outdoor light cannot exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. The applicant has not yet prepared a site lighting plan for the development. The city should require the developer to submit such a plan to the city with their CDRB application. Such a plan shall show the installation of at least 12 freestanding Iightposts within the site to provide lighting along the new streets and driveways (primarily at the intersections and at the end of the cul -de- sacs). The plans also will have to show details about the location, height and style of the freestanding poles, the fixture design on the poles and about the proposed lighting on the buildings. The final plans also will have to show that the maximum light intensity at the property lines will be .4 foot candles or less. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the parking requirements for a housing development such as this. In general, the code requires the developer provide at least two parking spaces per unit with at least one of those being a garage. According to the plans from the developer, there would be 330 garage spaces (two spaces per unit) and 330 spaces on driveways (660 total spaces) for the 165 housing units. It should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24- foot -wide streets, parking on one side of 28- foot -wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer is proposing to construct the new north /south public street (Henry Lane) 32 feet wide with a concrete 12 sidewalk on one side, and the streets would be 24 feet wide. The city would not allow parking on the 24- foot -wide private driveways. Retaining Walls The applicant is proposing to install several retaining walls within the development. These would include locations on both sides of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue, along the east side of Henry Lane near the creek crossing along the rear of the units near the southwest corner of the site. (See site and grading plans and the details on pages 37 and 39.) The retaining walls will start at ground grade and extend upward to 18 feet at their highest point. The city will require the developer to install a fence on the top of any retaining wall that is four feet tall or higher. Soil Borings The grading plan shows the project engineer having taken 30 soil borings throughout the project site — including the locations of the proposed retaining walls, basins and driveways. The city's engineer will be reviewing the results of the borings and the report from the project engineer. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal. He noted that: 1. The developer should provide the appropriate security and street lighting and that each unit should have its own unique address. 2. The street and driveway names and the addressing of the units could cause confusion. He suggested that the developer work with city staff to pick names for the streets. 3. Parking within town house developments can become an issue for residents and their guests. The city should encourage the developer to provide enough parking for all to use, especially during special events. 4. Construction site thefts are an on -going problem in the metro area and the contractors should plan and provide site security during the construction. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following about the proposal: The engineer will need to verify that the cul -de -sacs and the turn - arounds are large enough for proper snow removal and for emergency vehicle access. All roads and driveways shall be at least 20 feet wide. There shall be addresses on each unit facing the street. The applicant needs to verify the proper placement of fire hydrants with Saint Paul Water and with the city fire marshal. 13 COMMISSION ACTION On April 15, 2008, the planning commission recommended that the city not approve the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD), the vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within the development and the proposed preliminary plat. (See the draft of the planning commission minutes attached to the end of this report.) RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 91 (Attachment 31). This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a 165 -unit planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1 -494, south of Carver Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date - stamped March 31, 2008, except where the city requires changes. These plans include only having emergency vehicle and trail access from the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. For purposes of this condition and for compliance with Section 44 -1099 of the Maplewood City Code, and based on the City's recent experience in applying this requirement, substantial ground or site preparation would constitute a substantial start on the proposed construction. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Michael Thompson's memo dated April 9, 2008, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulbs and round — about shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. im b. A final detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. Have the city environmental planner and city naturalist approve the wetland, grading and tree replacement /preservation plans. 6. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any remaining debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. d. Provide the city with verification that all the units or town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. For any units that are within the 65- decibel noise contour, the contractor will have to build the units or town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. 7. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet. b. Front -yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum — none. c. Rear -yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line. d. Side -yard setback: 15 feet minimum between buildings. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. B. Approve the resolution starting on page 96 (Attachment 32). This resolution vacates the unused easements and right -of -ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue). The city is vacating these easements and right -of- ways because: 15 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right -of -ways for their original purposes. 3. The existing easements and right -of -ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout. 4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right -of -ways with the final plat. This vacation is subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and utility easements and right -of -ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. C. Approve the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on March 31, 2008). The applicant or developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign a development agreement with the city that guarantees that the applicant, developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten -foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five -foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 12 locations. The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. Replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. h. Not do any tree removal, grading or construction in the area south and west of the proposed round -about until after November 13, 2008. i. Build a project that is consistent with the development plans of the application and with financial terms (if approved by the city council) contemporaneously with the applications. The effectiveness of this approval is conditioned upon the parties' execution of such a development agreement. 0. j. Provide for the repair of Carver Avenue (street, curb and gutter, ditch and boulevard) after the developer constructs the sidewalks and connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, turn lanes and private driveways. k. Provide for restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the construction of the new Henry Lane. Have the city engineer, city environmental planner and city naturalist approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson dated April 9, 2008, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood -fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10- foot -wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. 17 (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one -foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil - stabilization blankets. (11) The drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run -off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run -off from the site. c. The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer and city environmental planner before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one -half (2 '/) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group additional new trees together including in the front yard of the property at 2431 Carver Avenue to help reduce headlight glare from Henry Lane. (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 552 trees. (8) Require the developer to replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine -ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3) Repair of Carver Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, turn lanes, trails, sidewalks and private driveways. (4) The developer enclosing any ponds or basins that will have a normal water depth of two feet or more with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl- coated chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city. iU (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire -flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right -of -ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The repair and restoration of the temporary Heights Avenue cul -de -sac including the installation of new curb and gutter, the trail connection, street pavement and the restoration of the boulevard. (11) The pipelines in and near Henry Lane and Outlot B. (12) The restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the completion of the new Henry Lane. (13) All traffic mitigation measures as outlined by the EAW including the additional turn lanes on Carver Avenue. (14) The installation of the design elements and safety measures for Henry Lane including a 3 -cable "Texas Fence" adjacent to the MnDOT chain link fence and the 32 -inch high retaining wall near the east side of Henry Lane (as outlined in the letter dated April 4, 2008 from Copar Companies). e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm -water run -off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the common areas as outlots. iE] c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. d. Work with city staff on the preparation of a street and driveway naming plan. City staff shall approve this naming plan. e. Label the names of all the streets on all project plans and distinguish which are public and which are private. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off - site drainage and utility easements. 6. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 7. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. Covenants or association documents that address the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls and of the common areas. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 8. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 9. Combining all the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. 10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, city staff may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 20 [a] III III rrAa0&Wife] MIMia,rM Note: City staff did not have time to survey area residents and property owners about this latest proposal. Staff has included the following comments from 2006 for background information. In 2006, city staff surveyed the owners of the 101 properties within at least 750 feet of this site about the 191 -unit proposal. Of the seven replies, none supported the project, two had comments and questions about the proposal and five were against the proposal. For None Comments /Questions See the e-mail from Kathy Urban on page 86. See the e-mail message from Don and Peggy Telin on page 87. Against 1. I still think they are trying to put too many units in this area. I would rather see single - family homes with a few townhomes. I also do not want to see the approval of the oversized emergency outlet "Trail" from Dorland Road /Heights Avenue. I think this will only lead to a permanent road to this development which is not necessary. I also think the land dedication /cash dedication discussion is selfish. I think CoPar is trying to do the minimum amount possible to satisfy the earlier complaints they heard. Overall, I think this new proposal is still unacceptable. This area cannot support 191 homes. If you multiply this by the proposed number of people living in the homes, the additional population of 554 at a minimum. I would like to see a new proposal with a smaller amount of homes. (Brass — 1355 Dorland Road South) 2. See the letter from Terry Baumgart on pages 80 and 81. 3. See the letter from Mark Bonitz on pages 82 - 85. 4. No way should this be done with the same companies involved in taking out and soil removal. It should be done by an outside company only!! I do believe too many units with even single family homes. Wildlife, too much too fast, deer? Most important — we need businesses and jobs — no jobs, no homes. (Gearin — 2575 Carver Avenue) 5. The PUD lot size should be within the existing code parameters. The actual units per acre is already well above the code when using real density figures (53 actual useable acres of property). 191 divided by 53 acres equals 3.6 units per acre (net). Basing PUD density on 73 acres is not logical or reasonable, even if the city code allows. The buildable acres equal 53. The proposed park dedication fee of $834,000 based on 191 units should be used within Carver Crossing and the adjacent open space if the proposal is approved by the city council. The city should monitor and assure that all EAW, watershed and other agency issues and requirements are met precisely. The city should require a bond and enforce a completion date so construction does not linger forever. Allowing this development, in my opinion, is not a prudent decision. Future issues and problems, when the developer is long gone, will be left to the City at the city and citizens' expense. (Erb — 2354 Heights Avenue) 21 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 73 acres Existing land use: Vacant (formerly had three single dwellings and accessory buildings) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings and Carver Avenue South Ramsey County open space West: Houses on Dorland Road and Saint Paul East: Henry Lane and 1 -494 PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R -1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R -1(R) (rural single dwellings) and F (farm residence) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44- 1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1 -9 in the resolution on pages 91 through 95.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2- 290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board (CDRB) make the following findings to approve design 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 is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is 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. Past Actions On March 14, 2005, the city council reviewed an early concept plan for this property. That plan showed 386 units of senior housing on the property. After some discussion by the council, the applicant asked the city to table their request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal. 22 On May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed a second concept plan prepared by CoPar Companies for the Schlomka property south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane. This plan showed 376 housing units in at least four styles of homes on about 73 acres. The council also authorized the preparation of an EAW for the development area. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the results of the EAW and to consider a 299 -unit housing proposal for this site. After much testimony and discussion, the planning commission recommended that the city council: Make a negative declaration about the need for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for the project. 2. Deny the proposed land use plan change from R -1 (single dwellings) to R -3(L) (low- density multiple dwelling). 3. Deny the proposed zoning map change from F (farm residence) and R -1(R) to R -3 (multiple dwellings). 4. Deny the proposed PUD for a 299 -unit senior housing development. 5. Deny the request to vacate the easements and right -of -ways within the proposed project site. 6. Deny the proposed preliminary plat that would have created the lots for the proposed PUD. The planning commission cited concerns about noise affecting the future residents, traffic counts and flow in the area, the proposed project density, the idea of having senior housing in the location, storm water run -off and impacts on wildlife as reasons for recommending denial of the proposed 299 -unit development plan. After the planning commission meeting, the developer decided to withdraw their application for the 299 -unit senior housing development for the site and redesign the proposal to try to address the concerns of the neighbors, planning commission and city. On June 12, 2006, the city council reviewed and discussed the EAW and its findings for the proposed 299 -unit Carver Crossing development. The council, after taking much testimony and because of the questions they had about the EAW, tabled their decision on the matter until July 10, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the city council continued their review and discussion of the EAW for Carver Crossing. The council, on a 3 -2 vote, adopted a resolution approving a negative declaration (that the project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects) and that the city would not require an EIS for the proposed development. (I have included the June 29, 2006 staff report for this meeting as a separate attachment for additional information.) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Summary An EAW is a preliminary environmental review of a proposal to look at how the development could potentially affect the environment. The state designed the EAW to gather and disclose information about potential environmental effects from a proposed project. The EAW also reviews ways or methods to avoid or lessen any environmental effects. An EAW has a list of standardized questions that cover issues such as land use and habitat, storm water, wetlands, air emissions and pollution and traffic. 23 The project with 299 units did not meet the minimum size thresholds (with the proposed number of units) set by state rules to mandate an EAW. However, the city can require the developer to prepare an EAW if the city decides that the project "has a potential for significant environmental effects." To this end, Mr. Hansen requested that the city order the preparation of an EAW in 2005. A preliminary list of concerns included the effects the project could have on the wetlands, slopes, utilities, storm water and drainage (including Fish Creek) and traffic in the area. The noise from 1 -494 and its effects on the new residents is another matter that the EAW was to analyze. Staff expected that the consultant would need three to four months to prepare the EAW. In this case, however, because of the complexity of the project, revisions the developer made to the project plans (in response to staff concerns) and the potential issues in the area, the EAW took almost one year to complete. The city's consultant completed the EAW and then the city had a state - mandated 30 -day public comment period on the document. The comments the city received included questions and concerns about wetlands, storm water run -off and management (including possible effects on Fish Creek), the Mississippi River Critical Corridor, traffic, noise and public utilities. The comments the city received and the consultant's responses to those comments are explained in a separate memo. In this case, staff recommended that the city make a negative declaration for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for this project. The city council, on July 10, 2006, voted to not require an EIS for the Carver Crossing development. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: - Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing and low -to- moderate- income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: - Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life -cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 24 The city's long -term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must ensure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Mississippi River Critical Corridor Information (from the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan) Maplewood hereby incorporates the goals of the 1976 designation of the Mississippi River Critical Area On November 18, 1988, Public Law 100 -69 established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the National Park System. The MNRRA was established by Congress to: (1) Protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities. (2) Encourage coordination of federal, state and local programs (3) Provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and local governments in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure the orderly public and private development in the area. The Secretary of the Interior approved a Comprehensive Management Plan forthe MNRRA in 1995. This plan lays out a policy level framework for the management of the Mississippi River corridor. The responsibility for the administration of the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, as described in Minnesota Statutes and Executive Order 79 -19, was transferred from the EQB (the Environmental Quality Board) to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1995. Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the city has been designated as "Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals: (1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. (2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources. (3) Expand public access to and for the enjoyment of the river. The city may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if they are compatible with these goals. In addition, Maplewood will require that building and development applications in the Critical Area have enough information to ensure that the new construction is compatible with the character of the Urban Diversified District. Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards The following are the city's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area: • The city shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. 25 • Maplewood will work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on possible ordinance changes that would affect lands within the Critical Area. • The city will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies. • Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The city will review these effects when approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single - family homes. • Maplewood requires all development in the Critical Area to meet all state regulations for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). • Maplewood will notify the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) whenever the city receives a development or subdivision application for land within the Critical Area. • The city shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct run -off onto adjoining streets and watercourses. • Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the quality of run -off onto adjoining streets and watercourses. • The city encourages the clustering of structures and the use of designs that will reduce publicfacility costs, which will provide more open space and will improve scenic designs. Application Date The city received the latest development plans for this site on March 31, 2008. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by May 28, 2008, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension or if the city extend the review period. 26 p:sec 24 -28 \Carver Crossing for Council (TE) - (2008) Attachments: 1. Letter from Copar Companies dated April 4, 2006 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Preliminary Plat dated March 31, 2008 6. Site Plan 7. Concept Plan with Referendum dated 4 -4 -08 8. Grading and Erosion Control Plan 9. Utility Plan 10. Stormwater Management Plan 11. Stormwater Plan Details 12. Wetland Mitigation Plan 13. Tree Preservation Plan 14. Open Space Plan 15. Master Landscape Plan 16. Enlarged Landscape Plan (North one -half) 17. Enlarged Landscape Plan (South one -half) 18. Landscape Plan Details 19. Carver Avenue /Henry Lane Intersection Detail dated 8 -01 -06 20. June 29, 2006 EAW memo from Chuck AN 21. April 9, 2008 letter from Kimley -Horn and Associates 22. April 9, 2008 memo from Michael Thompson 23. April 9, 2008 memo from Shann Finwall 24. April 4, 2008 letter from Dennis Hagle (Ramsey County) 25. Letter dated August 22, 2006 from Terry and Linda Baumgart 26. Letter dated August 24, 2006 from Mark Bonitz 27. E -mail from Kathy and Rick Urban dated August 23, 2006 28. E -mail from Peggy Telin dated August 25, 2006 29. E -mail from Rick Urban dated April 14, 2008 30. September 28, 2006 City Council minutes 31. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 32. Easement and Right -of -Way Vacation Resolution 33. Project Plans date - stamped March 31, 2008 (separate attachments) 27 April 4, 2008 Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning Commission 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Carver Crossing of f Maplewood Development Plan Setflement Dear Mayor Longrie, Council Members, and Commission Members, Attachment CO PAR companies Development • Finance • Investment Enclosed are the CoPar 17evelopment Carver Crossing CUP /PUT) development plans for your approval. The drafting of these plans is the result of active settlement negotiations with the City and the product of substantial input from the City and its consultants. Our development team has worked diligently to revise the development proposal from its original forms as a 386 home concept; 299 home EAW "negative declaration" approved plan; 191 home proposal; to the final 165 home plan contained herein. This settlement plan is consistent with the Land Use plan of the city and the detailed EAW analysis of the site; and is offering tremendous open space, public land access, and corridor opportunity. We respectfully request that the City of Maplewood review this settlement proposal and approve the following actions as they relate to the development plans: I. Conditional Use Permit/ PUD approval 2. Preliminary Plat approval 3. Vacation of excess right -of- -way /easements 4. Direct staff to negotiate with CoPar on the financial aspects of the project. Outlined below are a number of development plan highlights: Development Overview: The development site is 723 acres in size with a development density that has been reduced from 4.1 to 2.28 homes per acre. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) approach results in the designation of 31.8 acres of woodland, wetland and upland open space; an increase in open space from all previous plans. The 165 proposed lots average approximately 8,524 sq, ft. and each will support a large 40 ft. by 60 ft. (2,400 sq. ft.) building site with a diverse mix of lot widths. The lot design and layout accompanied by the open space create distinct neighborhoods within the development resulting in a frill range of single dwelling size and elevation alternatives consistent with the area. Homes will be built by a select builder or pool of builders that has yet to be determined. Design review board approval of these single family homes will be sought as may be required at the time of phased construction of the development. 8677 Eagle Point Blvd Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651 -378 -0500 651- 379 -0412 (Fax) 1 www.CoparCompanies.com Real Estate Development, Finance & Invealmem � S The incorporation of PIID development techniques has enhanced the development proposal by allowing 43.9% of the site designated as open. Open spaces, raingarduns, tree clusters and other site features have been integrated into the site plan and are directly adjacent to over 97 ° / a of the homes. The open spaces and slope protections within this development accompanied by the 130 acre Ramsey County Fish Greek Protection Open Space and sizable city open space to the north will continue to allow the natural areas in this I4941694 bounded site to be a dominating feature of south Maplewood. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan can be reviewed in detail on'sl=t C•6 of the development plan. A total of five (5) Permanent Dual Purpose Basins (PDPB's) and eight (8) raingardens have been designed for the site. The PDPB ponds maintain an event based average infiltration capacity of 2.8 inches and present an infiltration event range from 1.5 to 4 inches. The raingardens further enhance infiltration by allowing an event based average infiltration capacity of 5.28 inches with an infiltration event range from 4.25 to 7 inches. In accordance with the Ramsey Washington County Metro Watershed District volume control worksheet, the required infiltration volume for this site is 69,073 cubic feet. As proposed, the stormwater plan will infiltrate 109,076 cubic feet. Stormwater management in this plan continues to aggressively exceed established standards and sets a precedent for other such developments to attain.. Estimated earthwork has decreased from 290,000 yards to 237,000 yards. This level of excavation is supporting the development and the increased stormwater water treatment basins. The excavation is well within acccptable range for a 70+ acre site and is also tied directly to the increased water quality treatment porformanoc of the plan. Landscape: There are 1,111 significant trees on the property. Significant trees are individually identified on the tree survey contained within the development set as shed C•8. The revised layout has resulted in the preservation of a majority (709) of the significant trees and is preserving more trees than presented in the EAW and all previous plans. In conjunction with the preservation of the 709 significant trees, the landscape plan is proposing to plant an additional 558 mixed variety trees. The landscape plan has been designed by a Landscape Architect and is incorporating diverse tree varieties, pond seed mixes, and rain garden landscaping, focused on native and emergent wetland fringe and native prairie grasses. A total of 723 trees (10 /per acre) were required by ordinance to be maintained and or placed on the site at the time of original development plan tree survey and submittal, The tree preservation and landscape planning vastly exceeds those standards. Wetlands: Wetland impacts remain unchanged from the EAW proposal. The site contains 319,076 sq. ft. of wetland of which only 8,874 sq. ft. or 2.78% will be impacted. In accordance with the State of .2.. 29 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act the impacted wetland requires 2:1 replacement with 17,758 sq. ft. of qualifying public value credits. The wetland replacement: plan offers over 5 times more public value credit than required and exceeds the criteria established by the Wetland Conservation Act by 95,791 sq. A. of public value credits. The Watershed District has previously approved of the wetland sequencing and replacement plan. The development proposal has also accounted for city and watershed district wetland classification and building setback regulations in effect at the time of original plan development All wetlands maintain at least a 50 ft. average buffer, the average buffer width of the entire central wetland exceeds 71 feet. The Wetland Mitigation /Raingarden plan can be reviewed on Sheet C -9 of the development proposal. til ities & 6toads: Unlike the balance of south Maplewood, sewer and water utilities are immediately available to the entire development site. Access to sewer and water infrastructure is gained from both Carver Avenue and Heights Avenue and is to be extended throughout the site as gravity fed public infrastructure. The design and density can be fully accommodated with existing infmstructure connections. As proposed and as requested by City Staff, all roads within the development are public. The road identified as Henry Lane has been enhanced to address Fish Creek crossing concerns and its intersection with Carver Avenue adjusted to improve intersection safety. To address passible I494/694 vehicular travel off the freeway causing an obstruction of Henry Lane, the following measures have been verified / implemented: • With the now complete 14941694 improvements a large center concrete barrier has been installed limiting possible off -road travel in this scenario to south bound 1494 /694 traffic. • MnDot highway standards for "clear zone" travel distances have been verified between the south bound I494/694 travel shoulder and the bordering MnDot chain link fence. The available clear zones dictate no further guard rail or barrier and according to highway department standards will sufficiently provide for the safe incidental off road travel of a vehicle. • A 3 -cable derived "texas fence" will be installed within the Henry Lane right -of -way and adjacent to the existing MnDot chain link fence to further restrict vehicles. • As a fourth barrier, the par4ncnt section of Henry Lane roadway will be elevated via a 32 inch high retaining wall constructed near the east side or Henry Lane and adjacent to 1494/694. The wall will be equivalent in form and function to a "1" barrier design. Any such vehicle making its way to the edge of Henry Lane will be encumbered by this 32 inch wall, which is the height recognized by the Federal Highway Administration to provide proper vehicle deflection. The implementation of this design rather than divided medians and expanded width road sections causes the improved Henry Lane to have minimal intrusion on Fish Creek while allowing for increased safety. F ish Creek: -3- 30 Fish Creek is a positive amenity adjacent to this project and is being protected to a great extent through the blighted site clean -up that has occurred and stormwater controls that are a part of the development. The plan has emphasized enhanced protection of the creek by dedicating additional open space and conservation easement area along the north and south sides of the Ramsey County owned creek property running through the project area. Road and lot alignments have been adjusted to preserve a minimum 300 R wide Fish Creek Corridor, remove all previously identified retaining wall, and expand Creek setback. Plan sheet C -3 demonstrates the Fish Creek corridor provisions of this plan. ississh5vi River Criti Regulations pertaining to this area of the site are being met with the revised proposal in the same manner they were met within the EAW. The development plans have fully considered the Environmental Protection and Critical Area ordinance requirements of the city. The proposed development has the potential of greatly increasing public access to and along Fish Creek; is being designed and will be constructed and maintained to the maximum extent practical as it relates to erosion, alterations, and slopes•, is removing site contamination and pollution, is not impacting the views of protected waters, and is vastly exceeding stormwater ponding and phosphorous removal requirements. The potential for MRCAC designated areas within the site to have qualifying blufflines has been fully evaluated. All City bluff line requirements are met. Roadway and lot configuration adjustments have been implemented to protect sire slopes to the maxim extem.practical. Significant portions of developable slope and land area are being left open allowing expansive corridor connectivity and access. Demoamohle & Fiscal Im The 165 homes proposed in Carver Crossing of Maplewood will be open to all qualified buyers and maintained as minimum maintenance single €amily homes. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan estimates 2.9 people per unit live in a single dwelling. Using this household estimates as an approximate range, the projected population of Carver Crossing at full development should be 479 people. A conservative estimated gross retail sales mean of the homes in Carver Crossing is $378,000. At this level of development, the League of Minnesota Cities tax calculator estimates annual Carver Crossing tax revenue at $742,170. The current annual tax revenue generated from the property is $36,000. Vacation of Rieht -of -Wad Existing public right -of -way within the development is limited to Henry Lane. With the realignment of Henry Lane intersection to Carver Avenue a limited amount of existing public right -of- way /casement will no l onger be utilized. The more defined roundabout and configuration of the southern most portion of Henry Lane is also refined causing excess right -of -4- 31 way to be unnecessary. In conjunction with this development request the excess public right -of- way and/or easements can be sufficiently replaced with the deilned road alignments and site layout. Public Ownership Option: Understanding that there has been a desire by interested parties to purchase portions of the property or otherwise pursue public ownership the settlement discussions and resulting settlement plan include a public ownership alternative. Illustrated on the attached conceptual site plan (color graphic} is a public open space acquisition option as follows: An option to purchase the southwesterly slope area generally west of Public Road 3 as depicted. Said option to also include acquiring all rernairdng dark green open space if desired, Total acquisition option of approximately 33.8 acres Resulting combined public open space and conservation easement designation of over 50% of the entire site. Conclusion: We hope you agree that the 165 home Carver Crossing of Maplewood plan represents a practical and reasonable settlement and is in the best interest of the City. In spite of the unfortunate litigation, CoPar and its development team have been able to provide a very high quality final proposal. We hope to receive your approval and construct this development in a manner that enhances the open spaces, recreational opportunities, and awareness of the desirable neighborhood elements available to people throughout Maplewood. Sincerely, v— VL, Kurt Sclmeider CoParDevelopment, LLC -5- 31 32 LOCATION MAP W 4 N Attachment 2 Attachment 3 LAND USE MAP M U N Attachm&Bt.-4 LJ z 52 EJ I J . LED 0 Fi A q Eo j M, SITIE COUNTY OPEN SPACE C II ON 'all SITE Ewa ED r PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP L 35 AttachmerTt 5 mQ� ®mQm <�iF_31E1! L�QI_'® I81.ffi3� f��f ±A f� {eF?iLa oo� w m• � vsizia mom mc� r �. H: a Q FL a 0 COUNTY OPEN SPACE � I t I I I I / I c r / 7 0 / ° J e I v CARVERAVENUE M1N M 'F ' ''— ..,r,.- T .. r �.. r , I K ... ,...... .' WETLAND \ -abf - y ♦ ly l I t i .n b I ♦ 3 1 e l . e�� I� t I I A /S y s 4 I a S "Le o m ml + 1 r •/ I I �L� -� �_ � P TYBIH�weetlllPb� I I I �. n< COUNTY OP EN SPACE JJ ♦ 0� � Ti•Tfy /.� �! 1 I � � v n� I � PRELIMINARY PLAT I I , .[ V 36 Attachment 5' R% HKVCKAVtMLIP , ...... AJGNUry 9 fir` \ � �Sr—• L K � � I� ,� It(j/ Jlf ♦ / A kp. eV Ic a ` � • `F= J - 1 f y ° SITE PLAN COUNTY OPEN SPACE / toz 1V 37 Attachment 7 38 „ a te ? KM w'+%7 E �1M MG 1101. Po LWM wM sma - E F ,A � Q ALLNINT M1,PISV — OAP AAN W/R ,,,,, w.w.w 6NOMffiffiiNW6 Attachment 8 awacxfrraH ecr+mu� GARVERAVENUE n 1,v"A .m wwm o LMWTE P E FF 1%Nd PND S�P.fEM COMPDL NCN163610E PAOOHAM _ I II $$�SC�roY wel nn...�aw+w I I I '� III I I 1 1 1 I I wuu uww n � ' 1 1 1111 �. mm wm ua.E J r aaen s..pa ,r- J P z i I 1 I 1 -_ f : I of GRADING, EJSi'J.'j l J 4 N 39 (( l/ u•� b �! EJSi'J.'j l J 4 N 39 Attachment 9 I J a CL a, � f r COUNTY OPEN SPACE r. 4 , N 40 Attachment-T© I ffil'l X, ;w i ', 832 aC 1 1 • WO-1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN A kti,l 4 N 41 Attachment lf COMPARISON OF EXISTNC3 AND PROPOSED DISCHARGE RATES PERMANENT DUAL PURPOSE BASIN DATA SCHEDULE . _ OEIpVIlOE rr:ra lol lsnm rnWm ron xu macs BUTA DIRECT CAICHMENE AREA (ACRES) 1.90 2143 4.36 21.91 2.14 -�. PiUN!m IMPMOUS ( %) 419 I" 50.0 50.0 56.0 - - INFILINMRON WLOME PROPOSED• (CF) 7,00 7.490 10,280 1IMIS 2300 -: MIN EWTTON EJWARON BM.00 573.00 SOON 53400 574.0 2.81 2 YEAR HEM WATER BM.19 8M.02 807.04 870.48 374.10 0.73 f0 MR HIGH IWER - 570.02 878.37 887.19 871.90 574.55 012 100 TEAR HEN WATER MAI 579.24 057.27 874.47 875.92 1.30 DISCHARGE RATE - 21R EVTOO (CES) 100 0.00 0.15 0,89 ON - in DISCHARGE MIE - I" EVENT 0.0 O.00 4.55 1 4.03 1 0.00 - E DECIWEE MlE - t00WE EVENT (CPS) 0.00 0.00 )19 5.05 0.0 - INRLTMIWN CMACTMr (EVENT) 406' 1 5.25 2.50' 1.50' 1 3.25 - RAINGARDEN DATA SaIMULE I -.. No .& M94 my my NOT CR GTCHMEM' AREA ("Es) OR5 1 0.59 0.37 1.01 2.40 PERCFNE IMPERQOOY (%) 23,{ 25,4 25.4 20.7 131 ,. INFILTRAMN WLUME P EG• (CF) 5,700 2,900 2,510 0.70 2.]50 '. MIN 00ROM ELEVAINION 905.[0 90¢.00 905.0 905.00 VON 2 VFNI WEN am 90611 003.01 905.01 905.01 570.02 - - .I 10 VEAR WON WATER 90518 905.18 905.14 905.22 8]617 100 YEAR HIGH WATER 905.65 905.34 90533 905.5] 8]8.18 - DOICHMGE MINE - WI EVENT (cm) 0.00 0.0 ON 0.00 ON - DISCHARGE MINE - IOM EVENT (CM ON 0.0 0.0 0.00 - 0.00 -- 1 @tCHMGE MIE - 100YR EVENS (CFS) 0.15 O.ID 1 0.13 1 0.14 1 0.00 _ - - -- IWILTMTEN GPACOY"r (EVENT) 5W S.SO' I 5.W 1 5.25' 1 4.25' - TOTAL INFILTRATION VOLUME PROPOSED* _ - 68,635 CF „ rINHE BIRLINMIEN VOLUME PROPOSED - TIE CMN11T OF A AWN M RIMINRAIE A SPEORED WWME OF WATER 94 11 HE DARE SPIN OF 45 HOURS - HAS BEEN CALCNATED USING INHE WORIN/AINER MODELING SOFIWME 'NR310FJD' IN MWUNCOON WRH lfE OVEMLL SId2MWAER _..� MANAGEMENT S M IN ACCORPMICE KIN TIE COY OF LUPI.ENOW, u THE WECFIED EVENT IS THE INYPE II - 24 EEAAT EVENT USING INIE SLS M-20 RUNG ME11.0. COMPARISON OF EXISTNC3 AND PROPOSED DISCHARGE RATES BSBR)600FD(IIONB (CFA P110P06®CCYM10E8 (tlF6) OEIpVIlOE 41R 1UYfl DUI. 2-lA ThYR BUTA CENiML WENNO - 7,30 7.0.1 7.114 7.34 7.57 - 7.87 DIRECT TO FISH CRETR [ROM NOR@ 2.14 7.24 15.01 0.00 0.04 1.21 DIRECT M FISH CREEK FROM SOOM T.42 8.03 23.13 ON 0.0.1 I.5] DISCHARGE NOM (CARVER ROAD) 0.01 1.18 4.48 0.01 0.61 2.81 DISCHARGE NORTH (FISH GREEN) O.0 ON 0.8 0.0 0.03 0.73 DISCHARGE NORINWFST ON ON 0.02 0.00 0.01 012 wsomOGE RISE 0.0 O.0 0.12 0.0 014 1.30 wSOASGE SOURTWEST om 0.10 1.70 0.0 014 in e*i� I `H E n E '6a3 $g L.vob 'S &fEn E+a. w o T� S Q O v W J m d a O Z O z �u Z o= f(n i O p ° p � 0 U � a W I� � iF Q > U wh m N z W CL CL W F 2 C W z' 5 CL O z a 5 C_ } 7 Ld W IL IL 5 C. Z W W 7 C: 0 O V) 3• -08 I REVISIONS 3 -8 -06 EAW CCYMENTS 7 -7 -06 CLIENT SMWIRAL 7 -28 -06 CUT COMMENTS 3 -31 -08 REWSEO 3O614RTAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DETAILS 1 4 N 42 Attachment 12 nno.n aenam� wuw m� .MN.MI n..a�,xam L. AltU11i AlEll l: II �\I 1� n m l umieuns mrt ma iav nua[am�. wwa tiVxm_ ' .un.rrc °an � i eml rwmm' i..m'a ° isEi.�rc M x.wu 'E i / •, um w.w nwaaurt�M.¢ 11 � ^ 3 i' ♦eu'ev�eni��wmrcMOla°N1.mwv L III M1( I �I I f - . BM.o°v.�ol°un.°auo�omc":m I 1 �l wroa ' uu wm�'wn.a avu eu.0 xm.w swr � 1'I\ I !: �_ I s�si I r F - ME€IAM FPPLACEMENI'/lMR3A 8ChEDULS e. WE ��� TdIYA. Ilene vnaw®Igme �nA'F pe,ew wq � r III I 'ranv. craws eEtY. /1®nJq IM'/A KNG 4p0PWi .. i \I' \�� li .. , 41 j d •" �,, 1 1 1 I I� 1� r r t I. Y '1;� i I L I I I I �l B F I l r 1 r f r - �• 2 l y �� S ! 7 w l / / I I wa 1 � 1 1 qex Na Y MITIGATION /RAINGARDEN PLAN 4 N' 43 4 N' 43 Attachment T3 TREE ORDMIANCE• , R 1FNSN141FLY l3, A.. ACLURWHC lU M ECR.YL - i /LlE M: PERMIT IYIACIEC TREES MIISr BE M14:. (NE f0.3 6E UP 10 ,O TREES PER ACRE. M WT L.R IEES9 TREE WENTORY SUMMARY. -r - - 56MPm TREES OR SRE = 1.111 MR SIORIPClN! FREES REMOVED= E02 FORE S{YaKWE AREE9 SAVED = 709 (201.0 RELOCATED) 205AL 91WIUICARi REM REQUIRED 20 RE REP CFO IA ` .a. xvanxml � �'INnn, xmuvm[w nnm) l m x nary -k x- O pow xumnxm TT MRM AIYKII. RMUIRES WE RCMWAL M 65 (FASR TREES iMR 1HC SYiullfd 01 S�]I -06. I W low 20W 809 I SCALE IN MT NORTH a W �I J s H r= J I� r pE "• u K ` Y s4� pr TREE PRESERVATION FL- mYmOPENSPACE " �-4 j ` / I 5 a I a W �I J H r= J I� r pE "• tik 4 N ii Attachment -4 OPEN SPACE PLAN a� 4 N 45 Attachment 16 LANDSCAPE PLAN - NORTH ONE -HALF 3 -3 / -n r q1 4 N 47 y 1 M /'J f (� LEGEND - •.P(/ ro f 'r / Y / 'XXX NEW IAWISH FOR H1 .D nas. NEW LO M R 0 N Y PRESERVATION P.AK TIN • I f , �„ ':. y ➢�, Y ry/ ( / /'' ( V R FROni rARE io K iRCVLEb IN iNIB AR U- AUT PIN ffi E MAT UE. FNL05:➢ A9H. - _ / •, SKYLINE HOMM -M i. PELNCHO MI EM •'- .^!�"p 4Y . V M" �� .I /, fY } ' / worth ERN PIN WK. Ill" HNIb SPRUCE. ! OR NORWAY FW UNDSCIYE AREA "MMS a ® IR IS 01 'ARM "B'S' ip K naryxp� n A m } IN TO. PREA- ' l NORMW00 5 RED ML . $tNNi MEOIESS ASH. PAPER UPON, E3RSFIEK UNDER. SWAMP WHITE OAK, OR EUI " BLUE SPRUCE ? ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN � `�W NORTM i LANDSCAPE PLAN - NORTH ONE -HALF 3 -3 / -n r q1 4 N 47 Attachment 17 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN L ANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTH ONE HALF L� �I 4 N IN LEGEND -xxx rym LEEAfION FM Wi IM IRMR NUMBERS CORRPw Will WE PRE5MMIDX PUM ,•V mcuq 1NF1 tlIYfER 1 PPDXI Y1P0 iPEE6 N YE PWYIIED CL Ix mlz wu- PK W H Y NOpM[RX PIX OAi, "K NFLL '1911L NOWE NO P W. OR N MXF 3 31 M N9 P MN xuN¢ AK PPOM r roe[ Pb110F4 G - IX 1X19 PR- .H. P M . K. YIR! 91YYG $F[fE99 AN. PMEP RIRCN SMNP WNNE W, OR CXL'AW fLLE SSPRE W109CAPE 0. XEPRP! N S RI tlR® X 1XISYPA F 9Y BM 4YIF, PANWE AG. R1W 94dL L ANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTH ONE HALF L� �I 4 N IN w.. Attarhment 18 -c LEGEND- - - j *XKK NEW LOCATION FOR RELOCATED TREES, +,; - ' LANDSCAPE; 6HE AF CHECKED W PRESERVATION PLAN - J 3-31 -01 e AHNry IZMRn � pllS meeY 2.5' !pp rwr4 FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA Jan.n�• AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, FALLGOLD ASH. - 3 M 9FeeM UNOW 2.0' gkB NORTHERN PIN OAK, BLACK HILLS SPRUCE, Rb OR NORWAY PINE r-em 4 FA FNJAOID ASH 2.5' some FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED Erminu. nqw 'FatlONa' - K 11 NM MIXtOM'OODS 2.6' BEVI - - - WHITE OAK, OR COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE Q LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 3 3 M W SEID A F. pwn" 'NOn11Wl'. Swdlwi 2.6' M8 www i m m u m .. 2.S B — — BOULEVARD LINDEN, RED OAK, OR AUS TRIAN PINE P.IU.IM A RB RMER OWN - ze BMB e.bA6 nl9w 9 M MYJO'I�A � 2A' BBB µDow 11 AM RED SUNSET MAPLE 2.5' Big ,rran Awr nkum 'Ennbnd' "` 1 gA 2.T geg .0 '.."Mw'SUm a lflYiFPd19 TIFFS b Ap AU61NM1 NNE W me „ Nnn. 7a BS eucx 4" sPmx:E e' eee Pk.o 01Mµ. I..µ1. 21 ce OdL0Ag0 SPRUCE p' eae WNp Ppn2.n. >S MP NIatl04Y NNE p' Big R s m2µµ p SP SC PWE nw Wan .ila..UM e' H.se 4 a n1N.MPN.M mm d1PAfE5E TREE uu CWMP e' Bag ^" Sy6n0o M .low S Rs m SPLENDOR CRAB 2' M MEM. 'R.M spl". 4 SB SERVICE mw 2' BJi A K swnlMnR'Ambo. BAN.. - B RL SIIB B5 REO TATOOFD WOOD - 24' M. CCM. r.. CunU. . - It S SNRE BMNy1' SNOBNWND SPWFA 24' W. CONE. SPip nlppnnlco '6ro..nnuM' 22 el SGVBA JYNI _ W nPy µ, ..... ptµ p.p Junpm. .obm 'soonmd' oab W R PEREMNX SUS41 1 B.L RWHtlJn CoW.W.m 5 IaE roue FofmlEx t m.L cart. 0.. F9nN.r W 5a DE ML SlELA DE ORD M 1 O.Y. CnNP. - K'Sblb 0. Om' ' - 74 PM PAA90N ME MYW.Y - H. 'P.IIw Me' 1 GAL CEM. -c LEGEND- - - j *XKK NEW LOCATION FOR RELOCATED TREES, +,; - NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH TREE AF CHECKED W PRESERVATION PLAN - J 3-31 -01 SCALE b: JOB N04 LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 1 Ji I FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, FALLGOLD ASH. - SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST, REDMOND LINDEN NORTHERN PIN OAK, BLACK HILLS SPRUCE, OR NORWAY PINE NORTH LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER Z FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- ' NORTHWOOOS RED MAPLE, SUMMIT SEEDLESS ASH, PAPER BIRCH, UTTLELEAF LINDEN, SWAMP - - - WHITE OAK, OR COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE Q LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 3 FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- ' SUGAR MAPLE,. PATMORE ASH, PIVER BIRCH, BOULEVARD LINDEN, RED OAK, OR AUS TRIAN PINE W i K O Id a d Y r N O 2C C9 4 Y Z 02 O a. o N S � � F Q U I ` n M REVISIONS 7 -7-06 E 7 -25 -06 3 -31 -0B R Q m N Z W - a 0 ` O L r7 0 W Z g z a a G Z W d Q Q F- U O OL x Ld E] W a w JENT SUBMWAL STY COMMENTS VISED SUBMITTAL L -3 LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS L.•,�%. 4 N Il DRAWN BY AF CHECKED W MK MTE ISSUED 3-31 -01 SCALE JOB N04 '040112 L -3 LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS L.•,�%. 4 N Il Attachment 19 r S—) M `✓� 88'2.95 kL 5 .W� A' l - 965 I ` l A.r.. - 89 17 I r X ?Fl.`.t'( Ujl { i:iJ;i?, fl.nks I l� A ' /�_- � yt' �,i ,' air •,`•- F` �.. -. 50 JP Attachment 20 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Carver Crossing (formerly CoPar Development) -- City Project 05-07 — Resolution for Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) DATE: June 29, 2006 INTRODUCTION On March 14, 2005, the Maplewood City Council authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development of the former Schlomka properly. The CoPar Development Company has proposed a housing development for the site that they are calling Carver Crossing. One of the City's consultants, Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. (KHA), completed the EAW and staff routed and distributed the document for public comment. The City received several oDmments about the EAW and staff distributed responses to those comments to the city council for the June 12, 2006 meeting. (Please refer to that document for reference). Staff is recommending that the city review the comments and responses in the context of applicability toward the final development plan. Based on comments and responses to the EAW and at the Public Hearing at the May 15, 2006, planning commission meeting, the developer is revising the development proposal to a project with a lesser number of units and thus a lower density. Staff is recommending that the city council proceed with a finding of fact about the EAW. Staff believes that the development impacts reviewed by the EAW and the entire EAW process represent the "worst -case" scenario for possible impacts. It is important to note that a revised development proposal by the applicant will need to implement all the findings of this process and will most likely have a lesser impact on the site and the area than those identified in the EAW. Finally, staff is recommending approval of the negative declaration. Background The City Council ordered the EAW for this project area due to concerns about the possible impacts that the originally proposed 386 -unit development might have on the area. At the time of the order for the EAW, staff suggested that the EAW might provide significant findings that could require a substantial revision to the project plans. The E AVV found significant issues with the first site development plans, and the developer has been cooperative in revising their project plans to address the environmental concerns. The long preparation time (over 1 year) for the EAW and development plan process is due to the EAW findings and because of developer revisions to the project plans. The findings in the EAW required the developer to reduce the original unit count from 386 units to the current analyzed plan of 299 units. The 299 units are consistent with the lowest development level provided within the Maplewood Land Use Plan at 4.1 units per acre. The developer is now considering revising the project plans to further reduce the number of units on the site to a number under 200 units. The City can complete the EAW analysis at the higher unit count (299 units) with all the findings kept in place. On June 12, 2006, the City Council started their review of the EAW. After two hours of testimony and questions, the council tabled action on the EAW until July 10, 2006. The council requested staff get more information about a series of questions that were raised during the council meeting_ We have prepared a list of those questions and the answers to them and have attached that additional information to this report. 51 7 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Two Background on EAW Process The City Council reviewed the EAW comments and responses at the June 12, 2006, meeting, and they raised several questions about the EAW and to the responses provided by staff. There are several main items for discussion on the site: Woodlands: The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland in the 73+ acre site. The project proposes to change 15.4 acres of these woodlands. Woodland impacts will be mitigated according to city ordinance up to 10 trees per acre. A total of 215 new trees will be required to be planted. Wetlands: The project includes four wetland complexes covering 7.32 acres of the site. This is the major issue that required significant revisions to the original site plan. The current proposal only impacts 0.2 acres which will be mitigated on site with 0.43 acres of new wetland. Additionally, the developer has proposed features that will provide for future enhancement of the existing wet[ands which have been degraded by area construction activity, namely from the 1 -494 freeway. This change provides for a much improved site plan. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and public water are readily available to this site from Carver Avenue and extensions of these utilities were constructed in previous years in Dorland Road and Heights Avenue. The city has been planning for sewer extensions for this property since the mid - 1980s. Staff is recommending that any development of this parcel connect to the sanitary sewer system to avoid environmental impacts to the Fish Creek system due to failing septic systems. A lift station may be necessary to pump some of the sewage from this site to the Carver Avenue system. The city needs to study the sanitary sewer plans for the area to determine the location and sizing of this lift station. The area to the east of this site (on the southeast side of 1494) is currently unsewered. The city has planned this area as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to have sanitary sewer at some point in the next 5-30 years. The proposed lift station within the Carver Crossing Development will help provide sanitary sewer service to this area. As part of the construction of the lift station, there is a need to install a crossing pipe under 1-494 to the eastern side of the freeway. The construction of this is necessary at this time as part of this development to avoid major disruption of the Carver Crossing site and to Henry Lane when the homes and roadways are in place_ This will provide sanitary sewer to the eastern side of the freeway. This sewer extension is disturbing to some of the existing residents of this area, many of whom have large lots and septic systems. There are property owners on the east side of 1 -494 that have expressed an interest in developing their property, and the sewer extension will provide them the ability to develop. This sewer extension under the freeway has the potential to be a very controversial issue. From an engineering standpoint, if /when the city approves the Carver Crossing development, a lift station is required. As part of that project, the lift station must have the sewer pipe constructed under the freeway as part of the construction to avoid huge costs and disruption in the future. Traffic: The EAW reviewed traffic generation and effects from a proposed development that was going to be for those 55 and older. Such a development should create less traffic than one open to persons of all ages. The consultant has analyzed the site both with and without traffic reductions, and the conclusions on the necessary improvements are the same for both. The engineer's analysis concludes that some turn Lanes and expansion are required on Carver Avenue at the entrance and at the McKnight — Carver intersection. All other impacts are within acceptable 52 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Three standards, except the Bailey Road—Steding Street intersection, which is currently failing. This intersection is within Newport (Washington County) and should be scheduled for improvement. The traffic from this development does not have significant impact on that intersection. A property owner on the north side of Carver Avenue expressed a concern about the proposed location of Henry Lane as it could affect his house and property. The developer is exploring relocating Henry Lane to the west to lessen or avoid the possible impacts. Storm water issues: The developer is proposing to have this project meet the highest level of retention and treatment applied within the City of Maplewood. A majority of the site will exceed the infiltration of flows for over 90% of the storms within the area. This will provide infiltration of storm events of up to 2.5 inches of rainfall. Current standards within other developments, such as Legacy Village, provided for infiltration of only the 1.0 -inch storm event. The impacts on Fish Creek on the receiving water bodies have been reduced to a minimal to negligible amount. This critical issue related to impacts of phosphwus and suspended solids is part of the City s current plan to meet the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements placed on Maplewood (along with 29 other communities in Minnesota) to reduce drainage for quantity and quality to pre -1988 levels. The analysis of this site shows that drainage within the development should meet this requirement with the increased standards. Noise: This site is now impacted by freeway noise and many locations within the property exceed the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise standard. This is fairly common for suburban developments located next to or near major roadways. The proposed mitigation is to provide climate- control)ed units and increased wall insulation. In addition, any outside common areas need to be located on the west side of buildings (away from the freeway). The developer also is considering constructing a berm along 1 -494 as part of the final site design. These elements should reduce future residents' exposure to traffic noise and provide the City with a reasonable response to the freeway noise issue. As part of the developer revisions, they are considering implementing berms with trees and other noise mitigation measures to further address this issue. Wildlife Concerns: This site has wildlife noted in many areas. The developer has considered providing numerous areas of protection under the current proposal. Obviously much of the wildlife in the area has relocated to this site due to other development in the area. Some of the wildlife species in the urban area have exploded due to the removal of many of the natural predators. The City and Ramsey County have needed to harvest numerous deer from this area due to over- population. Due to the existence of many acres of open space in this area and their general mobility, the wildlife experts do not believe that development of this parcel will have significant impacts on the urban wildlife of the area. Parks and Open Space Issues: There has been a proposal from area residents that suggests retention of this property as open space/parks area. The Parks Directors from Maplewood and from Ramsey County indicate that there is significant parklopen space in the area. These include county open space adjacent to the south and west sides of the site, the county -owned open space along Fish Creek and a city -owned open space immediately north of Carver Avenue. Staff is not reoommending any revisions to open space borders or the addition of park land in the area. 53 n7 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Four EAW and Development Process Schedule City Council Received EAW /Authorizes Publishing March 13, 2006 Planning Commission Received EAW March 20, 2006 Neighborhood Meeting (6:00 -8.•00 PM @ fire Station) March 30, 2006 EAW Comment Deadline April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Received Response to Comments May 15, 2006 Development Plans to Planning Commission /Public Hearing May 15, 2006 City Council Determines Need for EIS June 12, 2006 /July 10, 2006 Staff revised the Findings of Fact document for the proposed Carver Crossing project in Maplewood to reflect the comments /concems raised at the May 15, 2006, planning commission meeting. Additionally, staff added clarifying language to the document to explain that their action does not constitute "approval' of the project, but rather a determination that the project would not result in significant impacts, and that the EAW adequately discloses impacts and defines mitigation for future permitslapprovals. The proposed action defined in the Findings document is consistent with what was proposed in the EAW, with slight modifications to reflect specific mitigative measures_ There is reference in the document that the developer is currently exploring a site plan that would reduce the number of units within the project and thus the density on the site. However, staff did not amend the EAW analysis to reflect that potential change. In other words, staff did the environmental review based on a `warst- case' development scenario of 299 housing units. To help further clarify the issues and concerns about the EAW and the possible affects from development, staff prepared a list of questions raised at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting and a response to each of those questions. This additional information is attached to this memo. EAW Requirements on Timeline The requirements on the City Council as the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU) provided by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) are that a decision on the EAW by the RGU is required within 30 days of the conclusion of the comment period, which ended on April 12, 2006. A 30 -day extension is allowed due to "insufficient information," which has been applied to this process. Therefore, the City Council is required to make a determination on the project. There is not enough information to require the more detailed information required as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EAW process has identified significant decision and development changes that the developer will now have to make part of any future development plan for the site. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution that finds that the EAW adequately addresses the environmental impacts of development of this parcel, applies the findings to any future development proposals for the site, and finds that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted. The Planning Commission, while not providing a positive recommendation on the development plan, recommended on May 15, 2006, that the city council make the negative declaration finding an time EAW. 54 1, City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Five RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution. This resolution approves the negative declaration on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Deveiopment, City Project 05 -07. P:sec24 -28 /carver crossing EAW report (2) — June 2006 Attachments: 1. Resolution on Negative Declaration 2. Questions and Responses from June 12, 2006 meeting 3. MRCAC Map 55 RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project City of Maplewood, Minnesota WHEREAS, CoPar Development LLC is the proposer of the Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project; a senior housing development with up to 299 units on approximately 70 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the general boundaries of the Carver Crossing project can be described as about 702 acres of land to the west of I -494 and south of Carver Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.0500; and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1300; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board distribution list; and WHEREAS, the notification of the EAW was published in the Minnesota EQB Monitor on March 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, the public review and comment period remained open until April 12, 2006; and WHEREAS, a public informational meeting was held for the project on March 30, 2006, in the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, the comments on the EAW were received and responded to; and WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact/Response to Comments document was reviewed at the May 15, 2006, City of Maplewood Planning Commission meeting: and WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact /Response to Comments document reviewed by the Planning Commission has been revised to reflect clarificationlrevisions to specific impact analyses; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood Planning Commission recommended a Negative Declaration determination for the proposed action evaluated in the EAW; and WHEREAS, the proposed project under evaluation in this EAW reflects a worst case level of analysis in terms of density of residential development; and WHEREAS, the record considered by the City Council for purposes of its decision herein consists of the EAW, related reports and analysis, the comments received thereon, and the responses to such comments, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part of this decision; and WHEREAS, the proposed development will undergo subsequent reviews and required approvals associated with permits identified in this document; and 56 ,n WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood will work with the developer to determine the feasibility and the effectiveness of additional noise mitigation to the west of 1494; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, acting with respect to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Project of Maplewood, that it finds and concludes the following: 1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700; and 2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained; and 3. The Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit A {attached} are made; and 4. Based on criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, and the Findings of Fact, the Project does not have a potential for significant emironmental effects; and 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the City of Maplewood therefore makes a "Negative Declaration ". The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on July 10, 2006. 57 0 Response to Carver Crossing LAW Questions /Concerns from Jane 12, 2006 City Council Meeting A number of questions were raised at the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting about the Carver Crossing EAW and the draft Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision document. The following is a summary of the questions along with a response to each question. Mayor Longrie Q: Is this project within the Mississippi River Critical Area? A: Yes, a portion of the site is contained within the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA). A figure illustrating the 1VIRCA boundaries as it relates to the proposed site is attached for reference. The state has confirmed these boundaries and they are different from those included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. As staff assumed that the entire project was assumed to be within the Critical Area boundaries during the EAW evaluation, the project's consistency with the Policies and Goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan were applied to the entire project area. Q: if so, who has to be involved, as far as governmental agencies and /or entities, when it comes to development within the Mississippi River Critical Area? A: The Approval/Permit table included on Page 31 of the Findings Document identifies required actions by the Mn/DNR, Metropolitan Council, and the City of Maplewood. Q: Did the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnONR) specifically address those issues of the EAW with regard to the things they would have to review? A: The Mn/DNR requested that they be included in the Approval/Permit table included on Page 31 of the Findings Document. Q: How many projected trees are to be removed from the site in the "worst case" scenario? A: The EAW identifies that up to 467 significant trees on the project site would be removed. Mary Dierich (Presenting Planning Commission Summary) Q: Should we even develop this area? A: The EAW and Findings Document summarize the current land use and zoning for the project site. The existing land use plan designation guides the site for R- 1 (single dwelling) development. The developer relied on this designation when purchasing the property and when developing project plans for the site. Since the property is now privately owned, the owner /developer has rights to use and develop the property, subject to the approval of the city and all other necessary agencies. 58, Q: Is development a foregone conclusion? A: The City's comprehensive plan guides for residential development on the project site. The proposed development will require various City approvals before it can proceed to construction. Q: Do we have the infrastructure to support it and do we have the density? A: The traffic analysis conducted as part of the EAW identifies roadway improvements to accommodate the proposed development. in terms of sanitary, water, and storm sewer improvements, the EAW de£mes the required utility improvements to accommodate the proposed development. The City has been planning for the extension of sanitary sewer to this site for many years. The sewer is readily available in Carver Avenue and in Heights Avenue to serve this area. The Findings Document (Page 29) presents the findings of the revised traffic analysis to reflect comments made by the Planning Commission. Q: Sewer extension issues: septic failure character of neighborhoods the prevention of subdivision infrastructure to protect the environmentally sensitive land A: See response above. The City has been planning a sanitary sewer extension for this site. Q: Should we (the City) overturn what was just decided on 3 years ago regarding the land use and zoning? A: The EAW process defines the current land use and zoning designations for the project site, in relation to what the developer is proposing. The City's land use plan currently guides the site for R -1 residential development (which allows up to 4.1 units /acre). The EAW indicates that the City would need to amend the land use designation to R-3(L) for the 299 -unit development plan, and that the City would require a CLIP for a PUD. The proposed development also could require a change to the zoning map, from R IR (Rural Residential) and F (Farm Residence) to R -3 (multiple dwelling residential). City staff has reviewed the criteria defined in the City code about zoning changes. The proposed zoning map change would meet the criteria listed in the City Code. As indicated in the Findings Document (Page 4), the project proposer is currently evaluating revised site plans that would reduce the density of development on the project site. The developer has indicated that the revised project plans would meet the density and land use standards of the R-1 (single dwellings) land use designation. The negative declaration finding does not mean that the city has approved a project or development if the city determines that a zoning or land use amendment is required for the project, the city will require the developer to go through the appropriate local 59 >; l approval processes. The city council may and does change the land use and zoning designations for properties when the council decides that the proposed changes would meet city policies and standards and when such changes would be in the public interest. The city reviews and considers each change proposal on a case -by -case basis. Q: Will the neighborhood character be changed? A: The city has guided the land in question for residential development. Hence, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation. The EAW and Findings Document discloses that the proposed project would change the existing character of the parcel, from a semi - rural, low- density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban - style, mixed -use residential development with public sewer and water. Such a development would be consistent with many of the recently constructed residential developments in this part of Maplewood, including the single -family subdivision adjacent to the site to the west. Q. Is this an environmentally sensitive enough area to warrant more study through the environmental impact statement (EIS) process? A: The Findings Document goes through the four criteria that the city is to be review as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in making that determination. The recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission and City staff, based on the findings of the EAW, is that the proposed project would not warrant study through an EIS. Q: The proposal to remove 467 existing trees was a big deal to the Planning Commission. There have been a lot of questions about what size/kinds of trees would be included in the mitigation. A: The Findings Document provides additional information pertaining to the tree replacement plan associated with the proposed project. The project's landscaping plan identifies the specific type and size of trees proposed on the site. The new deciduous trees would be at least two and one -half inches in diameter and would be a mix or red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples and other native species. The new coniferous trees would be at least eight feet tall and a mix of.Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. Q: Concerns over wetland issues, i.e. Fish Creek. Can we improve the wetland through the development process? A: The EAW and Findings Document provides information pertaining to wetlands on site, the potential impact (0.2 acre), proposed mitigation (0.43 acre) and overall wetland enhancements associated with the project (e.g. rain gardens). Q: Soils are a major concern. Flow stable are the Fish Creek watershed banks? What is the conservation easement on that land? What is the conservation easement on the Mississippi River overlay area? 60 t A: The EAW and Findings Document summarizes the soils on the project site, as well as mitigation measures. The Findings Document (Page 16) references the developer's commitment to conduct a geotechnical investigation on the site. As referenced in the Findings Document (Page 9), the developer has agreed to provide a 150- foot -wide conservation easement along Fish Creek. The goals and policies set forth as part of the Mississippi River Critical Area do not specifically call out a requirement for a conservation easement. The Findings Document (Page 14) summarizes each of these goals and policies and the proposed projects compatibility with them. Q: Traffic /noise consumed about 1/3 of the Planning Commission discussion. EAW noise/traffic statistics were based on a 1999 study. The Planning Commission did not feel that those issues were appropriately addressed because of the outdated data. The area where traffic was going is a concern. 80% of traffic going down Sterling is going to a failed intersection in another county (Washington.) Carver Avenue is not suitable for any load of traffic. It is a difficult area with no place for infrastructure improvements. The Planning Commission still feels that this needs to be addressed. A: The Findings Document (Page 28) presents the results of the revised traffic analysis. No additional mitigation measures are required based an the revised analysis. Q. No park land dedication. Where is the parkland money to be spent in south Maplewood? A: The Findings Document (Page 18) presents information pertaining to a process of recommending park dedication fees for the proposed project. The EAW/EIS is not the tool the city should use to explore the parkland issue. The time to review and explore the parkland and open space use and dedication question is when the city receives a revised development plan for the property. Q: Excavation of 217,000 cubic yards of soil is an issue. A: The excavation of 217,000 cubic yards of soil is not unusual for this type of residential development project - especially considering the size of the project site (about 72 acres). The disturbance of 217,000 cubic yards over 70 acres results in an average excavation depth of less than 2 feet. Q: Polluted soils are an issue (a former dump was referenced). The Planning Commission asked for additional information on that. A: The EAW (Item 9) presents a summary of past land uses on the project site, findings from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESAs), and commitment to complete Phase I ESAs where appropriate. The Findings Document (Page 6) provides a summary of findings /recommendations from the Phase H ESAs completed on the project. 61 h Q: Air quality on 1 -494, as well as the Sterling Avenue/Bailey intersection was raised. A: The air quality analysis section of the EAW (Item 22) indicates that given the projected traffic from the proposed development, there would be negligible air quality impacts. Q: Visual effects to the area. (The developer has since addressed these issues by removing the condominiums.) A: The visual impacts associated with the proposed project (worst case) are addressed in Item 26 of the EAW. Additional visual mitigation is presented in the Findings Document (Page 29). Additionally, with the potential removal of the two condominium buildings on site, this would eliminate the concern about their visual impact. The project engineer also has revised the configuration of Henry Lane at Carder Avenue to reduce potential visual impacts to the property north of Carver Avenue (near the proposed intersection). Q: Impact on neighborhood - additional traffic, views, noise (tree loss), soil stabilization. A: See responses to questions above. Greg Copeland Q: If the City Council were to defer their decision tonight, is public comment at some future meeting precluded, or are we in the same situation where people can continue to bring forth information? I'm wondering if there's any constraint there. (The question was addressed to and answered by Jon Larsen ofEQB.) A: Jon Larsen responded to this question at the meeting. The City Council could allow public comment at a future meeting if they desire; however, this would not legally be required. Q: Is this about a project or is this about a site? We haven't heard too much about the site as an independent entity. I'm trying to balance that out. A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on -site impacts (within the boundaries of the property) but also off -site impacts, where appropriate. More specifically, the traffic analysis is conducted on surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from off -site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on -site improvements to improve both on and off -site water quality /runoff. Jim VonHaden (National Park Service) Q: There is no mention of MNRA in the EAW. A: That is a correct statement. The I;AW evaluates the proposed project's compliance with the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA), which is incorporated by reference into the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MIYRRA) Plan. The Findings Document (Page 14) presents detailed information pertaining to the project's consistency with the specified goals and policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan 62 (Mississippi Critical Area, page 24 of Comprehensive Plan). The boundaries of MNRRA are the same as that of the MRCA. As noted previously, staff evaluated the project assuming the entire project area was included in the TvIRCA (per the figure included in the Comprehensive Plan). The following summarizes pertinent information pertaining to MNRRA (source: MNRRA website, Comprehensive Management Plan): • The Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP — the Plan) for MNRRA provides guidance for managing the corridor for the neat ten to fifteen years. The Plan provides a policy framework for coordinating efforts to protect and interpret the nationally significant resources of the river corridor and for analyzing other federal, state and local plans and individual actions in the area. Except for the National Park Service (NPS) development, the Plan does not address site- specific issues. The Plan adopts and incorporates by reference the state Critical Area program, shoreland programs, and other state and regional land use management programs that implement the visions and concepts identified for the river corridor. • This plan does not curate another layer of government, but rather stresses the use of existing authorities and agencies to accomplish the policies and actions developed for the area. • Local government will retain local control of land use decisions in the corridor, consistent with applicable state and regional land use management programs. • This Plan will not prevent new development or expansion of existing development in the corridor that is consistent with state and regional land use management programs. It is not a regulatory document and does not mandate actions by non -NPS entities. • The NPS and the commission do not have approval authority over local plans and ordinances, and they do not have authority to approve or deny project - specific land use decisions. • The MNRRA legislation specifies that NPS authority in the Code of Federal Regulations only applies to lands that the NIPS owns. The developer has taken into account the requirements of the Critical Area (which are incorporated by reference into NINRRA). Hence, the findings from the Critical Area assessment would apply to MNRRA as well. The National Park Service was included on the Carver Crossing EAW distribution list. Q: Concerns for site Protecting steep slopes Preserving existing vegetation to greatest extent possible Preservinglenhancing wildlife habitat Protecting views of and from the river Protecting water quality The section on impacts on Critical Areas within the EAW should be a discussion of how well the EAW addresses those impacts. (The EAW does not explain how it will meet the necessary criteria.) 63 b'� A: Each of the items is addressed in the Findings Document (Page 13). Will Rossbach Q: Does Maplewood have ordinances in place that enforce the critical plan for environmental protection? A: Yes, see response above to the information contained in the Findings Document. Mayor Lonerie Q: When 467 mature trees are removed and replaced with smaller, new trees does that have an impact on the absorption of water in that area? A: The EAW and updated information in the Findings Document (Page 26) indicates the proposed permanent dual - purpose basins (PDPBs) meet and exceed the City's infiltration volume requirements. As specified in the Findings Document, the required infiltration volume is 69,059 cubic feet, and the proposed PDPBs include an infiltration volume of 99,663 cubic feet. Additionally, as specified in the Findings Document (page 27), the stormwater system will result in a reduction in the runoff rate for the after conditions. Greg Copeland Q: 40 acres of the 70 acres in the proposed development are designated as part of the national park system. Why wasn't that mentioned in the EAW? A: See response to Jim VonHaden's comments /questions above. Irene Jones (Friends of the Mississippi) Q: When reviewing the EAW she noticed that a lot of potential environmental impacts were mentioned, but there were very few mitigation strategies. A: The EAW and Findings Document identify appropriate mitigation measures that will be further defined during subsequent permit and approval processes. Specific mitigation measures were referenced in the EAW/Findings Document in such areas as: • Soil contamination (Phase H ESA) • On -site wetland replacement • Tree Avoidance/Replacement Plan • Buffer Zone for "site of moderate biodiversity significance" • Utility improvements/extensions (water, sanitary, sewer) • Shorcland Zoning (50 foot setback) • Floodplains (received LOMA) 64 IPA\ • Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction • Water Quality (PDPBs, Rainwater Gardens) • Removal of discharge into Fish Creek • Commitment to conduct geotechnical investigation at specific site locations • Traffic mitigation measures • Noise mitigation measures • Park Dedication fees • Avoidance of potential cultural resource site • Visual screening (through landscaping plan and shifting of Henry Lane/Carver Avenue intersection) Erik Hiellg Q: How does Fish Creek get into the Mississippi? What is the path? Does it go underground at points? In addition, if it is underground, then isn't the impact of the environment lessened? A: It was discussed at the June 12, 2006 council meeting that portions of Fish Creek are carried in a culvert pipe between the project site and the Mississippi. The developer has met with the Ramsey - Washington Watershed District. As noted in the Findings Document (Page 27), the stormwater plan was revised to reflect their request to remove the outlet into Fish Creek. The Findings Document (Page 27) presents information that the proposed stormwater system will result in a net reduction in the runoff rate for the after conditions. Additionally, the net effect of the proposed stormwater system will be to reduce phosphorus and total suspended solid discharges from the site. Will Rossbach Q: Do any of you people talldng (environmental groups) have direct access to funds so that we can purchase the site? Because if we are not going to develop it, he is going to want us to pay for it. And so, how do we do that? A: Question noted. This issue is outside the environmental review process. As noted above, the time to discuss land purchases is when the city is reviewing specific development plans for the property. Mayor Lonerie Q: The EAW focuses on the impact to the environment on that piece of land. Should we be concerned about the impact on the land downstream? A: The potential impact of the project in terms of water quality has been assessed based on both local and regional requirements /impacts. 65 Tom Dimond (Saint Paul resident) Q: There needs to be an amendment to the critical area plan portion of the city's Comprehensive Plan. To do that requires DNR approval. I did not see that in the requirements of the EAW, as far as the listing of things that need to be done. A: The Findings Document (permit and approval table, Page 31) includes the requirement for Mn/DNR approval. Q: Also, the bluffs and the setbacks have not been identified in this plan. Therefore, the impacts of the bluffs and setbacks have not been figured into the EAW. A: The definition of a bluff is defined in Maplewood City Code in Article IX - Shoreland Overlay District as: Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having all of the following characteristics (land with an average slope of less than 18% for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): 1) Part or all of the feature is in a shoreland; 2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high -water level; 3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high -water level averages 30 percent or greater; and 4) The slope must drain toward a public water. The area along Fish Creek is the only area that is in a shoreland overlay. Ramsey County owns much of that area as part of their open space. The proposed development has three areas along the south side of Fish Creek that are bluffs. There is one townhome in the proposed development that was located within the required 30 -foot setback from the top of one of the bluffs. The developer will need to adjust the location of this unit or remove it from the project plans before the start of construction if it cannot meet the required setback. The Findings Document identities the developer's commitment to a 150 -foot conservation easement along Fish Creek. The land along Fish Creek is designated a shoreland zoning district. As specified in the Findings Document, the proposed development complies with the required 50 -foot shoreland zoning setback (including shoreland bluff lines). The proposed development would not impact Mississippi River bluffs that are directly adjacent the river. Kathy Juenemann Q: Can we not reach the goal of actually evaluating the sensitivity of where we are going to be with this project by extending our abilities to ask questions on the EAW? A: Yes, that would be an appropriate process. Questions raised at the June 12, 2006 City 66 i Council meeting are addressed in this document in effort to respond to specific questions either through reference to information contained in the EAW, Findings Document, or new /corrected information for the City Council to consider in malting your environmental determination for this project. Q: Can we not achieve what we need to achieve by extending the scope of answering questions that grew out of this EAW and this discussion tonight without having to go to the EIS level? A: See response above. Q: What are we looking at doing with the EAW process without dismissing any of the environmental concerns? A: See response above. Q: We need to have the critical area piece thoroughly cleared up. What is it? Where is it? What does it mean to us? A: See responses above. Mayor Lonerie Q: I don't see anything addressing the waterfowl or the birds and the impact on them. I know it talks about deer and raccoons, but I think we need to address the birds as well. A: The bird species present on the site are also considered adaptable, in terms of transitioning or moving to nearby habitat of similar nature. There are significant areas of city and county open space in area (including the land adjacent to the south and west of the site) that provide habitat for birds and a wide variety of wildlife. As proposed, the project would impact only 0.2 acre of wetland out of a total of 7.3 acres, and as such, impact to waterfowl is anticipated to be minimal. Additionally, the proposed wetland mitigation would include 0.43 acre of wetland replacement to compensate for the 0.2 acre of impact. Q: There is an impact on thinking regionally, not just locally, when it comes to the impacts of development on this piece of property, since it is connected to so many water areas. A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on -site impacts (with the boundaries of the property), but also off -site impacts, where appropriate. More specifically, the traffic analysis is conducted on surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from off -site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on -site improvements to improve both on and off -site water quality /runolt Q: Also concern about the stabilization of banks? 67 V, A: As stated in the Findings Document (page 9), the developer has proposed to undertake restorative /stabilization work along the section of Fish Creek within the boundaries of the project area. Kathy Juenemann Q: Does the EAW cover a specific site or a proposed development? Or is it both? A: The FAW addresses both the existing conditions on the project site and how the proposed development could alYect those conditions. 68 (""6 � rya April 9, 2008 Mr. Charles Ahl, P.E. City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Chuck, Attachment 21 IN SaRe345N 2650 UnkmV Av West St PaW, Mmssaiii 55114 An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood site was published in February 2006 and a Negative Declaration was approved by the Maplewood City Council on July 10, 2006. The EAW assumed a senior housing development with 299 units on approximately 73 acres. This included 117 attached condo units, 89 attached townhomes, and 93 detached homes. A revised development plan for the site has been proposed, which would include up to 165 detached townhouses and single dwellings. The revised plan does not include any senior housing. Kimley -Horn has completed a cursory-level review of the. current preliminary development proposal as caphrred in the Maplewood Public I- tearing Notice, dated March 31, 2008. This was compared to the 2006 EAW and Negative Declaration, with each issue area reviewed for any potential ehango in impact as a result of the current proposal. The following issue areas were reviewed and determined to have no substantial change in impacts from the EAW to the current proposal: • Land use (issue 9) • Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage • Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive tanks (issue 20) resources (issue 1 l) • Vehicle- related air emissions (issue 22) • Water use (issue 13) • Stationary air source emissions (issue • Water - related land use management 23) district (issue 14) • Odors, noise and dust (issue 24) • Water surface use (issue 15) s Nearby resources (issue 25) • Erosion and Sedimentation (issue 16) • Visual impacts (issue 26) • Geologic hazards and soil conditions • Cumulative impacts (issue 29) (issue 19) • Othor potential impacts (issue 30) Minor changes to impacts were identified for the following issues, as noted, however the resulting impacts were not substantially different or were less than the impacts described in the HAW analysis: EAW Issue 10 — Cover Types The revised proposal includes more public open space and undeveloped area within the development site than the proposal evaluated in the EAW. This should result in a positive impact of less impervious surface and more lawn/landscaping and brusWgrassland than discussed in the HAW. 69 fns LAW Issue I2 — Physical Impacts on Water Resources Wetland 4 will still be impacted underthe current proposal, as documented in the EAW. Based on the preliminary plat, it also appears that impacts to other wetlands are intended to be avoided. The revised proposal does not indicate the location of the proposed wetland mitigation, which would need to be relocated based on the plans building layout. All wetland impacts and required mitigation will be addressed through the state and federal wetland permitting process and therefore no additional analysis is required for the EAW, EAW Issue 17 — Water quality; surface water runoff L9cation of some permanent dual purpose basins (PDPBs) may be changed slightly to accommodate tite current development proposal, however PDPBs and rainwater gardens will still be used and maintained an the site, and developed per city and watershed requirements. As indicated in the EAW, stormwater management issues have and will continue to be coordinated with City of Maplewood and Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District LAW Issue 18 — Water quality: wastewaters The density of residential units is less in the current development proposal (165 units vs. 299 units in the EAW). This would result in less wastewater flow from the site. EAW Issue 21— Traffic The EAW incorporated a 50% reduction in trips for the 93 detached units and the 206 attached units, based on the designation of senior housing. Based on comments received on the EAW, the original traffic analysis was updated to reflect a more conservative analysis of trips generated by the development proposed in the EAW. Ultimately, the Findings of Fact included an updated traffic analysis which included a 50% reduction in trips for the 93 detached units, and no trip reduction for the 206 attached units. This was found to be a conservative assessment of traffic impact. Tho 206, non-senior units, wem projected to generate 1,388 daily trips. The current proposal is for up to 165 detached units, without senior housing designation. This number of non- senior units would generate fewer trips than the 206 evaluated in the EAW Findings of Fact. Therefore, the traffic impact is anticipated to be less than that evaluated in the EAW. EAW Issue 27 — Compatibility with plans and land use regulations The EAW proposal required a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation from R -I single family dwellings to R-3(L) multiple dwellings. Since the revised plan includes all single family dwellings, no change is required to the land use designation. The City will require a CUP for the PUD for the revised proposal as was identified in the EAW. EAW Issue 28— Infrastructure and public services There are no significant changes anticipated in terns of traffic operations, roadways, or utilities. 'rho EAW estimated a population projection of approximately 550 people for the development, based on parameters established in the comprehensive plan for persons per dwelling unit. Based on the same parameters, the projected population under the current development scenario is approximately 480 people. As the townhomelsingle dwelling split was not identified in the preliminary plans, this is a worst -case scenario, assuming all 165 units are single dwelling at a higher number of persons per dwelling unit. As the projected population for the cunent proposal is less than 550, the EAW analysis sufficiently covers anticipated impacts to police, fire and public education services. 70 10 Conclusion The existing site conditions have not changed since the EAW was published. The development footprint of the revised proposal is slightly smaller than the proposal evaluated in the EAW, with a smaller density of units, resulting in slightly more open space or undeveloped area_ The current proposal is of a lesser magnitude than the concepts originally reviewed in the EAW, and mitigation measures set forth in the EAW are sufficient to address potential impacts from the currently proposed development. Based on our review of the current proposal and comparison with the EAW previously completed and approved, it has been determined that additional environmental review is not warranted. The EAW published in February 2006 satisfies the intent of environmental review process for the current proposal. If you bavc any questions regarding this analysis, please contact us. Sincerely, KIMLEX -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. A1 J sLaab a s, AICP cc: Jon Horn, P.E. Beth Kunkel, PWS 71 ��� Attachment Page 1 of 5 7. - Attachment 22 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Carver Crossing of Maplewood PROJECT NO: 05 -07 REVISED SUBMITTAL: March 31, 2008 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) REVIEW DATE: April 9, 2008 Introduction The developer, COPAR Companies, is requesting city approval of a preliminary plat and planned unit development south of Carver Avenue, west of 1 -494. The proposal consists of 165 detached housing units on about 72 acres. The developer is proposing that all streets and utilities within the dedicated public right -of -way be public infrastructure. It has generally been the city's policy to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and perform the construction inspection duties. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., the firm that prepared the EAW for the project site in 2006, prepared the following statement about the site considering the latest plans: An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (FAW) for the site was published in February 2006 and a Negative Declaration was approved by the Maplewood City Council on duly 10, 2 00 6. The FAW assumed a senior housing development site plan with 299 units on approximately 73 acres. The current development plan, if approved by the City Council, would include tip to 165 detached townhouses and single dwellings. The development footprint of the current plan is essentially the same, and the density of the development is less, creating more public open space and undeveloped area than the proposal evaluated in the FA The existing site conditions have not changed since the FA was published. Since the current proposal is of a lesser magnitude than the concepts originally reviewed in the FAW, no additional envir•ormaenial review is warranted lhe PAW published in February 2006 satisfies the intent of environmental review process. The following comments have been prepared by city staff: Drainage & Treatment According to the Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties, the proposed development site is composed mostly of Mahtomedi loamy sand which is very favorable to infiltration. Soil boring locations are shown on Sheet C -4 of the project plans, which includes borings at proposed treatment basins and proposed roadways. The subsurface exploration and geotechnical analysis was completed by STS Consultants, LTD on September 13 2006• The soil borings reflect sandy type soils throughout the proposed development site. 72 �2 Page 2 of 5 2. The developer's engineer shall show maintenance access paths, on the project grading plans, to each rainwater garden and treatment basin that are to accept drainage from the public roadway and be maintained by the City as determined in a Developer Agreement. The final plat shall reflect drainage and utility easements needed for this purpose. 3. Raingardens A through D shall have dedicated drainage and utility easements that fully encompass each of these best management practice features. As now shown, the limits of these rain gardens encroach upon private lots without easements. 4. The landscaping plan shall reflect the appropriate seeding and planting plugs as directed by the city's naturalist. 5. All treatment basins and rain gardens receiving pipe flow shall have upstream pre- treatment (such as a 3' sump structure) in order to capture sediments. The project engineer shall detail this information in the storm sewer structure schedule. 6. Rock infiltration sumps at treatment basins and rain gardens may not be warranted due to sandy soil conditions. The requirement of infiltration sumps in gardens and basins will be made by the city engineer. If the city requires the rock sumps are required, they must conform to Maplewood Standard Plate No. 115. The contractor shall construct all basins and rain gardens to their final elevations last to avoid possible compaction of bottom areas. 7. According to the project engineer's calculations, the proposed project will meet the required runoff volume reduction standards. Both the city and the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District require that the first 1 -inch of runoff over new and disturbed impervious areas be captured and infiltrated to reduce pollutants such as total suspended solids and total phosphorus. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Before any grading activities, the contractor shall have the developer's engineer stake the location of the construction limits. No soil disturbance shall occur until the contractor installs the silt fencing and other necessary best management practices (BMP's) to the satisfaction of the city inspector. 2. The city will require extensive protection of the Fish Creek corridor as per the project plans and at the direction of the city engineer and /or city inspector. 3. The city will require a phased grading plan to limit site disturbance. The project engineer shall include the necessary BMP's on the plan and shall submit the plan to the city for approval before the city issues a grading permit. 73 Page 3 of 5 4. All building pad elevations shall have a minimum 2 -foot freeboard during a 100 -year storm event. The project engineer shall clearly show emergency overflow locations, on the project plans, in the event that the storm sewer piping system is blocked. Roadways 1. The developer's private contractor shall prepare any public roadway to within a 0.2' tolerance during rough grading activities. The city will require the developer's engineer to verify that the grading within the dedicated public right -of -way is within this tolerance. The city will detail this in a developer's agreement between the city and developer. 2. The city will be reviewing the proposed roundabout and may require a revision in design if dimensions for vehicle turning movements and safety vehicles arc not adequate. The roundabout would be public infrastructure and the exact design would be reflected as part of the public improvements. The city may require additional public right -of -way in the area of the proposed roundabout. The proposed right -of -way width for Henry Lane, from Carver Avenue south to the proposed roundabout, is the standard 60 feet, with a 32 -foot wide street section. The remaining roadways are proposed at 24 feet wide with a 50 foot right -of -way width. The narrower street section and right-of-way lessens site grading and helps preserve open space, but the city may require parking restrictions on one or both sides of these narrower streets. The city engineer and the fire chief will determine such restrictions. Also, the proposed cul -de -sacs may have parking restrictions based on final diameter and requirements of the city engineer and fire chief. Utilities The developer's engineer shall submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice Street, Saint Paul, MN 55113 for review and approval. The developer or developer's engineer shall provide documentation to the city from SPRWS to verify final approval. The water main would likely be extended as part of the public improvements. 2. The developer or developer's engineer shall provide information on the condition of the existing 12" reinforced concrete pipe extending to Fish Creek from the existing wetland (Outlot A). The city will require a drainage and utility easement over this pipe along with adequate access to maintain and repair this existing infrastructure. 3. The project engineer has designed the project so there no longer is a need for a sanitary sewer lift station. All sanitary sewer flows from the proposed development will tie into the existing sanitary sewer stub at the end of the temporary cul -de -sac on Heights Avenue (south end ofDorland Road). This invert elevation should be verified by the developer's engineer. 74 Page 4 of 5 4. The water and sanitary sewer utilities connecting from Public Court 2 into Heights Avenue need a wider utility easement. SPRWS will have input in the width of the easement over the proposed water main. The city will require plan and profile sheets showing street grade and utility locations prior to issuance of a grading permit. The storm sewer structure schedule and final sanitary sewer schedule must be completed and shall include structure number, RIM and invert elevation, type of pipe, pipe diameter, pipe length, and pipe slope, prior to final plan approval. 6. There appears to be a few utility conflict points that the project engineer and the city engineer will need to address before the city grants final plan approval. Miscellaneous L The city's environmental planner has prepared separate comments regarding tree replacement and wetland buffer and mitigation issues. 2. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will require a building permit and shall include a safety fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction before the city issues a grading permit and before the city issues a building permit ror any of the walls. I The developer or developer's engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city issues a grading permit. 4. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the basins, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features common to the development. Depending on the terms of the Developer Agreement between the City and Developer, the City may maintain some of the basins and rain gardens — especially those that accept drainage from the public street. The final terms would be reflected in the Developer Agreement. 5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for the gardens, basins, and sumps that would not be publicly maintained. 6. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat, drainage and utility easements for the location of the permanent dual purpose basins and raingardens accepting runoff from the public roadways if the Developer Agreement reflects that these are to be publicly maintained. 7. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City that details the requirements of the public improvements and necessary requirements of the development. 75 16 Page 5 of 5 8. The developer, project engineer, and contractor shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies as identified in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 9. According to as -built drawings for the Carver Heights development (1987), the dead end street on Heights Avenue was built as a temporary cul -de-sac with the anticipation that the road would be extended in the future. Since the proposed development does not include the extension of Heights Avenue into the project site as a public street, the City will require the developer, as part of the overall public improvements, to make the existing cul -de -sac permanent after the contractor makes the utility connections. This would include reconstructing the street, adding concrete curb and gutter, making the trail. connection, and possibly making drainage improvements. These requirements shall be included in the Developer's Agreement. 76 - !n Attachment 23 Tree Preservation and Wetland Review Project: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Date of Plan: March 31, 2008 Date of Review: April 9, 2008 Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249 -2304; shann .finwall(&ci.maplewood.mn.us A. Wetlands: There are four wetlands located on the site: Two Class 4 wetlands located south of Carver Avenue and two Class 5 wetlands located north of Fish Creek. The applicant proposes to fill the small Class 5 wetland (8,879 square feet) and replace the wetland at the required 2 to 1 replacement ratio (17,758 square feet) around the two most northerly wetlands. The original planned unit development required that the applicants maintain a 25 -foot buffer from the Class 5 wetland located in the center of the site and establish a 25 -foot buffer around the modified Class 4 wetlands adjacent Carver Avenue. The grading plan reflects possible encroachments into the existing and required buffer. Wetland Recommendations: Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit the following to city staff for approval: The applicant must submit revised grading and drainage plans that reflect that there will be no grading encroachments, except for approved best management practices, within the 25 -foot buffers. 2. All plantings within the established buffers must be approved by the city naturalist and must be maintained by the applicant and /or the homeowner's association until fully established. 3. The applicant andlor homeowner's association must enter into a maintenance agreement with the city to ensure establishment and maintenance of the required replacement buffer. 4. Wetland signs must be installed around the required buffers prior to any grading. Wetland signs can be purchased from the City of Maplewood, must be installed at least every 100 feet along the wetland or at each property line (whichever is most restrictive), and must indicate that mowing, cutting, or building is prohibited within the buffer. 4. Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District must approve the plans. B. Tree Preservation: The Carver Crossing development is subject to the city's previous tree preservation ordinance (original application submitted prior to the city's adoption of the September 12, 2006 tree preservation ordinance). The previous ordinance required the replacement of all large trees at a rate of one tree replaced for one tree removed, but in no case did an applicant have to replace more than 10 trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree that is at least 8 inches in diameter, other than a box elder, cottonwood, or poplar or any other undesirable tree as determined by the city. 77 -0 Tree Removal: The tree plan states that there are 1,111 large trees located on the property. In addition, the plan calls out "208 pines within a pine cluster." It is uncertain whether these trees are considered large trees or not. The property is 72.3 acres in size, and therefore the applicant is required to maintain or replace at least 723 trees on the site. The tree plan calls for the removal of 402 of the 1,111 large trees and 51 of the pines, or 34 percent of the large trees and pines on the site. Remaining trees include 709 large trees and 155 pines. Since the applicant is required to maintain at least 723 large trees on the property, they are required to replace only 14 of the 453 trees removed according to the city's previous tree preservation ordinance. Tree Replacement: The landscape plan shows the planting of 558 replacement trees: 290 deciduous, 17 ornamental, and 251 evergreen. This is 544 trees more than required by the previous tree ordinance. Regardless, the Carver Crossing development is being processed as a planned unit development with flexibility being requested from areas of the city's zoning ordinance for street width, lot size, etc. For this reason, the city should ensure that these flexibilities also allow for the preservation and replacement of as many trees as possible. Tree Preservation Recommendations: Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit a revised tree preservation and landscape plan which shows the following: Preservation of the 12 large oak trees located within Lot 4, Block 1 (tree tags 1891, and 1893 through 1902). These oak trees are some of the largest oak trees on the site and are proposed to be removed due to the new wetland buffer creation (as a result of the filling of the wetland north of Fish Creek). The new wetland buffer could be modified in order to preserve these trees. 2. Planting of two deciduous trees per lot. The applicant's landscape plan calls for 143 "front yard" trees, which is approximately one tree per lot, The revised landscape plan should reflect an increase to two deciduous trees per lot. This number would not include the proposed planting of trees around raingardens, etc., within a lot. 3. Replacement of all Colorado spruce trees with Black Hills spruce or Austrian pine trees. 4. Increase in the number of oak trees. Currently the landscape plan calls for only four oak replacement trees. 78 '(% '` • Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Hairier, RE., DiwuLor acid County Engineer 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 -3933 • (651) 266 -7100 • Fax (651) 266 -7110 E -mail: Public.Works@cr).ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM T0: FROM IC.en Roberts City of Maplewood Dennis Hagle Ramsey County Public Works SUBJECT: Carver Crossing Carver Ave. and Henry Ln. DATE.: April 4, 2008 Attachment 24 IV. 1T@ II 0T�r APR 102008 ( u The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed development plan Carver Crossing. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The use of the site will be single family residential. This development will not have a significant impact on traffic operations in the area. 2. The developer will be required to obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on County right of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility work within County rigllt -of way. 'I hanks for the opportunity to make c0111111enLs regarding Lbis issue. If you have any questions or need any additional 111101 "niaLlon please giyi" me a call at 266- 7!_86. 79 Minnesota's First Home Rule County paring on rosyded paper with a rainimmn of 10% post oanau^er mntunt QSHP Attachment Attachment 25 August 22, 2006 Linda & Terry Baumgart 2445 Carver Ave Maplewood, MN 55119 Home #651- 731 -9664 Linda Day #651- 303 -4004 Maplewood: Ken Roberts, Copar Development, Maplewood Planning Commission, Maplewood City Council RE: Response to New Development Proposal; Carver Crossing of Maplewood This will be a short letter since you have all seen our previous concerns about the density and the realignment of Henry Lane. We can see that the developer is making an effort to satisfy and address some of the problems that have come up during the review process. With the proposed 112 foot shift in the Henry Lane alignment: The only thing this accomplished is to put the road into our neighbors and our front yards, neither of us are very comfortable with this plan either. We still do not see a reason the existing road cannot be utilized in this development, this scenario was never mentioned in the EAW except that the new alignment would improve site distance. Strange the road has been there for how many years (30 -40)? Well you see our point. (stop sign) justified if you look at public safety issue. We also stated in a previous letter to place the new alignment across from 2413 Carver Ave. (CITY OPEN SPACE). This way the planned sidewalk /walkway would actually lead somewhere. This brings up the safety issue. This is on a longer tangent to the curves at I -694 thus longer site distance, and affecting less driveway entrances than the current proposal. I only state this hecause I do not wish the city to make a mistake in the placement of the new Henry road entrance. I know it is close to a wetland but I am sure it can be re engineered to accommodate a road entrance. We know other people have mentioned the parking of vehicles in front of the assisted living home (2465 Carver Avenue), no one is very comfortable with this situation. (dangerous) A school bus is parked in the westbound driving lane twice a day for 15 to 20 minutes (loading/unloading) not good, but this we will have to live with until something is figured out. 11 There is already a traffic problem in this area that has not been addressed yet. After all this said, I think the City should NOT APPROVE the Preliminary Plat as submitted and ask that the contractors' engineers and the city staff to address these issues, 80 r Now the short part: We still believe the density is too high. The only area this development blends in with is the Carver Heights area. The isolated homes (as they are referred to in Copar's letter) are just homes on larger lots and that is what people like about this part of South Maplewood. Thanks for your time: Terry & Linda Baumgart (2445 Carver Avenue) E:II -N Attachment Attachment 26 To: Kenneth Roberts & Planning Commission August 24" , 2006 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN. 55109 Re: Comments Neighborhood Survey — South Crossing General Comment— Neiabborbood Survey: I must express my grave disappointed with the limited distribution of this neighborhood survey. Apparently, the strongly stated request by the Planning Commission to expand the scope of any future mailings relating to Carver Crossing fell on deaf ears. This is not a simple request for a variance. It is a proposal whose outcome will have a profound effect on current and future South Maplewood development as well as its residents. I now realize why the city so often finds itself in such an antagonistic position with local residents. It simply fails to engage and inform those residents who are close, yet indirectly affected by development plans. I'm sure someone from some department will stand up and proclaim that the letter of the law was followed as it relates to providing notification. In short, they will make excuses for not engaging surrounding residents that most certainly would be impacted by a project of this magnitude. The city needs to step back and realize that at the end of the day they are the ones that shoulder the responsibility to inform. This is am4or project with aminimal mailing notification. At the very least, the city should have included those residents who successfully petitioned the city just a few short years ago to place a moratorium on development in South Maplewood. Perhaps there is concern that those voices would sound off loud and clear yet once again. Furthermore, I could find no trace of the revised project on the City website as of August 24, 2006, nor did I receive any automated emait updates on the Carver Crossing project. All in spite of the fact that I am a subscriber. All of the above said, i do wish to commend the current City Council for taking many significant first steps to improve communications and engage the residents of Maplewood. These actions have not gone unnoticed but there is still much work to be done. Site BackLyround• CoPar Development states: "Among the many valuable pieces of information gleaned from the E.A.W. site research and findings it has been determined that the entire site can be reasonably developed without a potential for significant environmental effects." 't l I:YA An E.A.W. by its sheer nature is valid only as it applies to a specific development proposal. Without a clearly defined proposal (which has just been submitted) it is impossible to accurately accesses environmental impact Any statement to the effect that the initial E.A.W. represents`Besf' or "Worst" case scenarios is not reflective of sound judgment, common sense or scientific fact. It is instead pure, unadulterated, rhetoric. If CoPar wishes to tout the E.A.W. as an end all, I would urge the City to have CoPar resubmit the `hew revised proposal" to the litmus test of another E.A.W. In fact given the significant changes to the proposal I believe another E.A.W. is warranted. City land Use Plan: CoPar Development continues to slats that the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the entire site as a Single Dwelling (R -1) development area eligible for development at a density of 4.1 homes per acre. What CoPar Development fails to state is that in December of 2002 the City of Maplewood adopted a one -year moratorium on development in South Maplewood as a result ofthree separate Me ttions by South Maplewood residents The net result of the moratorium and subsequent study was the creation by the City of Maplewood in 2003 of a Rural Residential Zoning classification or RI -R. A significant portion of the property is currently zoned RI -R at a density of home per two acres Furthermore this property was not optioned for purchase based on the obtainment of a change in zoning as is a common practice with developers; instead, it was purcharecl outright by CoPar with the full knowledge of the current RI -R & Farm zonine restrictions It is important to understand that CoPar can freely develop this property within its current zoning at any time. Instead, CoPar appears to be attempting to hold the city hostage by leveraging a discrepancy between Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning on this property. Perhaps the city should explore amending the cities Comprehensive Plan to maich the current zoning It is my understanding that the City of Maplewood is fully Compliant with the Metropolitans Council's development guidelines (a fact the City should be most proud of) and it is under no legal obligation to change the current zoning, 1 would request that the City of Maplewood issue a directive to the Planning Commission to carefully study South Maplewood and develop a master plan that would reflect the best interests of it current and future residents as this plan most certainly does not. PUD Development Overview The reduction in development density to 191 units appears to be catered on the elimination of two (2) condominium residences (117 units) from CoPar's last proposal which was rejected by the Planning Commission. If memory serves me correctly, it 83 would have taken a 4 to i vote to ratify the cities current Comprehensive Plan to construct the condominiums. In light of this, l tend to view the reduction in density not as a developer being more sensitive or cooperative, but as a developer adopting a more realistic view. Storm water Management Even with the reduction of 117 units I do not believe the footprint of the development is smaller or less invasive. If anything, by CoPar's own admittance, it appears to be substantially more invasive than the previous plan. As wary of example it is calling for an increase in estimated earlirwork from 217,000 yards to 290,000 yards. It then tries to convince us that and I quote: "As was concluded in the E.A.W. the amount of earthwork associated with this project is not unusual when considering the size of the property. It is reasonable to make the same conclusion with this revised earthwork and storm water plan" I beg to differ. No one can reasonably draw the same conclusion without another E.A. W. Once again, more marketing driven rhetoric. Show me the scientific data to support their claims. Park Dedication I have always been a strong advocate of increasing the Park & Recreational offering in South Maplewood. It would appear that CoPar has presented two options. I am concerned over the following: It has been brought to my attention that CoPar adopted a very non - traditional approach having presented these two options (Cash vs. Land) to the Department of Park & Recreations well before the current plan was formalizing and submitted to the city. I believe the term used was "Routing" the concept. Frankly, this concerns me. When this kind of money is being placed on the table it should always follow a very clean and straight forward process. I also would like to have the city prepare a cost analysis projecting the net cost to the city over say 5, 10 & 20 years for both options. Landscape, Wetlands, Noise As 1 have stated previously. Given the significant amount of change presented in this revised plan it warrants another E.A.W. review. Even the scope of the project has changed from a Senior Development to individual town homes. Public Utilities & Roads I agree with CoPar Development's stance that the extension of utility connection points east under Interstate 494 should not be included in any way with this project. The city does not need to expend precious tax dollars to supplement possible future development -.1 84 east of Interstate 494. Those projects, if and when they come to light, need to be evaluated on their individual merit and absorb the direct costs to any development without subsidies at the expense of Maplewood tax payers. Traffic Once again the perception I get is that because the failed intersections of Sterling/Bailey and Carver/Point Douglas fall out side of the city boundaries it's just not our problem Almost a see no evil, hear no evil; speak no evil approach to traffic management. The traffic issue is not going to crawl under a rock, it needs to be addressed and a plan needs to be set forth. With the exception of a couple token turn lanes nothing has been really dealt with. Fish Creek. Mississinni River Critical Area Corridor: I will be submitting additional comments in the near future on these two very important areas. I am also keenly aware that several environmental groups are monitoring these highly controversial topics. Conclusion I'm not really sure there is a conclusion to be reached here. I don't believe anyone is against CoPar developing this area within the current zoning density of RI -R (one home per two acres). After all an estimated 36 sites at 350K each translates into $7.2.6 million dollars. Yet CoPar does not appear to be satisfied with what they bought. I also question why any developer would have paid so much money outright without first having some assurance that their larger scale project would be green lighted. A question I have been wrestling with for some time. Respectfully Submitted; Mark J. Bonitz E:V Page 1 of 1 Attachment Ken Roberts From: Kathy Urban ]k a_urban @yahoo.com] Servt: Wednesday, August 23, 21706 7:26 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing Attachment 27 . , I I am very disappointed in the change from an active senior housing to housing for everyone. Will the next change be to accomodate low income housing if this plan is not approved? I feel this will greatly increase traffic on Carver and center turn lanes will be needed from the current underpass at Henry west to McKnight road. How will this now impact the school district, bus traffic on Carver, and our future property taxes'? From the plans now received it appears as if the homes are closer to existing properties and the wet lands. Kathy & Rick Urban Yahoo[ Messenger with Voice. Make PC- to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢ /min or less. 13 5e L � 8/24/24 06 86 Carver Crossing Page 1 of 1 Attachment Ken Roberts Attachment 28 From: Telin, Peggy [Peggy.Telin @CO.RAMSEY.MN.US] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 328 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing On page 7, paragraph 2 of the proposal dated August 14, 2006, "the adjustment of 112 feet to the west to avoid aligning with homes on the north side of Carver ". This is not acceptable because at that point it will align with our house. If, on page 9, the new homes will be available to "all qualified buyers" that could possibly mean drivers of all ages will be using the new road.. The population could be as many as 554. They would be corning and going at all hours. That would mean headlights and noise at all hours. As property owners of 2431 Carver, we are concerned about headlight glare aftchng our home. We are more concerned about the traffic noise. If Henry Lane MUST be moved from its present location, to directly across from our property, we would reasonably expect a sound and light barrier to be put on our property. Don & Peggy Telin 2431 Carver Mailing address 835 E. Magnolia St. Paul, Mn. 55106 8 /25/2 006 87 page 1 of 2 Attachment 29 Tom Ekstrand From: rick urban [indianridingdad @yahoo.com] Sent Monday, April 14, 2008 7:59 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Cc: Diana Longrie (External) Subject: Carver Crossing Development proposal 6 '' Dear Sir: I am submitting my comments regarding the upcoming proposal for the Carver Crossing Development in South Maplewood. Unfortunateiy I cannot attend the April 15th hearing as T have a another commitment that I must attend to. I own the property at 1.356 Dorland Rd So, that backs up to Block 2 Lot 10 of the proposed development. If the development proposal is approved, I have the following personal concerns... • Block 2 Lot 10, is very close to my property, and if developed that close, will detract from the privacy/beauty /quality for my backyard area • the proposal plans indicate that the trees behind my property will be removed for the development... initially on an earlier proposal, the Copar developers had indicated that the trees behind my property would not be removed... these trees provide a buffer for me, not only privacy but for noise abatement from the freeway • what style of homes are expected to be built within Block 2? I would hope that only single story structures would be allowed, primarily for privacy and esthetic reasons, as Copar had promised in earlier proposals • overall, the 165 unit proposal still seems too large for the area, insofar as safety is concerned ... one only needs to look at the impact of the group home located near the corner of Carver and Henry ... when group home residents are dropped off or picked up by their vans or buses, there is not sufficient room in the Carver roadway to accomodate these vehicles... parking for group home employees is not adequate, making winter driving for nearby residents (like me) in front of the group home more treacherous... adding 165 units in the Carver Crossing development will only aggravate this situation... this is an accident waiting to happen ... a proactive study of the safety impact of this proposal is sorely needed. From going to previous meetings, I know that studies have been done, however I question their objectivity • another safety issue relates to the egress from the development... there is only one (1) exit point and that is out to Carver --- if a proposal of this size were to be approved, there needs to be an alternate exit, probably out to Point Douglas Rd, which would need to be negotiated... in my personal opinion, I don't believe that the Developers or those that support Carver Crossing development, really care about the safety of the area • if this proposal were to be approved, what is the timeframe for development? In our economy, homes are not selling very well right now, as everyone knows. What is the advantage to go with such an endeavor? Who benefits? If the area is "dug up" and the homes don't sell, are adjacent homeowners "stuck" with a long term downside of an unfinished development? Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and any considerations that you can afford to my personal concerns (but mostly to the safety concerns) are most appreciated. Thanks again, Richard D. Urban 5 4/14/2008 88 Attachment Attachment 30 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 5:00 P.M. Thursday, September 28, 2006 Continuation of Monday, September 25, 2006 Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -25 U 10 C. L. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, and was called to order at 5;00 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Present Rebecca Cave Councilmember Present Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present NEW BUSINESS 1. Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Street Right -of -Way and Easement Vacations Preliminary Plat a. Planner Roberts presented the report. b. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Development presented the Carver Crossing of Maplewood proposal and answered council questions. b. The following persons were heard: George Gonzales, 2359 Heights Avenue, Maplewood Steve Mylnarcayk, 1364 Dorland Road South, Maplewood Don Tellin, owner of 2431 Carver Avenue (across from the new road) Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood Rick Urban, 1356 Dorland Road South, Maplewood Councilmember Cave Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes -Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle Nay - Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach 09 -28 -06 (Continuation of the 09- 25- 099-ity Council Meeting) I Findings of Denial Mayor Longrie Under City Ordinance 44 -1091, the city is not obligated to approve a conditional use permit. Under City Ordinance 44 -1097, the applicant has the burden of proving that the use would meet all of the standards required for the approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant has not proven the use would meet all of the standards required. Looking at the plain reading of the ordinance creating R -1 (R) zoning and its intent, the applicant's request is inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. The proposed PUD would not be located, designed or maintained or constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and the code of ordinances. While the use of single residential dwellings in the proposed PUP is consistent for the land use under the comprehensive plan, it would not be in conformity with Maplewood's public policy to preserve this property for rural residential R -1(R) as it is currently zoned. R -1(R) is consistent with the comprehensive plan as a subcategory of single dwelling residential and is to preserve a low density housing option in Maplewood. Specifically, the primary purpose for the R -1(R) zoning district that was applied to this area was to prevent overcrowding. This statement is from the memorandum of October 28, 2003. The R -1 (R) zoning ordinance specifically says that the intent of the ordinance Is that Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of those areas of the city, because of topography or other factors, do not have, or does the city expect to have, sanitary municipal sanitary sewer or water service. This is not the only reason this zoning was placed on the property. Maplewood also has the intent to allow for, and protect, a very low density, semi rural, residential life style and that is why the city created an R -1 (R) zoning district. This zoning district is for those areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation, or other factors. The city finds that the most suitable use for these areas is with single dwellings on large lots in that these low density residential developments will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water and vegetation in wooded areas. There has been a lot of testimony regarding the special factors of this property, including being within the Mississippi Critical Area. We have not heard any particular reasons why the public policy should change for what has been used to land guide this property in the past. Councilmember Hjelle: The proposed plan conflicts with the following required condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit: The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. Councilmember Cave: Councilmember Cave concurred with Mayor Longrie's findings. Mr. Kantrud, City Attorney, followed up the Council's Findings by stating that there is no conflict between the City's comprehensive plan designating the property's use as single dwelling residential and the current R -1(R) zoning since R -1(R) zoning, as a subcategory of single dwelling residential, further delineates the land use as to a specific type of single dwelling residential. R -1 (R) provides for the orderly development of the property within the framework of the designation of single dwelling residential within the comprehensive plan. E. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 9.00 p.m. F�) 09 -28 -06 (Continuation of the 09 -25SM City Council Meeting) Attachment 31 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the 165 -unit Carver Crossing of Maplewood residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the area south of Carver Avenue and west of 1 -494. WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the properties are: Commitment No. 242035 The West One -half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), lying Westerly of the Westerly right -of -way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota; Except the North 150 feet of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22) lying Westerly of the Westerly right -of -way line of State Trunk Highway 494; And also except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4), Section 24, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 24 and the Westerly Right -of -Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right -of- Way line of T.H. #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right -of -Way line of T.H. #392 a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right -of -Way line of said T.H. #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right -of -Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right -of -Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said SW 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. And the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty -Eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), except the North Five Hundred feet (500 ft.) thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westerly Right -of -Way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in Final Certificates filed as Document No.'s 2254933 and 2256730. ul 41 PARCEL B: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and the Westerly Right -of -Way line of Trunk Highway #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right - of -Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right -of -Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right -of -Way line; thence deflecting Southwesterly 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right -of -Way line of said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right -of -Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right -of -Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. PARCEL C: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota. Commitment No. 240565 PARCEL D: The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24; being 33.00 feet either side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 49 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the North line thereof a distance of 33.00 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence Northeasterly on a non - tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 43 minutes 49 seconds East with a radius of 120.00 feet, central angle of 67 degrees, 28 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 141.37 feet; thence North 67 degrees, 28 minutes 49 seconds East; tangent to last described curve a distance of 217.69 feet, more or less, to the Right of Way of Inter -State Highway No. 494 and there terminating. Commitment No. 249737 PARCEL E: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE 1/4 of NW 1/4) of Section 24, Township 28 Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (N. line SE ' / 4 of NW 1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty eight (28), Range Twenty two (22), a distance of 325.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof thence West along said North line a distance of 975.93 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24 (NW corner SE 1/4 of NW 1/4); thence Southerly, along the West line of said Quarter - Quarter section line, a distance of Five Hundred (500) feet; thence East, and parallel with the North 29 M line, a distance of 974.93 feet; thence Northerly Five Hundred (500) feet to the point of beginning; except the East 150 feet of the North 290.4 feet and except the West 110 feet of the North 396 feet, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota Abstract Property, Ramsey County Commitment No. 242032 PARCEL F: The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, according to the government survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota 1501 Henry Lane S Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 Abstract Property, Ramsey County All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Carver Crossing of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 15, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the conditional use permit. 2. On May 5, 2008, the Maplewood City Council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 30 491 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date - stamped March 31, 2008, except where the city requires changes. These plans include only having emergency vehicle and trail access from the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include: a.Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. For purposes of this condition and for compliance with Section 44 -1099 of the Maplewood City Code, and based on the City's recent experience in applying this requirement, substantial ground or site preparation would constitute a substantial start on the proposed construction. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Michael Thompson's memo dated April 9, 2008, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulbs and round — about shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. A final detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. 31 951 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. Have the city environmental planner and city naturalist approve the wetland, grading and tree replacement /preservation plans. 6. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any remaining debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. d. Provide the city with verification that all the units or town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. For any units that are within the 65- decibel noise contour, the contractor will have to build the units or town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. 7. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet. b. Front -yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum — none. c. Rear -yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line. d Side -yard setback: 15 feet minimum between buildings. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2008. 32 W Attachment 32 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, CoPar Companies applied to the city for the vacation of the following- described parts of a public right -of -way and the following easements: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF HENRY LANE That part of Henry Lane turned back to the City of Maplewood per Document Number 1843272 and according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of Way Plat No. 62 -19, Document Number 352354 and Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of Way Plat No. 62 -20, Document Number 3548682, and that part of Legislative Trunk Highway 393, currently known as Trunk Highway 494 as described in Final Certificate, Document Number 1565350, all filed in the office of County Recorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West 607.01 feet on an assumed bearing along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 52 minutes 01 seconds East 238.73 feet; thence easterly 169.04 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 184.00 feet and a central angle of 52 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds; thence South 53 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds East 42.60 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence southeasterly, southerly and southwesterly 152.16 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 72 degrees 38 minutes 56 seconds; thence southwesterly 283.33 feet along a reverse curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 7,800.93 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 520.45 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A and said line there terminating; Together with that part of said Henry Lane lying westerly, northwesterly and southeasterly of the following 60.00 foot strip. Said strip lies 30.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the hereinbefore described Point A; thence continuing South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 157.55 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East 31.51 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 194.51 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly 218.59 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 200.00 feet and a central angle of 62 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds; thence, South 79 degrees 41 minutes 11 seconds West 236.08 feet and said centerline there terminating. Easements and Right -of -ways to be Vacated: 1. A 30- foot -wide drainage and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2499330 2. The drainage easement as defined in Document No. 2499331. 3. A 60- foot -wide driveway easement as defined in Document No. 2060364. 4. A 66- foot -wide roadway and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2060365. 5. The Henry Lane right -of -way per MN DOT right -of -way Plat No. 62 -19. 6. The Henry Lane right -of -way per MN DOT right -of -way Plat No. 62 -20. 33 Me All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows: On April 15, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the proposed vacations. 2. On May 5, 2008, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 24- 28 -22 -24 -0010 1481 Henry Lane Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 24- 28 -22 -31 -0017 1461 Henry Lane Maplewood, Minnesota PIN 24- 28 -22 -31 -0002 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described right -of -way and easement vacations for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right -of -ways for their original purposes. 3. The existing easements and right -of -ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout. 4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right -of -ways with the final plat. These vacations are subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and utility easements and right -of -ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2008. 34 02 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present at 7:04 p.m. Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, City Engineer /Acting City Manager 7:10 p.m. Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) 1. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) 2. Vacation of existing easement and right of way vacations 3. Preliminary plat City planner Tom Ekstrand presented the report and introduced city attorney John Baker. Mr. Baker said he is the defense attorney in the case of CoPar Companies and the City of Maplewood. Mr. Baker said he wanted to talk to the commission explaining about (1) what is different with this item because of the litigation and how it affects this application and what happens if there is a denial, (2) address what is at stake in this litigation without jeopardizing the city's position, and (3) highlight what is different about this proposal from what the commission saw earlier. Mr. Baker said if the city denies the application, the case will go to a judge to decide the case. Mr. Baker said the potentials include (1) approval of the old 191 -unit proposal that the commission and city council considered and denied in 2006, (2) separate or combined with number one, a determination that the previous denial constituted a taking without just compensation, or (3) that the city wins and the court upholds the ruling of the council's denial. Mr. Baker explained that the city council denied the Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development on September 28, 2006 by a vote of three to two. The city council did not adopt written findings, so the findings the city must defend are the comments articulated by those council members who voted in favor of the denial on the record. 4.1 Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 04 -15 -08 Mr. Baker explained that after the city's denial, CoPar Companies then filed suit in court. The city did get some help from the Minnesota Supreme Court regarding the reinterpretation of the Automatic Approval Statute. The plaintiff lost on and the city prevailed on in 2007, but this left two claims to be decided. Mr. Baker said that one of the claims was that the denial was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and therefore, needed to be overturned and that if this claim were granted it would mean the 191 -unit project that was considered in 2006 is granted. The other claim was that this constitutes a taking without just compensation, which the plaintiffs have set based on an appraisal of the value of 191 units versus the value of what they could build with the current approvals, which they say is 34 units at $7.9 million. Mr. Baker said mediations with the plaintiff have been ongoing in a series of meetings since October, which is a process they feel is valuable to continue. Mr. Baker explained that since this matter has time constraints, it will be considered by the city council at a special meeting on May 5. Mr. Baker said that the city council wants a recommendation from the planning commission before they consider this matter on May 5. Mr. Baker said he feels the plaintiffs argument will be that the density of what they proposed was within the density of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Baker explained that even in the south having R -1 R zoning area, the zoning permits uses with a considerably lower density and their argument may be that based on the Minnesota Supreme Court decisions that when there is a conflict between the guide plan and zoning that the guide plan prevails, so any reliance by the city on stricter limits on density in the R1 R zoning is arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Baker said he believes they will argue that while the R1 R status is relevant, they will ask the Court to view the zoning ordinance as a whole and since a PUD is a conditional use, that they will argue that this reflects a legislative determination that the city already determined that when the city adopted that ordinance and that under reasonable conditions that satisfy the PUD and CUP criteria it is considered legislatively acceptable. Mr. Baker mentioned that in the R1 R district there are references in the Purpose section to the extension of city sewer and water. The council felt that since they had not extended city sewer and water in this area that the city was not yet at the point that they needed to permit greater densities. Mr. Baker felt the plaintiff will argue that there is evidence in the record that sewer and water was available to the site. Mr. Baker reminded the commission that he is giving the commission the plaintiff's better arguments. Mr. Baker said he believes that when the comprehensive guide plan and zoning conflicts, that the comprehensive guide plan should not be the source of development rights. Mr. Baker said that even i there is a guide plan that is more permissive than the zoning, it should be the law that the city has the decision of when they want to up zone. Mr. Baker emphasized that this is not recognized legally in Minnesota but is a gray area. Mr. Baker then continued with differences from the 2006 application and review. Mr. Baker explained that the density has changed from 191 to 165 units, possibly going down to 149 units. Mr. Baker said that with the 165 -unit plan that is more of a cluster plan there is much more green space and will preserve more trees and woodlands. Mr. Baker explained that in order to meet the 149 -unit plan, the applicant is willing to temporarily postpone development of the southern portion closest to the Mississippi River to allow the city time to present a referendum for the city's purchase of these 16 south lots for preservation as open space. M41 Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 04 -15 -08 City planner Ekstrand presented a summary report of the 165 -unit proposal. Mr. Ekstrand also discussed policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area. Mr. Ekstrand explained that most of the neighbors' objections with this development are regarding increased traffic concerns. Commissioner Martin asked about the traffic studies done and whether the E.A.W. was completed in 2006. Planner Roberts said the traffic study was done in 2005 and 2006 as part of the E.A.W. for the site. City engineer Chuck AN commented that a requirement of the E.A.W. is that it is required to project out for 20 years and that one of the conditions of the approval is that improvements to turning lanes and traffic movement on Carver Avenue are made to handle the traffic volume. Commissioner Martin asked if the cutoff from Carver Avenue to Highway 61 was included in the study. Mr. AN responded that all of the improvements to Highway 61 and the Wakota bridge area were in MnDOT's plans for many years and just beginning to be implemented and were included in this study. Commissioner Hess asked whether the 165 -units proposed fall within the farm residential and rural single dwelling zoning. Planner Roberts responded that as Mr. Baker pointed out, the 165 -units are below the single dwelling classification of the land use map classification of the comprehensive plan for the area. Mr. Roberts explained that they would be below the farm classification if the zoning classification were to be considered, but if the R1 R zoning is considered, the area south of Fish Creek is low density and they would be above that. City engineer AN explained that the commission must decide whether this new plan revision is significant enough from the previous plan. Mr. AN reviewed the Concept Plan W /Referendum from the staff report. Mr. AN said areas were added to this plan as conservation easements dedicated for protection with additional conditions that are similar to open space land. Mr. AN explained the areas considered for protection by a city referendum to purchase the land. Mr. AN said that if the referendum were to fail, the developer would be able to develop 165 units rather than 149 units. Mr. AN explained that if the referendum were successful, the public would be granted all of the green areas and would have 50 percent public ownership of the site. Mr. AN explained that this is a land use case and the city does not have insurance coverage should they lose this case. This is a risk for the city and the city council would need to find the money to cover the cost if the case were lost. Commissioner Walton commented on if there is value to the land that is protected in this area. Mr. Walton said this is called cluster development but it does not work the way cluster development is intended to work. Mr. Walton said the area to the north is existing wetlands and asked about the south area. Mr. AN responded saying the area to the south is the slope that was identified for protection. Mr. AN said that the slope ordinance language is an "exception" part of the ordinance and that in 1984 the planning commission said that this ordinance will allow development of some of those 18 percent slopes. Mr. AN said that this is probably not the protection wanted today and that this section of the code will probably be revised in the future, but the 1984 ordinance is what is in effect for this development. IGIt, Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 04 -15 -08 Commissioner Trippler commented that it is hardly a generous offer for them to offer the city the land that they can't use in order to get what they want. Mr. Trippler said that this is a side issue and the real issue is whether the city has the right to plan for and zone city land and whether developers have an obligation to comply with the way the city plans and zones its property. Mr. Trippler said it is a critical issue that the R1 R classification was established in 2003, since the developer purchased the property in 2004 and 2005. Mr. Trippler said it is the developer's responsibility to understand the zoning of the property and does not have the right to claim ignorance. Mr. Trippler explained he feels the zoning was clearly established prior to the purchase of the property and that it is in the city's best interest to take this case to court. Commissioner Yarwood asked staff why a zoning change for the south property was not considered rather than a PUD. City planner Ekstrand responded that the PUD allows flexibility in design and that the applicant had the option to apply for a PUD and did apply for a PUD. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant applied for flexibility in design in a variety of building setbacks, housing units on smaller lots than the code usually allows, some of the street right of ways were 50 feet wide rather than 60 feet wide, and for a long dead -end street that would be more than 1,000 feet long. Mr. Yarwood said that the proposal for the south property allows for more than 100 units more than allowed under the current zoning. Mr. Yarwood said this is a unique property and this development is not appropriate for this area. Mr. Yarwood suggested that historically there are many instances for considering this area as rural, such as the city's consideration of the property for purchase as open space land and more recently being zoned as R1 R. Commissioner Fischer asked if there is case law that if there is a conflict between the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, that the comprehensive plan takes precedence over the zoning district. City attorney John Baker responded that the answer to this has changed over time. Mr. Baker said that previously the Meriam amendment was passed and made the zoning supreme, but in 1993 the Metropolitan Land Use Plan Act was amended and provided to the contrary. Mr. Baker said he does not feel this answers the question that if a guide plan provides one density and zoning provides a lower density and if an application comes in with a density above the zoning but below the guide plan the city has no choice but to grant it. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to comment on why there is no information in the staff report regarding noise and also why this development is proceeding under the old tree ordinance rather than the new ordinance. Planner Roberts responded that noise issues were studied under the E.A.W. and apologized for not including more information on noise issues in the staff report. Mr. Roberts said that noise levels did exceed acceptable levels in the area closest to the freeway and that staff has required a Condition (5.d). in the staff report that requires adequate sound protection be provided in the form of a study for the units in the area violating the noise ordinance. Mr. Roberts also said the decision to consider this development under the old tree ordinance was part of the settlement plan directed by the city attorney. Mr. Baker also addressed the tree ordinance issue saying that it was a compromise and that it is appropriate for the city to consider the ordinance that was in place at the time of the challenged decision and that if the court decides this complaint it will base it on the old ordinance. 11111 Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 04 -15 -08 Commissioner Walton asked the city attorney to comment on the $7.9 million lawsuit based on the 191 original units minus the developer's number of 34 units and the likelihood of the $7.9 million standing up in court. Mr. Baker said his judgment is that the likelihood is low with the reasons being related to the zoning and taking issues. Mr. Baker said his assessment of the taking claim is that their chances of success in this scenario are remote. Mr. Baker explained that this is relevant, but is also the worst case scenario. Mr. Walton responded that he feels there is too much discussion of the lawsuit and that it is the responsibility of the planning commission to make their best judgment for the appropriate land use for this area based on past and future plans and zonings and other information at their disposal. Commissioner Trippler suggested that the city might consider purchase of the entire south parcel with a referendum to cover the cost of the developer's purchase price to reimburse him for that parcel. Mr. Baker responded that various scenarios regarding acquisitions have been discussed as part of the process. Mr. Baker said this has not been an offer the developer has made or has been willing to entertain previously. Commissioner Fischer asked whether this proposal is based on sewer availability to the site. City engineer AN responded that sewer has been stubbed in to the site off of the Dorland cul -de -sac and Heights Drive on the south and Carver Avenue on the north. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification on ownership of the property to the west of the south development site referred to as Outlot E. Mr. AN responded that this parcel is owned by the applicant and is the 16 -lot parcel that is the subject of a potential referendum and that the developer has agreed to delay building there until the referendum question is answered. Mr. AN commented that these 16 lots were appraised for $135,000 per lot. The applicant Kurt Schneider of CoPar Companies said he did not have a formal presentation. Mr. Schneider highlighted the following details: the plan has a low density of 2.28 homes per acre where the land use plan would allow 4.1 units per acre, storm water planning exceeds established standards infiltrating 57% more cubic feet of water than is required, extensive landscape tree preservation, protection of wetlands, and the immediate availability of public infrastructure. Commissioner Yarwood asked the applicant why the southern part of the site could not be developed on an R1 R designation with a similar footprint. Mr. Schneider responded that the development and vision for the site has specifically followed the city's land use plan and the strong encouragements and requirements of the land use plan to pursue a planned unit development. Mr. Yarwood asked the applicant if it could be developed as an R1 R designation with the same footprint. Mr. Schneider responded no, it is not their plan or the city's land use plan. Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant whether their company has developed in other areas without regard to the zoning for those developments. Mr. Howard Rosten, representing CoPar Companies, responded saying it is the position of the developer that they are not in violation of city code with respect to this development. Commissioner Walton asked the developer if he considers this proposal to be cluster development. The developer responded that this is a cluster development. Mr. Walton said he defines a cluster development as allowing conservation of areas that could be developed, but are instead highly valued for whatever reason. IGY Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 04 -15 -08 The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. The following people spoke: 1. Jim Kerrigan, 2620 Carver Avenue, said he would like to see a lower density. 2. Michael Bailey, 1615 Sterling Street, disputed the units per acre numbers the developers referred to earlier in the meeting and that they are not accurate. Ms. Bailey said she felt the city should take the risk and go forward to a court decision. 3. Ron Kulas, 1324 S. Dorland, asked for an explanation of what is a referendum. Mr. Kulas spoke regarding the problems for developers building in the current housing market. 4. Ron Cockriel, 434 Century Avenue, spoke regarding the inconsistency with the land use plan that was not revised and the zoning plan for this site. 5. Tom Dimond, 2119 Skyway Drive, St Paul, suggested that language be added referring to "funding ", but not from a specific source and also add a clause stating that the city has the option to acquire the south parcel if it has not been developed. 6. Carolyn Petersen, 1801 Gervais Avenue, said concern for this development is not limited to only the neighbors in the south but residents throughout the city and other cities along the corridor. 7. Michael Bailey, 1615 Sterling Street, spoke concerning questions still remaining about the moratorium and Ms. Bailey was concerned that the developer should pay for the installation of utilities rather than the city. 8. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Development, spoke regarding the E.A.W. process. City engineer AN responded clarifying that the E.A.W. was done "through" the city who hired the consultant, but not "by" the city and was paid for by CoPar Development. 9. Sue Bonitz, 1635 Sterling Street, asked if there was another environmental study beyond the E.A.W. City engineer AN responded that the E.A.W. was completed and determined there was not enough of an environmental impact to justify an environmental impact statement. Ms. Bonitz asked how much it will cost the city to install utilities. Mr. AN responded that this issue has not yet been resolved as to what the developer's share and the city's share of these costs will be. There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood reiterated his question of why this property could not be developed in the R1 R designation. Mr. Yarwood said the city has one chance at developing this property right. Commissioner Pearson said that none of the discussion tonight has been about maintaining the character of the area, but in the past the moratorium, zoning and other discussions have been concerned with maintaining the character of the area and character has always been a big part of the discussion. Commissioner Fischer asked how many times in the past a cul -de -sac over 1,000 feet has been allowed. Planner Roberts responded that there are very few in the city. Commissioner Trippler said he agrees with Commissioner Pearson that this site is unique. Mr. Trippler said that he feels the city can win the law suit and if the city wants the right to decide how the city is developed in the future, they should continue to stand on this case and fight. 111191 Planning Commission Minutes of 04 -15 -08 7- Commissioner Yarwood moved to deny the resolution for a conditional use permit for 165 -unit planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1- 494, south of Carver Avenue. Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Nays — Martin The motion passed. Commissioner Yarwood moved to deny the resolution vacating the unused easements and right of ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue.) Commissioner Fischer asked staff if this is relevant at this point. Planner Roberts responded that it is important to have the motion on the record and that they do not have a development plan with an R1 R zoning. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes — Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood The motion passed. Commissioner Yarwood moved to deny the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on March 31, 2008.) Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood The motion passed Commissioner Trippler wanted to go on record to say that if the developer is willing to develop the property according to the way the property is zoned, he would be willing to vote for it. The commission took a five - minute break and then reconvened. 11175!