HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 01-19 Special MeetingAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M.
Tuesday, January 9
Council Chambers Municipal Buildin
Special Meeting
A• CALL TO ORDER
B• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Co ROLL CALL
D • APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E • PUBLIC HEARINGS
1• Oak Ridge
a• EIS Determination
b• Land Use Plan-Change (4 Votes)
c• Zoning Map Change (4 Votes)
d• Street Vacation (4 Votes)
e• Code Variation - Arlington Avenue
f• Code Variation - Myrtle Street
9• Code Variation - Montana Avenue
h. Preliminary Plat
i. Setback Variance
J• Increased Front Setbacks
k• Code Variation - Street Width
F• VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
G• COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1.
2,
30
40
50
6.
7.
Le"i
H. ADMINISTRgTIVE PRESENTATIONS
to
2.
3.
4,
I ° A��DURNMENT
M EMORANDUM
TO:
FROM; C4 3' Manager
SUBJECT: Directo of Community DeVelo me
DATE: Oak midge P nt
January 14, 1993
9
0-. 3.
5.
►^TRoDucnoN
Mr. Dennis Gonyea of the Gonyea Co
homes. The project is called p� � ° ration is
Nebraska Avenue �d e, prO °S�g to develo
and Sterlin g The site is east of NIcK� plots for 131
page 25,) Mr. Gonyea g Sn'eet and north of �e ght Road south of
that the City lans to develo r �'�ad tracks,
do the following; P the project in four phases. ( See the reap o
He is requesting
1 . Determ�e if the r;�, ..L _ _ , , _
won Avenue east of Mc ht
b• � Road - 1,50
Njy� -tle Street - 1 ,340 feet
C. Montana Avenue - l,lsp feet
Env ironmental — v1�' vula do an E n v iro�ental Im
Assessment Worksheet. Pact Statement, based
Ch on an
ange the land use
to R -1 plan map. Change the R -3M
(single . dwellings), remise the o �m�di
Avenue as a moor collector street. pen space desi � density residential)
(See the ma s o ations and drop H oyt
Change the zonin P n pages 28 and 29.)
(multiple dwellin g maP for p arts � f
�� and M_1 this site. This than e
(See the maps on pa 26 and 1 m ��.lfacturirig) tQ R (sin jbfrom R -3
dwellings).
Vacate the Hoyt Avenue ri ght -of -w
is an undeveloped ay that is east of Sterlin
bounda P 33 - foot - wide right - - g Street. Ho
rS'• (Refer to the map on page that is Heart to p� o f the oAvenue
P Se 83.) pat
App rove subdivision code variations for three hree long cul- de-sacs:
The City Code allows developErs to plat cul-de-sacs
unless no alternative is possible, ul de -sacs u
p to 1,000 feet in length,
Approve a preliminary plat. (See the
Proposed plat map on page 30.)
7. Approve a 5- to 10 -foot front and setback variance •
Y for each lot m the plat. This
would allow each home to be built with a.20- to 25-foot front yard setback. The
setback would vary depending on the location of trees on each lot, The City
Code requires a 30 -foot front-yard setback.
80 Approve an increased front setback for two lots.
90 Approve a variation from the City Code to reduce the required street width from
32 feet to 28 feet from gutter to gutter. (See the developer's letter on page 79.)
The developer is asking for most of these variances to save trees and wetlands.
BACKGROUND
September 6, 1979: The Council began to consider c •
g constructing water and sanitary
sewer lines through this site. The City ased the design
tY gn of these on a concept
plan prepared by Hillcrest Development. p
p (See the plan on page 33.) This plan had 147
single dwelling lots and 54 tow p
g n house lots for a total of 201 units,
De (Hillcrest
Development never applied to the City to develop, •
.. tY this plan.) The City installed these
utilities in 1987 and 1988.
April 13, 1987: The City Council approved the preliminary
. pP p inunary plat for Cave's Nebraska
Addition. This plat was for 57 lots including Nebraska aska Avenue and Myrtle Court. The
City approved the design f this plat in a
S p part because of Hillcrest Developments concept
plan. p
Mr. Gonyea started with 184 lots when he first came in to discuss this plat with the
staff. This was before he made an application. He then dropped 36 lots and proposed
148 lots when he applied. to the .City. He dropped to 141 lots on the plan that went to
the Planning Commission. He has now dropped another ten lots for a total of 131 lots.
Mr. Gonyea dropped the last ten lots to meet the Planning Commission's and staffs
recommendations. These recommendations require that wooded lots have at least
15,000 square feet and lots with twenty -foot building setbacks have at least 75 feet of
frontage at the twenty -foot line.
DISCUSSION
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The developer voluntarily prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).
(See the EAW on page 37.) The State does not require an EAW until there are at least
250 proposed homes. The purpose of an EAW is to gather enough information on the
environmental impact of a project to determine if the City should do an environmental
impact statement (EIS). The City sent the EAW to thirteen Federal, State and regional
2
agencies. We received four replies. Three of the agencies stated that an EIS is not
needed. There were several suggestions for changes to the project.
The Minnesota Historical Society said there are no known historic properties on the
site. They also stated there probably are no unknown significant historical or
archaeological properties within the project area. (See their letter on page 54.)
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) stated that significant environmental
effects are unlikely to occur as a result of this project. Therefore, the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not appear warranted. The PCA did have
several comments about water quality, solid waste and air quality issues. (See their
letter on page 55 and the staff reply on page 57.)
The Metropolitan Council stated that an EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. The
Metropolitan Council staff had several comments about the wetlands. (See their letter
on page 59 and the staff reply on page 61.)
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) questioned whether the EAW provides
enough information for the City to decide whether this project needs further
environmental review. (See their letter on page 63 and the staff reply on page 67.)
It is important to note that these letters were written in late September and early
October. Since then, the developer has changed the project to address the above
concerns. The developer has dropped seventeen lots, prepared an environmental study
and changed several of the street and lot designs to save wetlands. The staff is
recommending several conditions, such as wetland buffer zones, I to address the agencies'
comments.
Environmental Impa Statement
Requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) is a big step from an environmental
assessment worksheet (EAW). The State does not require an EIS unless there are at
least 1,000 proposed homes. Greg Downing, from the Environmental Quality Board
(EQB), told me that an EIS takes nine to twelve months to complete and costs a
minimum of $100,000. Only one out of 120 EAW s ever go to the EIS stage. Very few
EIS's are done on residential projects. It is very difficult for the developer of a project
like Oak Ridge, with only 131 lots, to justify the time and expense of an EIS. That is
the reason the State developed the EAW process.
The EQB rules give four criteria for deciding whether to order an environmental impact
statement (EIS). Only two apply to this project:
1. The type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects
3
29 The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by
ongoing public regulatory authority.
Based on the changes in the dev eloper's plans, the EAW co •
letters from special .interest � comments from other agencies
groups, comments and letters from residents
runent and the - staff
report, we feel that the environmenta issues have been adequatel q y addressed. There
has been more environmental information presented •
restrictions recommended on t and more environmental
this proj than an other in '
Information from an Y the City. Further
EIS Is unnecessary and may be c '
y c ost- prohlbl' tive for the develop
Land Use Plan and Zonin Ma Chan�tes
One of the advantages of this project is that this property would be developed with
single- dwellings instead of multiple dwellings and manufacturing uses. The current
land use plan and zoning allows for multiple dwellings and light manufacturing, in
addition to single dwellings. Multiple dwellings include double dwellings, town houses
and small apartment buildings.
These changes would drop the allowed density on the site. The current zoning would
allow a maximum of 566 apartment units (if there were 50+ units building), about 36
single dwellings and light rnanufaeturing on the land zoned M -1. The proposed R -1
(residential low density) classification is for single dwellings with a maximum density of
3.5 units per acre. The developer is proposing a plat for only 131 homes or 1.1 homes
per acre. This is only 22% of the allowed density under the current zoning.
The property owner stated that he opposes any change in the land use plan or zoning
unless the City approves the Oak Ridge plat.
.Street Vacation
There is no public need for the undeveloped 33-foot-wide
way. rig e Hoyt Avenue street right-of-
g y is east of Sterling Street and no g
public need because: rth of the plat. There is no
1 • The adjacent properties would be better served by other streets. The developer
would dedicate new streets for the property south of Hoyt Avenue. The
developer is showing on the plat how the property north of Hoyt Avenue could
be developed without Hoyt Avenue. (See the preliminary plat on page 30.)
2• To construct Hoyt Avenue, the City would have to fill a wetland and construct a
new wetland to compensate for the filling, The Hoyt Avenue right -of -way covers
parts of two existing wetlands.
I1
The City should keep a drainage easement over this right -of -way for the existing
wetlands. If the City vacates this right -of -way, it would become part of the property to
the north.
Subdivision. Code Variations -. Arlington Avenue and WrUe Street
The Code states that in no case shall cul -de -sacs exceed 1,000 feet in length, unless no
other alternative is possible. There are three alternatives that would not require the
long cul -de -sacs.
The first alternative connects the Arlington. Avenue cul -de -sac from McKnight Road with
the east end of the existing Nebraska Avenue. The developer prepared a plan showing
this connection on the grading plan. This plan would add four lots to the plat but
would require that the developer fill a 0.23 -acre wetland (Wetland M on the
preliminary plat) remove about forty more trees.
The second alternative connects the westerly Arlington Avenue cul -de -sac across the
pipeline to the easterly Nebraska Avenue cul -de -sac. The developer would lose four lots
and have to construct another 520 feet of street. Connecting these two cul -de -sacs
would have the following adverse effects for the City
1. The developer would have to, do extra grading and up to fifteen feet of additional
Wig, This would disturb an additional 1.8 acres and result in the loss of 59
more trees.
2. The developer would have to construct the street and utilities on large amounts
of fill. The City Engineer recommends against this.
The street would have an 8% grade. This is the maximum grade allowed by the City.
The third alternative would be to connect Arlington Avenue and Nebraska Avenue, but
lower the pipeline. (This is the Planning Commission's recommendation.) Lowering the
pipeline would reduce the street grade, filling and tree loss. There would still be more
tree loss than not connecting the cul -de -sacs. Lowering the pipeline would cost about
$80,000 plus additional street and utility costs.
The decision on this Code variation is a choice between improving traffic circulation
versus saving trees. Denying the variation would eliminate the long cul -de -sacs and
improve traffic circulation, but would result in the loss of more trees.
The staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that the City Council approve
the long cul -de -sacs. This recommendation was based on a previous City Council
decision. The Council approved similar Code variations on March 9, 1987 for the Budd
Kolby Second Addition plat. This plat is south of Linwood Avenue and east of
�I
McKnight Road. The Council approved a 1275 -foot cul -de -sac for Dahl Avenue and a
1225 -foot cul -de -sac for Dorland Road. The Council a roved ' these Code vari
pp ations
because the developer would have had to add I fill and remove trees to make a through
g
street to the south. The staff had recommended against the cul -de -sacs. (Refer to the
Council approved plan on page 35 and the staff ro osal on page 36..
P P P g )
Since the Planning Commission meeting, we have changed our recommendation to
agree with the Planning Commission. our reasons are similar to the ones we made in
1987 on Dahl Avenue and Dorland Road:
L A through street would be easier for the police to patrol.
26 A through street would provide a second means of access if the road is blocked.
A utility break or a tree falling down in a storm could block the road.
3. Removing snow from cul -de -sac bulbs takes more time than plowing a through
street. (This is true of all cul -de -sac bulbs regardless of their length.)
4. A through street would provide better traffic circulation.
5. Streets are permanent while trees can be replaced. Many of the trees will be lost
anyway with the construction of homes. This is particularly true of oaks, which
are very sensitive to construction.
The developer told us that he had a meeting with some of the neighbors. He said that
the neighbors at this meeting did not want Arlington Avenue connected to Nebraska
Avenue or extended across the pipeline. The only change they wanted was to shorten
the cul -de -sac.
If the Council decides to approve the long cul - de - sacs, they should approve the
resolution for a Code variation on page 123.
Subdivision Code Variation - Montana Avenue
The long cul -de -sac on Montana Avenue meets the Code requirements for a Code
variation. Because of the wetland to the south and east of the Mont Avenue cul -de-
sac, there is no practical way to eliminate the Montana Avenue cul -de -sac. This cul -de-
sac would only be 160 feet longer than the Code allows. This cul -de -sac would be
shortened to 300 feet when the ��ro a to the north is developed. However this
p P �Y P
could be a long time.
6
PP etiminary Pim
open Space
In 1980, the City requested that the County buy this site as part of its open space
program. The County decided not to buy this site. The County felt that the City could
regulate any development to preserve the needed ponds or drainage functions.
In 1992, the Maplewood Open Space Committee rated this site first out of the 66 sites
that they studied. The Committee made several recommendations about this site. (See
their memo on page 80.) The Committee's first choice is for the City or County to buy
as much of this property as possible. Their second choice would be for the City or
County to buy part of the site. The Committee recommended two areas. The first area
is Lots 93 and 124 -128. The second area is Lots 55 -58. The Committee ranked the
smaller areas against their 66 sites. The smaller areas ranked second in the overall City
ranking. The Committee's third choice is to have the City work with the developer to
preserve as many trees as possible.
The developer is trying to accommodate all three recommendations depending on the
City's preference. He would be open to an offer to buy ll or art of the
Y p site. Secondly,
he would not grade or remove the trees on the lots in the Open S '
p pace Comnuttee s
second choice until March 1, 1994. Thirdly, e has designed Y gn the plat to preserve the
wetlands and maximize the existing trees.
Deadline for Plat Approval
State law requires that the City act on the '
develo ers application b P PP y January 25. The
City has 120 days from the application date to act on a relimin 1 '
p ary plat. This time
eriod expired on January 2. The developer approved a time extension P PP ion until January
25. The review of this project has taken lon er than usual because o
g f the EAw process,
the number of applications and the issues raised b other agencies, '
y g es, special interest
groups and residents.
Approving this plat does not prevent the City from negotiating with the developer to
buy all or part of this site. The City, however, cannot hold up the plat to negotiate
unless the developer agrees.
If the City Council decides to order an EIS and approve the preliminary pp p nunary plat, the EQB
requires that the Council add three conditions: Since the staff is '
not recommending an
EIS, these conditions are not included in the recommendation. The
Council would have
to add the following conditions on page 18:
8. This approval does not preclude the City from imposing changes in the project or
mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid environmental impacts that are
disclosed in the EAW, comments received on the EAW, the EIS or comments
received on the EIS.
9. Completion of an EIS according to State rules.
10. This approval does not preclude the City from choosing another alternative
design or a "no -build alternative" over the ro osed project because of
P P P
environmental reasons consistent with State law.
Wedands
The developer plans to increase the wetland acreage on this site. There are 21 separate
wetlands on 42.7 acres. The developer plans to fill 1.11 acres or 2.6% of the existing
wetlands. He will build two new wetlands with a total area of 2.3 acres. The first new
wetland would be north of the tracks and east of the Williams Brothers Pipeline. The
second new wetland would be between Currie and Myrtle Streets. The developer has
labeled these areas as wetland mitigation areas #1 and #2 on the preliminary plat.
(See page 30.) The result would. be a net increase of 1.19 acres or 2.1 times the
amount they would fill. This is twice the amount required by the Watershed District's
"no net loss policy".
Several agencies regulate wetlands:
16 The Army Corps. of Engineers has approved a permit to fill the 1.11 acres of
wetland, subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) certifying
the permit. Larry Zdon from the MPCA told me that the MPCA is ready to certify
the permit. State law prohibits them from doing so until the City Council makes
a decision on whether to order an EIS. The MPCA stated that an EIS does not
appear warranted. (See page 55.)
2. The Watershed Board considered a permit for this project on January 7. They
decided that no changes were needed in the developer's plans or the permit
P P P
recommended by the Watershed Board staff_ The -Board tabled the final apprnyal
of a permit until their February 4 meeting. They did not want to influence the
City Council's decision on an EIS. (See their letter on page 70.)
3. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protects the three large wetlands
(Outlots A, B and Q. The developer would not fill the DNR- protected wetlands,
so they do not require a pernut.
The developer is proposing sedimentation ponds to protect the water quality of the
wetlands. Water from site run -off will first enter the sedimentation ponds before going
P g g
into the wetlands. The sedimentation ponds will allow suspended materials to settle
out in the basins before the water goes into the wetlands.
8
The developer is proposing to dedicate the wetlands to the City or record covenants
around the wetlands. These covenants would inform property owners about any
wetlands on the site and the rules for protecting them.
To further protect the wetlands, the City should require:.
1. Ten -foot -wide buffer strips around all wetlands and a twenty -foot building
setback. The buffer zones would keep the areas around the wetlands natural and
undisturbed. The buffer zones and building setbacks would help to protect the
wetlands from the effects of urban development such as filling g
, mowing and run-
off.
2. Permanent signs around the edge of the buffer strips. These signs would mark
the edge of the buffer strips for the roP�
e owners.
P
Trees
Most of the dry ground on this site is covered with trees. There are 65.2 acres of trees
on this 11 7.8 -acre site. Most of these trees are red and white oaks with some aspen
trees near the wetlands. The developer estimates there are 21 large trees (over 8
inches in diameter). This is an average of 33 large trees per wooded acre or 18.3 large
g
trees per gross acre.
As part of the site grading, the developer would have to remove 16.9 acres or 26% of
the trees. This would require the removal of 558 large trees and would leave 1594
large trees. This means there would be an average of 13.5 large trees per gross acre
remaining after the developer prepares the site. This exceeds the Cites minimum
standard of having at least ten large trees per gross acre.
To meet the City's tree ordinance, the developer has enlarged several lots. The City's
tree ordinance allows the City to require that the developer enlarge his lots u to a
P g P
maximum of 15,000 square feet, if this .increase would save trees.
To save as many trees as possible, the developer plans to do the minimum grading
needed to prepare the site for development. This would include adin for the
8�' g
utilities, streets, mitigation ponds and sediment basins. The developer would also do
some grading on the lots where there are steep slopes. The remaining grading would
be done by each home builder as part of the house construction. This would allow each
builder to only remove the trees needed for the specific house P lan.
9
Soils
The Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District reviewed this project. They stated
that this site presents unique problems, but the soils would not present a problem to
development. (See their letter on page 71.)
Phasing Plan
The developer is proposing to do the rough grading for this development at one time.
He would do the remainder of the work in four phases.. (See the phasing plan on page
30.)
Traffic
Several neighbors are concerned about the amount .and speed of traffic on Sterling
Street and Montana Avenue from this project. The homeowners' association for the
condominium association on Montana Avenue recommends making Nebraska Avenue a
through street. (See their letter on page 84.) This would route some of the traffic
from Montana Avenue to Nebraska Avenue. This would require a pipeline crossing,
q P P g,
increased site grading, tree loss and additional wetland filling.
The proposed plat has 94 lots that would use Sterling Street or Montana Avenue for
access. These homes would generate about 940 trips per day. (The Institute of Traffic
Engineers estimates that the average house generates ten trips per day.) These trips
would be divided between .Montana Avenue, Lakewood Drive and Sterling Street.
There may be some additional traffic on Myrtle Street,
Lot Sizes and Home Values
Several residents asked about the proposed lot sizes and home values. The smallest lot
would be 10,434 square feet with an average lot size of 19,178 square feet. The
developer will have to increase the size of several lots to meet the City's tree ordinance.
Most of the lots within 350 feet of this project are between 10,000 and 12,000 square
feet. As long as the developer meets the City's minimum area and width requirements
the City cannot require larger lots.
The City cannot guarantee a minimum home value. The City does require a minimum
floor area. The minim floor area for a one-story ome in Maplewood is 950 s rY uare q
feet. We do not know the proposed house types or values, since the developer plums to
sell the lots to contractors. Considering the size and value of the lots, it is likel y that
the homes will exceed the minimum floor areas required by the City.
10
Pipeline
Three Williams Brothers pipelines run north and south through the middle of this site.
Only one line is in use. The developer has designed most of the plat so the new lots
would have the pipelines in their rear yards. The City Code requires that a house be set
back at least 100 feet, from a pipeline. (The developer has shown this setback line on
the preliminary plat.) The lots next to the pipeline would be large enough to meet this
requirement.
Trails
The developer is proposing to build eight, paved trails within the plat:
1 -4. Four trails at the .end of the proposed cul -de -sacs that meet at the pipeline.
5. A trail on top of the pipeline between Lots 44 and 75 to connect the cul -de -sac
trails.
b. A trail in Outlot D (between Lots 6 and 7) to the City park.
7. A trail in Outlot B (between Lots 18 and 19) next to a wetland..
8. A trail between Lots 82 and 83 to the future park.
These trails will allow residents to walk or bike between the cul -de -sacs and parks,
rather than going through private yards. Many of the nearby esidents say the
y y y are
now using this property for walking and observing wildlife and the wetlands.
The City should require that the developer build these trails when he builds the streets.
This is so that new lot .owners see the finished trails before buying their lot. The City
has had problems putting in trails in other developments after the home buyers build
and occupy their new houses. (The Crestview plats and the Crestview Forest Town
Houses are examples.) Residents may object to the future construction of these trails
because they were not aware that the City would build them before they bought their
homes.
Park
Several of the neighbors felt that the City would need active park land with this
development. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the area between Larpenteur
Avenue and the railroad as a neighborhood park study area.
The Parks Director is negotiating with the developer to purchase a 2.3 -acre park. The
proposed site is in the south part of the plat at the end of Mary Street. This site is
11
mostly level and there are trees on about the north one- half. Access to the ark would
p
be from Mary Street and from a bituminous path from Arlington Avenue. The City
tY
would develop this park as a tot -lot or mini -park. The Parks and Recreation
Commission approved this P lan,
We have received a petition from forty people opposed to putting the park by the
railroad tracks. (See the petition on page 118.) Before the Soo Line and Burlington
Northern abandoned their tracks, the City had at least four parks along active railroad
lines.
Railroad
Lot..88 on the south end of Mary Street is nearest to the railroad right-of-way. The
.
north set of train tracks is 94 feet south of the railroad right-of-way line. Thus with
. g y
the City side yard setback requirements, the house on Lot 88 would be at least 99 feet
north of the north set of tracks. Lot 30 is the next closest lot to the railroad. The
house on this lot would be at least 250 feet from the tracks.
Cost of a Water Main Relocation
The City .Engineer is requesting that the developer abandon a 16 -inch exusting water
main. This main runs from Lot 92 to the railroad. The engineer is recommending that
the developer replace this main with a 16 -inch main in Arlington Avenue and Mary
Street that connects to the existing main again that goes under the railroad tracks.
(See condition (h) on page 16.) The developer is proposing to retain the 16 -inch main
and construct an 8 -inch main in Arlington Avenue and Mary Street. The developer is
requesting that the City pay for 600 feet of the 16 -inch pipe. The staff is
recommending that the developer pay this cost. (See the letter from the developer's
engineer on page 79.)
Front Yard Setback Variance
The City's environmental protection ordinance states that development shall be designed
to preserve large trees and woodlots, where such preservation would not effect the
public health, safety or welfare. This variance would reduce the grading of house pads
into .slopes, provide more room for the wetland buffer zone and save about seventy
large trees. Contrary to the DNR letter (page 64), this variance would not increase the
number of lots.
Increased Front Selback
The houses on Lots 5 and f on the north side of Arlington Avenue will need an
increased front yard setback. This is because of the existin g wetland in their front
yards. The house on Lot 5 would have a 90- to 110 -foot front and setback. The house
use
12
on Lot 6 would have a 60- to 80 -foot front yard setback. These proposed setbacks
would meet the Cites standards for larger front yard setbacks. This is because the
proposed house sites would not effect the drainage or the privacy of adjacent homes.
The property to the rear of these lots is a ..City park.
Reduced Street Widths
Section 29 -52 of the City Code requires that local streets be 32 feet in width (gutter to
gutter).. The Code states that the City Council may permit variations from this
. yP
requirement in specific cases which do not effect the general purpose of this section.
The developer would like to build 28- foot -wide streets. The City Engineer '
ty gin and .Public
Safety Director are in favor of this Code variation if there is no arkin on on
p g one side of
the street. The narrower street would also be an advantage if the Council a pproves pproves the
front setback variance. The narrower street would rovde a la r g er set
p g ..back between the
street and the homes.
Summa �Comments
While many of the neighbors would prefer open space, this is probably the best
development the City or neighborhood could expect on this site. The developer has a
good - track record with us. The City could still negotiate to buy all or part of this site
for open. space after approving the development. If the City denies this project and
cannot afford to buy the whole site, the door would then be open for someone to
develop this site with multiple dwellings at a higher density.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Make a finding that there is no need for an environmental impact state
. p statement for
this project, because the project does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects. This finding is based on the January 14, 1992 staff
report and the City's letters responding to those who commented on the EA
W.
II. Adopt the resolution on page 121. (This requites at least four votes). This
resolution changes the land use plan from R -3M (medium density residential) to
R -1 (single dwellings), revises the open space designations and drops the
minor collector street planned on Hoyt Avenue, because:
1. The developer is proposing to develop the site for s. single dwellings.
9
2. Single dwellings would be more compatible than multi le dwellings p g with
the homes to the north of the site.
3. This change would reduce the allowable density and traffic from this site.
13
III. Adopt the resolution page 122. (this requires at least four votes.) This
resolution changes the zoning from R -3 (multiple dwellings) and M -1 (light
manufacturing) to R -1 (single dwellings), based on the findings required by the
City .Code.
IV. Deny the Code variation for the Arlington Avenue, Currie Street and My rtle
Street cul-de -sacs, because:
1. A through street would be easier for the lice to patrol.
Po P
2. A through street would provide a second means of access if the road is
blocked.
3. Removing snow from cul-de -sac bulbs takes more time than plowing a
through street.
4. A through street would provide better traffic circulation.
5. Streets are permanent while trees can be replaced.
V. Adopt the resolution on page 125. This resolution approves a Code variation
for a 1160 -foot -long cul-de-sac for Montana Avenue, because:
I. There is no practical alternative.
2. The cul- de-sac length will be reduced when the property to the north is
developed.
VI. Approve the Oak Ridge preliminary plat. Before the City Council approves the
find plat, the developer shall complete the following conditions:
1 Have the City Engineer approve the final construction and engineering
plans. These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion
control, tree and street plans. These plans shall meet the following
9
conditions:
(a) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil
and Water Conservation District Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan.
(b) The developer shall only grade those areas that the City Engineer
determines are needed to construct streets, utilities, sedimentation
basins, mitigation areas or rough grading of steep slopes.
14
(c) The City Engineer must approve the final tree plan before the
developer does any site grading.
(d) Sedimentation basins shall provide 0.10 acre -feet of. storage above
normal elevation for each tributary acre, based on the Maplewood
Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan If slopes, are
steeper than 10 horizontal to t vertical, the developer shall fence
the sedimentation basin. The developer shall landscape the
sedimentation basin site with evergreen trees. The developer shall
excavate the sedimentation basins to four feet below normal water
elevation to provide adequate room for sediment storage. 'Sedi-
mentation basins shall be a part of outlots dedicated to the City.
2. Sign an agreement with the City that guarantees that the developer will
complete all public improvements and meet all City requirements. This
agreement shall require that the developer:
(a) Place temporary fencing and signs around the drip line of all trees
that the developer will save.
(b) Construct eight-foot-wide bituminous walkways at the same time
as the developer builds the adjacent streets:
(1) In Oudot D, from Arlington Avenue to the trail in Nebraska
Park, and
(2) Between Lots 6 and 7, 18 and 19, 12 and 13, 43 and 44, 61
and 62, 74 and 75 and on the pipeline between Lots 44
and 75. The developer may build a wooden observation
deck at the end of the trail between Lots 18 and 19.
(c) Have NSP install street lights in eleven locations, as shown on the
preliminary plat plans.
(c) Televise and inspect the existing trunk sanitary sewer within the
plat before constructing utilities. The City shall reimburse the
developer for the cost of inspection and all repairs from the city's
sanitary sewer fund, as directed by the city engineer.
(e) Allow the City access to abandon the existing sanitary sewer man-
hole ( #31) in the wetland in Outlot B. The City will pay for this
cost from the sanitary sewer fund.
15
(fl Replace all fine alluvial soils (soils other than sand or gravel) with
sand within the two feet under the bottom of the aggregate base
of the street.
(g) Install perforated drains in sand subcuts at each catch basin lead
crossing.
(h) Abandon the 16 -inch water main from Lot 92 to the railroad. Re-
place this main with a 16 -inch water main from Arlington Avenue
to Mary Street and Mary Street to the existing railroad crossing
that is south of Lot 88.
(i} Construct a new stormwater outlet from the Outlot B pond
through a culvert crossing the petroleum pipelines to the pro -
posed wetland mitigation area. From the east end of the mitiga-
tion area, build a 24-inch-diameter stormwater pipe through the
park into the Outfot C wetland. ('T'he stormwater outlet from Outlot
B is non- functional.)
(j) Construct a storm sewer between .Lots 41 and 42 and Lots 11 and
12 around the wetland to the Arlington Avenue storm sewer.
(k) Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer
strips. These signs shall mark the edge of the buffer strips and
state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or
dumping of lawn waste.
(I) Insert an 18- inch - diameter plastic pipe in the top of both of the
existing 36- inch - diameter outlet pipes for Outlot C under the
railroad tracks. This will restrict the downstream peak flow rate
and, assure structural - soundness of the existing deteriorated
pipes.
(m) Pay the City for the cost of no parking signs on one side of the
streets.
3. Make the following changes on the plat and related .plans:
(a) Revise the plat so that each lot has at least 75 feet of width at the
proposed building setback line.
(b) Revise the plat to provide at least 15,000 square feet of area
above any drainage easement, where the developer can save
large trees.
16
(c) Revise the plat so that each lot has at least 10,000 square feet
above the drainage easemerrts.
(d) Drop the sedimentation basin on Lot 45.
(e) Drop Lot 88 if the sedimerrtation basin cannot be moved to the
end of Mary Street and indude Lot 88 in Outlot C. Shorten the
cul-de-sac and expand the sedimentation basin.
(fl Move the proposed sedimentation basins between Lots 123 and
125 and Lots 109 and 110 so they irorrt on a street. Combine
them with a pipe if passible.
(g) Provide a utility easement on Lot 128 extending 15 feet west from
the water main.
(h) Cul- de-sac bulbs shall have 47 -feet radius curb returns.
(Q Required outlots shall be dedicated with each phase.
G) Show drainage easemerrts around the wetlands proposed for
stormwater drainage.
(k) Lower the pipeline and connect the Arlington Avenue and Nebras-
ka Avenue cul-de -sacs across the pipeline.
(� Change the name of the Nebraska Avenue cul- de-sac to Arlington
Avenue and change the name of the Arlington Avenue cul- de-sac
(east of the pipeline) to Sherwood Avenue.
4. Record covenants or deed restrictions with the final plat that do the
following
(a) Prohibit the construction of a house or its attachmerrts within 100
feet of the Williams Brothers pipeline or within 20 feet of a wetland
boundary.
(b) Inform property owners about any wetlands on the site and pro-
hibit any mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping, including .
yard waste, on the wetland or on a ten -foot buffer strip around the
wetland. The. Director of Community Development may approve a
reduction in the buffer zone for specific lots with an unusual
hardship. (This efltn any lot abutting a wetland.)
17
5. Deed outlots A, B, C, D and E according to the phasing of the plat.
fi. If the City decides to buy the "Future City Park" in Outlot B and has not
paid the developer for the park befioce recording the plat, the City will
.sign an agreement to do so. If the City decides not to buy the park, the
developer shall show the park as an outlot for future platting or apply for
a new preliminary plat.
7. Sign an agreement with the City that pertains to Lots 55-58, 93 and 124
135.. This agreement shall state that the developer shall not do the
following until March 1, 1994 without the approval of the City of
Maplewood:
(a) He shall not sell these lots.
(b) He shall not grade or remove trees on these lots or Oak Circle,
except for what is needed to build Sterling and Mary Street.
If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the Director of
Community Development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the
final plat.
VII. Adopt the resolution on page 127. This resolution approves. a variance of up to
ten feet for the minimum front yard setbacks in this plat.
The City should approve this variance because:
1. The amount of significant natural features on this site create a hardship
that is unique to this property.
2. Approving this variance would preserve large trees that would be lost
without the variances.
3. This variance would allow a wetland buffer strip.
4. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance, since most of the
I ots would have similar setbacks.
This variance shall not apple- unless the following conditions are met:
1. The reduced setback is needed to avoid the loss of large trees or
encroachment on the wetland buffer strip.
is
2. There must be at least 75 feet of lot width at the building setback line
(Code. requirement).
3. There shall be.no more than a five -foot difference between adjacent front
setbacks, unless approved under the provisions of section 3-70.
VIII. Adopt the resolution on page 129. This resolution vacates the Hoyt Avenue
right -of -way, east of sterling Street. (This requires at least . four votes.) This
vacation is subject to the City keeping a drainage and utility easement. The
City should vacate this street because it is in the public interest. It is in. the
public interest, because:
1. The adjacent properties would be better served by other streets.
20 To construct Hoyt Avenue, the City would have to fill a wetland and
construct a new wetland to compensate for the filling.
1X. Approve a front setback of 90-110 feet for Lot 5 and a front setback of 60-80
feet for Lot s, - provided that the required rear yard setback is met and the
setback is the minimum needed to avoid the wetland buffer zone.
X. Approve the resolution on page 130. This resolution approves a. Code variation
for 28- foot -wide streets. Approval is subject to no parking on one side of the
streets and the developer paying the City for the cost of no parking signs.
19
CITIZEN COMMENTS
We asked the surrounding property owners . for their opinion of this project. We sent
surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 106 ro erties we
P P
received 67 replies. One reply was for the project, 61 were against and five had no
comments. The City also received comments from 13 eo le who live more than 350
P P
feet from the site. All 13 of these people were against the proposal.
Because of the large number of surveys against this proposal, I have summarized their
objections as follows:
1. The possible traffic patterns and increased traffic on Montana Avenue and
Sterling Street. Require the developer to connect the Nebraska or Arlington
Avenue cul -de -sacs.
20 The loss of wildlife habitat.
3. The possible damage, effects on and the loss of wetlands. This also includes the
possible effects on the water table and then the effects on ro erties on Nebraska
P P
Avenue and Myrtle Court. This includes controlling the storm water run -off.
4. The. inconvenience of hawing construction equipment in the area for three or four
.years.
5. There is no need for more housing in the area.
6. The loss of trees. The developer should keep as many trees as possible.
7. Require larger lots (one -half acre minimum) and fewer homes.
8. The length of the proposed Arlington Avenue cul -de -sac.
9. The City needs additional park area in the area for children's recreation needs.
10. The possible effects (crowding) on area schools.
11. The City needs more open space.
12. The owner should not develop it at all.
13. The price of the proposed homes and the possible effects on nearby property
values.
14. Pipeline safety and setback concerns.
20
15. The possible effects of the railroad (noise, dirt, vibrarions) on the proposed
houses.
See the letters on pages 84 - 124 for examples of comments.
21.
REFERENCE ,
SITE HISTORY
November 7, 1963: Council approved a zoning map change from M -2 (heavy manufac-
tur * g) to R -3 (multiple dwellings) and R -1 (single dwellings) . This change was for the
eastern one -half the site.
April 16, 1970: The Council adopted the Official Zoning Map for Maplewood. This
included changing the zoning from R -3 (multiple dwellings) to R -1 (single dwellings)
for the east end of this site.
May 17, 1979: The City Council approved a special exception and building plans for
Hillcrest Development. This approval was for a warehouse development on the east
28.5 acres of this site. (See the plan on page 33.) Hillcrest Development never built
this- proposal.
March 26, 1984: The City Council changed the zoning of 13.6 acres of this site from R-
1 (single dwellings) to R -3 multiple dwellings). This area was north of the railroad
tracks and west of the area that the City had zoned .industrial.. The Council made this
change after discovering an error on the official zoning map that the Council adopted in
1970.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Area: 118 acres
Existing land use:
Property Owner:
Undeveloped
Hillcrest Development
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single dwellings and undeveloped property that the City has zoned M -1
(light manufacturing) and F (farm residential)
East: Northern States Power LP gas storage facility on Century Avenue
South: The Chicago and Northwestern Railroad tracks. Across the tracks is Bulk
Service and aim's Prairie.
West: Hillcrest Country Club across McKnight Road
22
TRAFFIC
The City has identified McKnight Road and Larpenteur Avenues as arterial streets.
Ramsey County designed these streets to handle 7,000 - 18,000 vehicles per day. In
1991, the County counted 10,100 vehicles per day on McKnight Road, south of
Larpenteur Avenue. In addition, they counted 6,600 vehicles per day on Larpenteur
Avenue, east of McKnight Road. When finished, the proposed development should
generate an average of about 1,400 vehicle trips per day. (The Institute of Traffic
Engineers estimates that the average house enerates ten trips er day.) Based on the
g P Y
existing traffic counts, McKnight Road and Larpenteur. Avenue could accommodate all
the vehicle trips that this development would create. I I also expect several of the trips
XP P
that this development would generate would use Sterling Street to Larpenteur Avenue
to Century Avenue to go to the north or south.
On September 23 -25, 1992, the City Engineering Department did six sets of traffic
counts in the area. These were on Nebraska and Montana Avenues at McKnight Road,
and on Currie, Myrtle and Sterling Streets and Lakewood Drive at Larpenteur Avenue.
(Refer to the map on page 71.) The highest recorded count was 1168 vehicles in 48
hours on Montana Avenue at McKnight Road. This was an average of 584 vehicles p er
day at this location. The second highest count was 1146 vehicles in 48 hours on
Lakewood Drive at Larpenteur Avenue. This was an average of 5 73 vehicles per day at
g p Y
this point.
go \b- 3:memo5l.mem (24 -29)
Attachments:
L Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map (Existing)
3. Pro Line /Zoning Map (Proposed)
4. Land Use Plan Map (Existing)
5. Land Use Plan Map (Proposed)
6. Proposed Oak Ridge Plat
7. Proposed Tree Plan
8, Proposed Tree Plan
9. 1979 Warehouse Plan
10. 1987 Hillcrest Concept Plan
11. Budd Kolby Plan - Council approved
12. Budd Kolby Plan -staff proposed
13. EAW
14. Letter from the Historical Society
15. Letter from the PCA
16. Letter to the PCA
23
17. Letter- from the Metropolitan Council
18. Letter to the Metropolitan Council
19. Letter from the DNR
200 Letter to the DNR, including report on flower and turtle
21. Letter from the Watershed Board
220 Letter from the SCS
23. Letter from Summit Envirosolutions
24. Letter from Peter Knaeble
25. Memo from the Open Space Committee
26. Area Traffic Count Map
27. Property Line Map (Hoyt Avenue Street Vacation)
28. Leger: Norton
29. Letter: Loibl
30. Letter: Simon
31. Letter and Petition from Moran (12 -2 -92)
32. Planning Commission Presentation by Moran (12- 21 -92)
33. Letter from Sierra Club
34. Petition against park
350 Land Use Plan Change Resolution
36. Zoning Map Change Resolution
37. Cut -de -sac Length Variation Resolution - Arlington Avenue
38 Cul -de -sac Length Variation Resolution - Montana Avenue
390 Front Yard Setback Variance Resolution
400 Hoyt Avenue Street Vacation Resolution
41. Street Width Variation Resolution
42. Preliminary Plat, Grading and Tree Plans (separate attachments)
24
NORTH SA /NT PAUL
29 68 1
doom
pit
AV
i
s
z
L
Y dr
W
w
Q v ti
W 30 MC KNIGH T L N
Ono M�
T
CARPE NTEUR AV
LAJ
T29 N R 22 W. O IDAHO HO AV
I t
o ,. �C
1� 13 dr
23124 vs
'
t
1
:•::::::::•:•:::: 1.
�c a ...........:.:..:.:}:`�� P A EL DR
'' ::;''' S P R� CCA DR
E e R As
��5 � 1
AI TR
t
P
3 P EE DR
.� I
o 3 4 4 BIRCH VIEW OR
Cr
�.� 2
., : ,.• YqN 1 DR
MLAN�4 Cr
.... . BE
.•. ...
S PINE TRFEDR
BOA K fllL L
Y 6 BIRCH TREE DR
A NGELAI 7 ROLL INQ HILLS DR
/ ANTELOPE W4Y Jrin s Pro.irie _ .......L... #
!� IIAI�YERJACK • LA �` '' & MICKEY .5 6i A l,�..
3 BEAVERDAL E RD :: :�r Q
IVY ._.. / /
BO LA � ;✓'�' ELKHEART t.•4
" COUGER LA
LOCATION MAP
:? SITE
.......:. 25
Attachment 1
New
4
N
68
E W
_
CBI t
Z
31
�_ _ 4�_itu
1 N
A
HAWTHORNE A /
3 i
68
ROSE
ST
A
�
� �
.
GERI�
a
`
MAG IDOL
AV 4v
�p
Of
LOCATION MAP
:? SITE
.......:. 25
Attachment 1
New
4
N
J.
z
im
CO) .41
R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
R-2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS
R-3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
�' PUS
mom-*)
PUS
I
%
R3
MI-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
PUD = PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
SITE
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
EXISTING
Ml
war
N.S.P.
M&L
I
26 Attachment 2
: , ASR . . ,"r ! t� �,
_. + 0— .7� `. —
Ir
•
y
map
..
••• r.rr�..� r S. mom ft
• s
low
y: •'K ••• , ••: N N::: • s : ••
..Ii h y��J.�..y ; wyy y a .
N •••: • •: N�.•r • • :•
h
+
�~ :qty~ ..~•. �~
1
- 'v •. r.�. AK•. It M•MMM
WWI
►-
alp
�� •� r
W! 1�5
�
• 4
#9
4
«
f 40,
.»_
'.'$
40. 11
W
Sol
"
F 7 m l
••• r
! t
�
V rH W
o ,
M t ' � ! . ti!
t
it ) M fr
L:
VA I
•�''•'•�•••'••• '•• .�•.''••• - -yam
''y '�•••'
: , ASR . . ,"r ! t� �,
_. + 0— .7� `. —
Ir
•
y
map
..
••• r.rr�..� r S. mom ft
• s
y: •'K ••• , ••: N N::: • s : ••
..Ii h y��J.�..y ; wyy y a .
N •••: • •: N�.•r • • :•
h
+
�~ :qty~ ..~•. �~
1
- 'v •. r.�. AK•. It M•MMM
WWI
�� •� r
W! 1�5
�
• 4
"'I NSSRA AV
AQ6. • v !
R3
40. 11
• • r
F M1 .»
ice ;"•.'••. h•S•• :.•••y. �!
;=may . ": N . : ;y
f
A
_•t +
��.•'' '
h
tH1.•
R3
'•�• may : yyN •••• y _
alums
i
' 1 � PU
D�
PUD
A•r0
•
1 �•
l •.
R -1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
R•-2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS
R -3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
M -1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
PUD = PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
SITE PROPOSED
Q
N
27 Attachment 3
•.. �-h y �h
y: •'K ••• , ••: N N::: • s : ••
..Ii h y��J.�..y ; wyy y a .
N •••: • •: N�.•r • • :•
h
+
�~ :qty~ ..~•. �~
l
�`
WWI
�� •� r
AASK�At7
�
• 4
R3
• • r
F M1 .»
ice ;"•.'••. h•S•• :.•••y. �!
;=may . ": N . : ;y
f
A
_•t +
��.•'' '
h
tH1.•
R3
'•�• may : yyN •••• y _
alums
i
' 1 � PU
D�
PUD
A•r0
•
1 �•
l •.
R -1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
R•-2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS
R -3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
M -1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
PUD = PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
SITE PROPOSED
Q
N
27 Attachment 3
1 0 F - 0.i�
Rw «at• er..••
6er� cw"
P
gee
o�
.arp e nt e ur
REVISED
mayor arterial
R-1—J I
WJ
In
v
Y
tip
V
Mc Knight
0S Open Space
P Parks
R -1 Single Dwelling (10,004- square -foot lot areas) S School
ii R -3M Multiple Dwellings (5.5 - 9.5 units /acre)
R -3H Multiple Dwellings 1 NC
p g (9 .5 - Neighborhood Commercial Center
6.3 units /acre)
CO Commercial Office Center
s
M -1 Light Manufacturing BC (M) Business Commercial Modified Center
LAND USE PLAN
----------------
r
I'
I� .r
EXISTING
SITE
l�
{
28 Attachment 4
r
mill
P
o�
�o
-0
Y
t0
REVISED
major arteriai
R-1—�
W�
I
u
tow
Mc Knight OS Open Space
ks
R -1 Single Dwelling (10,000 - square -foot lot areas) P Paz
S School
R -3M Multiple Dwellings (5.5 - 9.5 units /acre) NC Nei hborhood Commercial. Center
R -3H Multi ple Dwellings (9.5 - 16.3 units/acre)
g
- -- -- CO Commercial Office Center
M -1 Light Manufacturing BC(M) Business Commercial (Modified) Center
LAND USE PLAN
SITE P ROPOSED N
29 Attachment 5
M
1 w!1
' ` V
f •
• 1
• �� \ Z '
cc
LIJ
I 1 CA o
% done
W cz o
{C30 19i{1S }- — [ - NI U * ' Q CO M T
H ASE 3
' 1
uj m m
' _
t
IL z
c c ...
f .. _. ...._...}..w,......►......o,.� i ,� . Q
1 , \
T! u PHA 2 \
aw )r STERLING
STREET j- •- -j- ;..- - -•: -,; •,
j E3
- PHAS � �, ; \
�► ,, �� ', � `, �
WET
GARY LAND MITIGATION
COURT - r , • ,�
AREA *1
PHASE 4
qp
ETLAND
as
• 1 1
'.. • . ,_...i' :::: Ca
- -�-- • -�- -:__. pJpE LmE ��� MITIGATION
..:-PIPELINE .
. �' ` _' s - -. ' F- ^ A I ��. AREA *2
Ili
Ail
4
S .
• 4' \
j< {{ � _• CHASE 1
L 1 «• !V ' - 1 \• Als I O • i -- - --- ' _ _ • _
1
I (L) 1 •• i C3 •+ I• - . .;-, ,\
MW 3PJWZ
1 + I
1 \
N
' tfl�ll
Ipu 'fit -� - - -• - -- 1 - -- - - --
OAK RIDGE PREL PLAT
in Attachment 6
IL
XA7
C4
0 ant
a a � s � p
Mft
UP
#0
WWL"
OAK RIDGE TREE PLAN
Attachment
7
OLVO
IM 'ANYAKOO *3AN60 JQJ_
GOOM3idYn VIDdlu XYO
fivu as"
a 'I m 1 1 11 06M Ohm M 0
:VA14K*Ivi:
L
10
x`'1"1 'Y �_�.�. �• �.��� ,
CL P
l t` /� • ' arm.- .•.�' j f �r�
7�_ 4
V6
0
�
a:.� �/ ' �• s �►� �r�a :,� a -4 _`�� r� y. a •i �.� /t t' .1� � •
/'�- I � � � ' _ ... .� .tt• ♦/��<.o •Mfr'" •�`'�
.mss _Y. �;!'•. �♦���;: ♦r. +.-tta OOM
0
,:t ^.� � •�( a=_ .• r:_.. ^ _�� j - _ ti:t 5;,,���- '����'.�r•1 . �'��r.� •.,�.' vt
44 ,
ik-
0 , L
C -1
�` "•� �.: y'"'��r:r =•y - � .:-' r ,v a..u;.`Y, `I,.t.r. �• 'ice. �.A�, '/ -• y c •
c
�r <. � ~ ± • t � ' , ��je7 :•e� .♦ ' ,,, ~� �i� �4" tt ;_. �'�! • � %i ��;1� � "�.F PC
Y_' ° `` -Y- ^:Cc;: f k1� =iS� =Ln T � £ " hi^, ct:� .� ti`,.� G r t� /1 +_�.►� I g p SO
Si�,f''' a ryy •tea Yk `vi« y'� -1F- t .TS �.. ,� i I/ I' /�' v�v 3 ' �• :� Irk.
%4
: --vtf ,
A lp
10
r
r
1 *; � , � 1�C�h - ' A� 6 +♦� r �' i � ' .r� ;,� ., r ���: 5 ` �'' S:!� +" .L,
04
,4
A r
` " {�•Lys� �;;��i�ooe a ��;�� = -,'q `a + �•'•i:-��:�•���'' ��; ,.`�,.�� �'.tx - ��:� >�� ..`.o��'� _�i�, f,�s..�ti,�;�r
NIN
;r .�i,�I - - -rte 1, A�
;A4
F1W
� �. fir
Are
0
J-4E ' _.
do 0- WO
.
L ii j�
V
NO
4
11
llw
W7.
,fe,v r
z
40
r N
14 t. tL•
W
:�i �.i>� '�'/ / /�.: ��:4'�r.�'r'.'�• T.`; '�. •�..: •�. t � � r •° -i�r'F �1� _C •I. ` - J.1 ^t•- T -A�.0 _` �� v'•�a.'f � r't
r
ev
,- it • �. ? .,'i� s.� �t 'f� i '' �v �: - ' 1` .�i1 � � =i - .`_i :.R: �:ii •� 2� / w �t�
v
L
MA
�7
Zlb
DAK RIDGE TREE PLAN
R -/
rA
M —/
,do
t op,
Co IPA 40
ii,G� � � �i I � rt gP ' ( 40 f�� � Z� �. � � ,, I � � '
4►• Jill,,
-1 A&40ar 64w, gli.o l SAW, q9o.v
� 4
4L.
o
All �4111 0
OAF
0
PC VF' OF Am, uew,.%A
ffX^f'AAC TWMA
%0" Comv"
w
T
I. A JPA1 *bPAXAMI. 10'A20'
41. $110 rAZ•J1.164 SPACAP-lo
SITE PLAN
APPROVED WAREHOUSE PLAN (1979)
Attachment 9
loop--
LJ
33
Z
4C
.1
0.
Ci
Z
STERLING STREET
N
W O
CC
V �
oC
.. Q
_ Z
Ui
MCKNIGHT ROAD
34 .Attachment 10
ot
HILLCREST CONCEPT PLAN (1987)
..._..._._..,, ,�, i LINWOOD L!! WOOD AVENUE A E ?f
st f l
PA b
/ /':,,•,�,� `• ,. 1 105 / - � L .• -` `. .� ti `••\ `�` ( `, ' n.
I \
.�. MAC � � ; ( 1 �! . `R �.0 J, \ `•`tea � �' •� _•� 1 r � O � .���• ,
•� 1 `. \ .� � . - . 16 \� \ • �..._ .. :�, :.._.._,; � IPA�
Vk
Li y /1 it {.r� ,' ` ..,,..\ _ ��` . `�'�'f .. - �� _ti ' r r • �. {1�,` ' � i i �` i ,�\\ \�..��� -�'� O /
. 'S' t , ` \, 141 � ���`� \��`,;`' tea •. ... •,, r .�'� 851 �• ``.` !�•� ..�+� 9_.{/ j / 0
448 L t `''S Y �i sib `� `` \2 a~ `••. ~-- '' ✓ 1 �p; j. /r J1/
DAHL ROAD • ,.ItI = „�. ; . `•_. =.!:4 13, l2 _ \''•.:N
BUDD KOLBY 3RD ADDITIO \;
J V I
...... 1 qp
0 29 to
Budd K01b
?0
y BUDD KOLBY 2ND ADDITION..
Add i t i on
(Approv ed 3 —10-86)
...• / ; �b • ..960 - . �� i �%' ii.'
IN
lu
JI
/
NNW
--- � �3�' % � �'�� .� �,.� ' 6• ', ,,�`�'; X1
lilt
DETENTION
of
t; to FUTURE PHASE :� , ,�.
-0 L6
uT T A
` \
..� \ 1 UTLOT 0
1 J ,
Vst
f/ If 14
! f
o/' Ouio/ A A irdo' �t'o -/#�:. f / ' ; j -==- 'Zo
O
; rte ,� /�
\ ; -- r _ _ y / r wjy4 •r Str i3. i
I
( FUTURE HIGHWOOD, PLAT
—r - -- _
Future
1 JEFFERSON FOMTH A ip
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED PLAN �
BUDD KOLBY SECOND ADDITION p
.35 Attachment 11 1�
.. ` `� ( �. ' •;�:;�; •''•• •r . +,�
LINWO
VAL
T.
• 0 �E� �(��• ♦ A ref �� ` • . •'r•"•:`•;� :•• :;�A �.ti, •�.. :� • '•��":'!!'' :;,/
ZO
\ "• T
•p ••+•�� 21 s ., ,h� .•, . •,
DAHL ROAD
O r 01
o - 23'
0
' :14 ' ` \
�► Ski i `/ 1I , I 4 ,, � � ' . ., t � � • , l � � � I �
. ` I / T" .. x• • ;••
�
,••'�;f ..: :. • i •: �:• ! • • r ,, ;•; • ':• :.''• . a • A •• .fit ' • '•••; ~ �
U / .. y�. •:tiff« •� •
r ..� f t/ I.1 ! I '' :•r►•::.: •.v:•:• ;ate::•: • 1.
3 • � J � P s ;.,� .; •::: •; ter•• --s . Y .. ' � >i '. "' � • '`
j ,•C';'•.•.. 'r • . �' � :;:: :i;•'s�: � �. ;�• .\ `,
wa
. ( ,,ter -�. � � • , � r 1
J , , :::'�t r`•:':`'�►. ,•, \. ; , , • 37 -A ;
dUT �.��' A •;' OUTLOT C I : -
ti 1111 �;
— •...,.and ` � ) � ` \ 1 . .;.ti •. y :c;':• �;� '• %' :•; , ! �,
imba
t� • \ 1 I i j ! 65 cb
��1�� `�, `, i f � ,Spu /S /.mot oI'G'�!�•l A, �udd /t`o/lSj► r�'�� I; c•c /.S / %n. +o!' 1 0l' NE•'i
�, i �, ' \•\ t� ( : I /� � ! i' 1 ` �/, �'1/ 1 , X . / y ' �'lfrr �1 1►•,;• /?
Wal kwa dedicated with 'y, l,•, !���:� �� •� : f / - -� ;
y J: /1 ,
1
Jefferson's 4th ► +Il ,�� i , , Street right -of - way .
- i 1 i /, to be obtained. }
� ! Addition. - t " - - - - -1
Future
1 JEFFERSON � FOURTH A iplV Note: Outl of B wi ll be
developed with the
property abutting to
the east.
STAFF'S DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Wooded area d i•s to rbe Ap -
�.( plicant s
Proposal) 12.6 total acres or 46% of net
area.
Additional wood area disturbed (Staff
Proposal) 13.7 total acres or 51% of net
area.
- Source: l Attachment 1.2
$..� a n s s i hm, t t H -
36
r
r
nmronmental Assess me ntW orks.heet (
NOTE To PREPARERS
This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply
any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete .answer
does not Et in the space allotted, attach additional sheets 'as necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Boland (EQB) at (612) 296 -5253 or (toll -free) .
1-WO-652-9747 (ask operal for the EQB environmental review program) or consult TAW Guidm,J a booklet available from the EQB.
NOTE To REVIEWERS
Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30-day continent period following notice of the EAW in the EQB
Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has
been prepared for the scoping of an EIS, (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information
and suggest issues for investigation in te EIS.
1. Project ntie Oa Ridge
2. Proposer G o n y e a Co., Inc .
Contact �■�.•.�/ rson D B n n i s D. Go n y s a
. • r•�.n ICI ..r.rlrw�llr.l..��rlrl�■p�r.��r �rrr� r rr �rll.�.i.�.rr r.�
Address 50 Grove 1 and T e r r.
Mpls*, MN , L 5.54Q3
._.
Phone 377-0191
3. RGU Ci ty of Maplewood
Contact person G e o f f Olson
ftv%A Dir. I.rl■I�.Irrl I I r�l ���
of Comm D 'ev
Address 18 3 0 E, Coo .Rd B
I I I■r■r.rr I ■ .I .r
Malp 1 % wood , MN 55109
. I �I...�.�IrY. ■I.Ir b Ir.r..l .1 I I.Y it ��I
Phone 770 -4500
_ _Irl i w r..■r. I
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
O 1 EIS scoping 0 mandatory EAW D citizen petition 0 RGU discretion YM Proposer volunteered
If EAW or .EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s)
59. Project L
1/4 1 A Section 24 Townshi p 29 Ran ge 2 2
Count Ramsey Ci /T Maplewood, MN
LIIY■�I ��. _A ��q..�r��■�I�A a pp
Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW.
a, a county map showing the general location of the project; E A
b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries; Exhib B
C. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features. Exhibit C
6, Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or
produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.
Oak Ridge is a proposed single family residential development consisting
of 148 lots ranging in size from 10,600 sf to 77,700 sf , ...and 3 outlots @
39.2 ac., which will be donated to the City as park /open space . The. total
site is 117.8 ac. The site will be served by city sewer and water which
currently is on the property. The new roads will be 32' wide bit:. with
60' rights -of -way. Site grading for the entire site will begin in fall,
1992, and will be completed within 3 months. The entire subdivisi is
expected to be completed within 3 years. (see Exhibit C)
Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice:
37
Attachment 13
r '
OAK RIDGE EAW
(Abstract for EQB Monitor notice)
Oak Ridge is a proposed 148 lot single family residential subdivision located on a 117.8 ac. site
in Maplewood, MN.. The site is currently served by city sewer and water. 39.2 ac. will be
donated to the city as park/open space.
.38
7.
Pm*t Magnitude Data
Total, Project Area (acres)
Number of Residential Units
Unattached
148 lots
or Length (miles)
Attached non e
Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space)
Total NA square feet;
Indicate area of specific uses:
Office NA Manufacturing NA
Retail •
-_ NA , other Industrial NA
Warehouse NA
Institutional
Light Industrial NA Agricultural NA
Other Commercial (sue) NA
Building Height(s) NA
8. PerfWts and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required:
Unit of Government Type of Application status
City of Maplewood Prelim. & Final Plat Submitted' & under review
(Plan comm & City Council
Ramsey Washington
Metro Watershed Dist.
US Corp. of Engr. .
Grading Permit
Wetland Fill Permit
Submittad & under ray.iew.
Submitted & under review
9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the
compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental
matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage
tanks.
Currant and past land use are open space consisting of woodlands and
wetlands . This proj act is compatible with adjacent land uses and there.
are no potential environmental conflicts. Adjacent land uses are
North & west (single family residential)
Wast (golf course)
South & east (industrial)
10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and
after totals should be equal):
Before After efore 1
42.7 43.5 to
Types 2 to 8 Wetlands Urban /Suburban Lawn
Wooded /Forest 6 5 . 2 39 •7 Landscaping
Brush /Grassland 909 0 Impervious Surface 0 18.1
Cropland 0. Other (describe) 0 0
11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any
measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. ,
► game) Wildlifa habitat (incl. s q uirrelt, rabbits dear & other small will
)
most likely disapear from the. davaloped part of this site., into the un-
de.velo pad part of the site. 34.6 ac. of habitat will be lost, and 83.2
ac. of ex. wildlife habitat will remain in its natural condition (incl.
41.1 ac. of watlands and 39.7 ac. of woodlands) . The. site. plan was reduced
from 186 lots to 148 lots to reduca impact on wildlife habitat.
b. Are there any state -listed endangered, threatened, or special- concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird
nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? JEkYes ❑ No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was
conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
42.7 ac. of wetlands were. located on this site, by Summit Envirosolut ions.
The. site has bean radasignad to minimiza the amount of f illing of wetlands
(.1.6 ac.) . 2.4 ac. of new wetlands will be created as mitigation,
(sea Exhibit D)
117.8 ac.
39
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredgin stream diversion,
' otttfall di k i n flilling,
g, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, s1�'' drainage ditch)] Yes ❑ No
If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of
dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations
in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
1.6 ac. of the 42.7 ac. of ex. wetlands on the site will be filled (1.4 ac.
fill due public road const .) . 2.4 ac. of new wetlands will b . created
(mitigated) on site for a total of 43.5 ac. This wetland filling will not
impact- water surface elevations.
136 Water Use
8. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? ❑ Yeac k] No
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give
the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known).
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? ❑ Yes BIo
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of
any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels.
C. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? 43 Yes ❑ No
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used.
All 148 lots will be connected to the city of Maplewood water system. An
existing watermain currently crosses this situ.
14 . Water- related Land Use Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100 -year
flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? X3 Yes ❑ No
If yes, identify the 'ct and discuss the compatib' of the pro with the land wetla use restrictions of the district.
The 100 year flood �levation l e ex. nds has been established 1py
the City of Maplewood . THis project meets the Stormwa Mgmt . requirement .- . %
for. the City of Maplewood, and is compatible with the City'.s Stormwater
Mgmt . P lan .
15 Wate Surface Use . Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body.? ❑ Yes U No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users
or fish and wildlife resources.
16. Soils Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water minimum 6 average 6 ' + Bedrock: minimum 6 0 ' + average 6 0 _' +
Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.)
.Soils have fair: suitability or are well suited to building site development
per the SCS. Steep slopes are the main limitation. The major SCS soil
types in the areas to be built are : 169B Braham loamy fine. sand;
3.42 B ,C,D Kingsley sandy loam; 504 B,D Duluth silt loam.
17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved:
acres 21 ; cubic yards 8 5 , 0.0 .0
Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map.
Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project.
There are numerous steep slops on the site and they are shown on the grading
plan (see Exhibit C) . Erosion and sedimentation control will follow the
standard requirements of the{ :pity 'of Maplewood and the Ramsey Washington
Metro Watershed Distr including silt fences and rock entrance pads.
(see Exhibit E) .
40
I 8. Witter Quality - Surface W ater Runoff
S. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and /or
treat runoff.
The amount of runoff from the site should not exceed existing amounts.
Stormwater control measures will be accomplished par the City's Stormwatar
Mgmt. .Plan . Stormwatar r,unof f quality is affected by street and lawns, and
w 11 be. treated in sad. basins prior to discharg . into pxotacted wetlands.
b. Identify the routes) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of
the receiving waters. (If the runoff may #ed a lake consult "EA W Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.)
Runo f r -om the site will continua to flow to DNR wetlands 22 2 41, 2 4 2
The.. impact" the watland quality should be minimal due to the pretraating
of steam wat in sad. basins prior to discharge.
190 Water Quality - was"aters.
. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all 'sanitary and industrial wastewaters
produced or treated at the site.
This proje.ct will generate normal domestic sewage at an estimated rate. of
37 ,000 gal /day, based on 2.5 parlsons par home .
b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project
involves on -site sewage systems, discuss the suitabil of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters
(including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the discharge
may of f ect a lake consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analyysis is needed.)
NA
C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the abil of the
system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any unprovements which will be necessary.
This prof Bct will use the ex. City sanitary sawer� system that currently
crosses the site. The ax san. sewer system has the capacity to accept
the volume and comp. of wastes from this site . (s Exhibit C) .
20. Ground Water - Potential for Contarnination
6 + minim +
um; 6 ave
a. Appro ximate depth (in : feet) to ground water .
b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow
limestone formations /karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to
avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
No special site hazards are located on this site according to the
SCS Soil Survey,,
C. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to
prevent them from contaminating ground water.
None, unl6ss individual homeowners us-a household hazardous wastes, or:
lawn and gar -den fer :tilizer.s /herbicidms.
21 e Solkl Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
L Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures,
sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if
there will be a source se aration Ian; ?b" and how the pro' wiH be modifi to allow ff
Th %. n rI ..is ro c ar.. normal �aunic al solid avast..
solid wasters p .. t nay 9 p 7
The City of Maplewood curriently has a curbsida rcycling program inplace.
for newspapers, metal, and glass, and the homes within this project will
be. part of this pr ram .
b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum
products or other materials (except water).
None
41
22 . 'traffic Parking s p a ces added 2 9 6 Existin g spaces (if P P� project involves ex sion) 0 Estimated total Ave*m n 4 1
Daily Traffic (ADT) generated Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated .(if known) and its timing: ,
PM p e a k For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project.
Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will
be necessary.
Tref f is generation as a r -esult of this pr-oject will not lower. the lave l
of se- r;vice or, cause any significant congestion on the adjacent city
or, county rioad s .
23. Vehicle - related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon
monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If the project
invohms 500 or more parking spaces, consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.}
This project will not cause any significant decrease in air, quality.
24. Stationary source air emissions Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such as boilers or exhaust
stacks)? ❑ Yes iR No
If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the
quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment. and the effects on air quality.
25. will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and /or operation ?X® Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the_ sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse
impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors.
Du st and noise will be generiated by the temp, grading, utility and street
const Site grading should be completed within 3 months, and final project
Completion within 3 years. Roads will be spnink led 1 1.dur-4ng cons t . to
minimize dust, and const. activity will be limited to set times per City
code.
26 . Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
L archeological, historical, or architectural resources? 0 Yes fkNo
b. prime or unique farmlands? ❑ Yes XX No
C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? ❑ Yes )U No
d. scenic views and vistas? ❑ Yes UXNo
e. other unique resources? �U Yes ❑ No'
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe
any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
ThSre ar-e 42.7 ac. of wetlands on the site. 1.6 ac. will be filled and
2.4 acres of new wetlands will be created (see. Exhibit D).,
27. will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense Iights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large
visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) ❑ Yes fi No
If yes, explain.
28.. Compatibility with plans Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water,
or resource management plan of an local, regional, state, or federal agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how
any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain.
The pr,oj act as proposed , is consistent with the r.equir-ements of the
City of Maplewood Compr- ehensive Plan, Zoning Or.d. , and Stor.mwater- Mgmt. Plan.
42
29. I�t an Infrastructure and Public Servlces Will new or ed u 'ties, roads other infrastructure or public e�lp� p services be
required to serve the project? UcYes ❑ No
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure /services needed. (Any inf r astructure that is a "connected action" with
to the
pr
. qject must be assessed in this EAW, see EAW Guidelines for dttails.)
New utl.U and roads arift proposed for this pr+oj ect. The utilit and
roads will be owned and maintained by the City of Maplewood , and will be
const to their, standards. The roads arse designed as local streets and will
serve primarily the new residential lots (see- Exhibit C) .
30. Related Developments; Cumulative k.npacts
8. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? ❑ Yesx[R No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review.
b. Is .this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ❑ Yes JJNo
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review.
C. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? ❑ Ye9X ® No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project.
d. if ab, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this P roject and the other
development.
31 . Other Potential Environmental lmpacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental im pacts which were not addressed by
items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
None
32. SUMMARY of ISSUES (This section need not be completed if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the
draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may req uire
further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or ma
be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as P ermit conditions.
The major issue in this pr�oject is the f i lling of som` isolated non - DNR
wetlands. of the 42.7 ac. of existing wetlands on site, 1.6 ac. will be
filled (1.4 for, public road const .,) ., Th e ss 1.6 ac. of fill will be.
mitigated by the cr- eation of 2.4 ac. of new wetlands on site. The project ect
p �
has been extensively r-edesigned from 186 lots down to 148 lots to minimize
wetland filling.
CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RG l' (alt 3 certifications must be signed for EQB accep tance of the EAW for pubficatibn 9' p of
notice in the EQB Mon�tor)
A. I hereby certi a tion contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of m knowledge.
Signature P y e.
g
B. I hereby the project described in this EAW is the complete project and there are no .
P P j� other projects, project stages, or
project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as "connected actions" or
"phased action ," , respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, sub p. 9b and sub p. 60.
Signature
P P
C. I hereby certif
Signature
the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list.
Title of signer k Y
Date
1V mewta Environmental Quality Board. Revised June 1990.
EXHIBITS TO EAW
A. Ramsey County location map
B. USGS map with project boundaries
C. Project Site Plans, dated 8/19/92 (11" x 17 ")
1-2 Preliminary Plat/Preliminary Utility Plan
3 4 Preliminary Grading /Drainage Plan
5-6 Tree Plan
D. Summit Envirosolutions, US Corp. of Engineer Permit Application (7/16/92)
E City of Maplewood, Erosion Control Measures ( #350, pg. 1 -3)
44
JW OWIWAWA 2 741P
A A
I looi
Como
VA
Ad
Fi MLT ro-
g 71
AWjI
P.
��1
Nil
•• 1 r II t r 1�1 , � � I
7 Mom
��..
i l .__� -- _ . i 1 . r r /��, �� 1� /;::.•, � Vic* � ��
��I►�1r = -- '�� r ��.. "' �_ T�� _ +'ac _ ,•tt _ �c.]_ 1► .�._ Lr� ' � � I "ril �7.• - ` _
{ : l �j ,7 � `;1 • i ��- � - i tom: �"- _',_.'� ) F � -. �,� � 1 �T•.� t �/ ` t M � Yw��) �� . 1 � � i . � ' �� i
�- _ -�- _ i �� �� - <.. t i ' 1..� fir✓ r , ��� � . • •O' \ �J � f� 1I I
- ...'� � -�_ - _ - Yt a-. - - - _ . _ ' t.�L F t2a. ._mil / / r �� - - .�..�b � � ' II � � li
�` y t _���i �. -.rte: ,r t = -•-- - - ��_� '� ���+ � t , � t -
� - � � i ce-: _ - �. , � —�— u :° �` "_ ;-rte • ` _ - ` te r - - � / (���� �-� 1 � -~ , , � +I r
_
NF7
iris
Alp 0
r
Zo
•t ..-- o�,. '- __ t-: ra . � _ F _.- _ � • r 'at' ' -- v • i , �� � + iTl _...._ �.1► - � ---- -- _ _ �\ I � •
! ..a - i .-..o• tiao..li =aa.� ..a s F �t C i �G- ' •, _ �` (?' • _�v -- - --- -�" \, � � /
- d -- r-• -T�' �. E `� • (� �•/� ` ` c `T j t• `at / F _' � � i. ; t •' _ y = I a r [
c a h 4�xx -r _ `� _ t. 4` f - v r l�,. - . =� • _ - T - -
r • �� 1 • -,.� � � i r� ``i��CCCp(^ % r r F d .� ,.,� /\ � ��
�� - �I'�' F �,�• } - I ,� y ♦ _ a l t { • ' / • �.
+ i s.. _.i•�J rx..� 3.. � � ., �, c ; k _ � .1G • _��1• T. �� : w � • _..�'� � _-i� l , -
� � t � •---- ��-r'a {"� --:. p ��` ..� .- c. lra + - -- - � ' . tar:..' - - ° :ti f��.__f,".:..\ l l ` 71
_� t �.��. � �, a - . _ �. ;mot _ _--- a �-- �. �. � . . •�,,,�,� ,� , _ � _ _ �-
- ! I: L,- : l._._• �i..� _.._.- . �:. - a• c i.♦-. �Ca�. ' • V f . ;'', L' �, .. , �1 �I� 1..�♦ I y �_ �•-- _ __ 7 -- _ -. - - - -_
f' • -� JJ _. ..a. . =Ll�.� { W.. i.� �_ ' �• 11 .� mow; \ \ ' • \ r
V •
�"'•� \l�r T.. /- ,t - '2�► ----;r s ` .�� ; ' � ��= �` , �,�,s 5* . � ... .'�'-� -� / fib \\ �'� _ f -�,_ , ' +� � , _� � � •.� ..r_.� , � � �:�J •...a..ar.� = �_
t • ✓ 1 � � c�., �i 1 � ' - +.i€�.Y.c'�� - % ' f`i' M �\ S k y � \- I '`!' , a\ \�ti! � 4 l ''' t� ^•�i • { { ��� g _� + ! �`
i•t: �:1►t�l+ \� �� - / I L e�•••I ',1 'k �+. i�i y'""1•
- f.� � �o ►�1 _.. is• ' l w� 1.�tt� b'' •,�,�'f - - t� � it � - _�.-- --� ��,� ��r 'c.. '
L�:.�� jT� �•;�rr}! 11� I t �• \ _ I i .•.t ��L� Kam .�1 `j �� i3 f►•O �
11 /� �i1� - � f.�Y _ �,� tip _ � : i�`• •'�; : � - _�����. � � I � � r}� o � 1,�� ^\ \� �.� f�"�`�+r/ �•
Ir 6�- , + 1 � � • .. - ►Tfj � �r' } �__ �� ` � .• a�._� JC� r _ _ � S 4e' - - -ri �
� , • F� :4 ? I f .�Ig 'G,A it .��IN;
0 OK
�� '� • 1 �''T �'r +�`' �i ~ i : X1 ��_._(''��' --� . -� � � * ��� !!� � '�.: • ;_.�1 -_ �
kt
IL
M.-MiLl
ki NO
Nor
Ile
11 5AI
pr
WI
to
_• - - .. EXHIBIT D
• . - - � .- -.. ... • • � , .. 1 ', '• :. 'ice ^, - • •.•. '
. ..' Summa. _
' !... EnvrrQsolutions
- .
July.. 16,1992 .' � �` • ; - .. - .
I& Joe Yanta .
• U.S, Amoy Corps of Engineers
Regulatpry-Functions Branch
1421 U. S. Post 'Office,/Custom. House
St •Paul, M innesoti 55101 -1479
Dear Mr. Yanta:
. Subject: Section 404 Permit ,
Gonyea Company.
Hillcrest Residential Development
Maple w ood' Minnesota
Summit Project Ito. 921.230 '
As %we discussed during -our meeting of last Thursday, July 9, Gonyea Company is ro osin to
P P g
develop a site in Maplewood, N fii nesota for single - family residences. The site currently has water
main and sewer service which was. installed several ears a o b the ci ty.. service
Y g Y tY Utili
completion and .the installation ' of public and residential access roads are proposed as art of this -
P P P
- project. The plans for this project have undergone several revisions to avoid and n
wetland impacts.... The -enclosed Technical Metnorandum provides deseri tions of s ific site
P P P�
location, existing wetland resources, and anticipatod impacts.
Wetland Impact 'AvoidancerM A1*n4zati0n
A above, the current site plan is the P roduct of several revisions which were
undertaken to reduce wetland impacts. The • original. conce P t . lan for the development of this site
P P
- included 186 lots - and 4.87. acres of wetland fill (Please.refer to the Prelimin Site Plan dated.
5!6/92.). Thus plan included the filling of the entire Basil K and wetland fringe encroachment at
several other locations. Following Field wetland evaluation and dellineation t he conce t plan was
scaled back significantly. Following our ..pre application meeting with the Corps, the p lan was
. .P
-further scaled back through the removal of three lots. The current devel6pment plan (Please refer .
P
to the Pnel:�minary Plat, dated - 7/ 10192.) contains 161 lots and requires 1:56 acres of wetland fail;
� represents a reduction of 25 lots - arid 3.31 acres of wetland fill from..the • original .
. pl�uis
Specific .examples of wetland impact avoidance and niinirnization strategies include:
47
.708 North First Street, Suite #233 ■ Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 333 -5050 ■. FAX(612) 333.5445. . =
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota Milwaukee, Wisconsin '
W. Joe Yarita ;
S it Project Na. 921230 ,
Page 2
JuIyI6,1992
• with the approval of the City of Maplewood, the city's , tplanned ali ent
for the extension. of Montana Avenue was changed. The road all ent
. was shifted to the . south to avoid �mpacting hi her. loll g q ty ' wetlands Q and
R. 11us shift reduces total wetland .unpacts while Ong unavoidable.
• impacts to wetlands of lower . ecological integrity. and wildlife habitat value
(Basins' S and T). �Tis road aligrinent was fiurther altered to curve to. -the
-south to avoid all unpacts -to Basins Q and R: '
• Southern portions of Basins S and T' that rem una ltered - '.by . roadwa
. P y
construction - will be P reserved and enhanced for their aesthetic and wildlife
- Habitat values.
• Two cul-de =sacs •which would , have caused significant wetland fringe
encroachment were removed entirely.-. The remaining l cul -de -sacs were
shortened to further reduce impacts.
• Three lots nequir*ng the g of Basin- K were eliminated. Currentl
: proposed impacts to Basin K are _ related to public road construction and •,
will. occur in ' degraded portions of the basin. only 0.04 acres of the basin
Will be affected to allow adjacent lot access.
Further impact reduction is considered to. be impracticable. Roadway align will impact 1.10
acres of degraded wetland and have been designed to avoid wetland impact to the maximum
extent possible. Approximately' 0.46 acre of degraded. wetlands will be filled to allow lot
- development. As indicated in the attached memorandum, this 0.46 acre is the cumulative total of
several. small fi zige encroachments, none of which individually entail more than 0.13 acre. This
fill occurs m wetlands which ,would already be impacted by road construction and, if not filled,
would be cut off from their m ain basins, severely reducing their ecological integrity and • value to
wildlife. Emotion of these lots would further cause cant loss of lots 'and financial
har hip to the developer.
Mitigation
The .attached Preliminary Flat indicates that wetland mitigation will occur in two separate basins.
Mitigation wetland 1 will he along the southern property boundary to the east. of Basin H and will
be 1.26 acres in. size. Mitigation .wetland 2 will lie between Sasuis E and F and will
be 1.16 acres
in size. Wetland mitigation for this project will therefore occur at a 1:1.55 fil,l:re lacement ratio.
Basins Will be over- excavated then filed with organic sods excavated from filled wetland areas to
the depth of adjacent basins. The placement of these or '
J P gamc sods will provide a seed source for
the- establishment of hydrophytic vegetation as well as facilitate the establishment of h dric soils
. y
48
dOM
Joe'Yanta
Sutit Project No. 92123
..Wage 3: •
. 16, 1992 !.
` within the - new basi4s No concentrated untreated sto
• rmwater will be all to enter these
mitigation wetlands. These areas ' .will additionall be . maintain
y ed as a-
component of the other
• �natuucal areas to be preserved on -site and b rotective covenants
'
. P . Y P v ants or easements.
Preservation of Natural: A
In , addition to the 2.42 acres - of imiti ated wetland m •
g much existuzg wetland 'and wooded wetland.
will ..be preserved as nab area. Outlots B and C will .
A, compnse 9.77 acres of wooded u land
and 33.58. acres of nat<iral wetland, tx�tacln 35.77 acres to '
g be preserved as .natuEral area.
Additionally, site development plans • .will, to the extent possible, •
•. _ Po ,preserve the natLnl rolluig
topography and wooded nature . of the upland portions. of the
proper develo r will als
Peery Pe o
seek to h establis . re strictive covenants preventing disturbance, to wetlands. 1 in r esid e ntial •
. yule
backyards.
Stonawater -
Stormwater runoff enterin existin wetlands will be r
g g pre-treated treated to the greatest extent possible.
No final grading and drainage plans have • yet been developed, thus no
. per, 1 pans can be presented.
• Copies of these plans can be- forwarded to the Corps as the are developed. S
_ y pe tormwater entering
Department of .Natural Resources protected • waters will be re- treated as w '
P ell as will v�raters
ente - ring: mitigation areas.
Our interpretation is that the roject is cover ed_ by the Nationwide- permit set forth. at 33CFR
530 (a)(26)(ii) which allows u to 10 acres of fill • P . Isolated_ wetlands with predischarge
no tification to te Corps. Based on our meetn it is our •
g o further understanding that you feel this
project can a be processed as nationwide permit with - ' • • - •
Pe _ th special conditions applicable to
compensatory mitigation. We. request your a itious. rocessin of '
P g thLs permit as the time
frame for this 0 project is very tight. To facilitate the agency notific ag . y canon process, short project
summaries and site location -maps have. been forwarded to L Lewis 1 -
Lynn at the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and Dennis Ounmestad at the State Historical Preservation '
ar'g�tlon,
49
111�r: Joe Yanta
Sunimit N 0. 921230
P4 4.
. T
y x46, 1992
s`
We M .forvwaradin •
. g � six copies' of thus letter and su '
if
.• PPog documentation for our convenien
you have questions or would like fiurther info y �•
rmat�on, please contact our office. 1t has been
pleasure to cooradnate this' rmit a lication our
PP with you .
Sincerely,
s u x i i t E ro 61600 Ifice
Lori J'. . " , . - •
ronme W. &ientist ,
ec: Dennis Gon Gon
yea, y e a Company Applicant
_ eter.
Marty E.' R e DNR Area _ _ y � ea Hydrologist
Enclosures
L lwsds
50
I General
EXHIBIT E
The fogowing measures are required as a minimum on all developments within the city. Failure to install and maintain
measures required - by this standard the grading permit or directive from a representative of the city engineering
department will Jesuit in suspension of work until all corrections are made,
ne area of c1isturbed soils (Le. before mulch and wood fiber blanket placement) shall be limited to five (5.0) acres at
arty one time Grading operations shall be scheduled to comply with this limitation,
PHASE RIOR TO GRADING
A L,ocaie, expose, and protect all comer irons on subdivision boundary. If comer irons of adjacent property
bcated on the subdivision boundary are not found, then they shall be replaced by a RLS. Use of adjacent
private property requires a signed temporary construction agreement. A copy of arty agreement must be
submitted- with the grading Permit application, .
61 Install temporary fence around entire site grading timid Temporary tencing shalt also be placed around trees to
be protected on the intecior of the site as shown on the grading/tree preservation plan. Clearing may only begin
after fence installation. Grubbing shall not begin until site Is approved for grading.
4'
2.5'
2'
105 '
MIN. �
6' LONG METAL CHANNEL POSTS. MINIMUM POST WEIGHT
IS EIGHT (8.0) POUNDS. POSTS SPACED AT EIGHT (8.0
FEET ON CENTER MAXIMUM.
4' HIGH ORANGE PLASTI SAFETY /SNOWY FENCING FABRIC.
WIRE TIES TO SECURE FABRIC TO POSTS SHALL BE CUT
AND FOLDED SO THAT THERE ARE NO SHARP EDGES
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS TO CHILDREN OR OTHERS.
MnDOT SPEC 3886 PREASSEMBLED SILT FENCE
BACKFILL OVER 12" FABRIC APRON IN TRENCH SHALL
BE COMPACTED WITH MACHINE DRIVEN VIBRATORY PLATE.
C. Install preassembled silt fence against the upstream face of temporary fence along segments of the perimeter
where runoff would flow off site. The posts of the silt fence shall be staggered from the temporary fence posts
to provide support in midspan. The maximum length of continuous sift fence shall be 600 feet Overlap
sections by 12 feet when a separate roll is used
D. Install a rock entrance pad for all site entrances not blocked by temporary fencing. If tracking onto city streets
occurs, then the rock entrance pad shall be lengthened and daffy street sweeping shall be required. Inspection
of a!t foregoing measures by the engineering department must be made prim to grubbing or grading operations.
,e e-TEMP. FENCE AT GRADING LIMITS
I N`' I -i /2" CLEAR CRUSHED ROCK,
0 4 8" THICK
V � �
' 1 2
Mn DOT SPEC 3733
APRONS AT 2:! TYPE Y - EOTEXTILE
EXTENDING FROM ?5 � ' Z' -- EXTEND A MIN.
TEMP. FENCE MIN. OF 2 FT. BEYOND
ROC
TO PAVED K ROCK PAD.
SURFACE MUST EXTEND
FULL WIDTH OF
OPENING IN TEMP. FENCE
2
.rE OF DRAWING x - 92 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD - ENGINEERING DEPT PLATE
'ISI�� EROSION CONTROL MEASURES 350
�
PAGE i
PHASE 2--DURING GRADING
A, Install right -of -way diversions (filters). A right -of -way diversion shall be installed for every 300 feet of street
center One flow length.
4` MIN.
1 -1/2 CLEAR
105 MIN, DEPTH
CRUSHED ROCK
i
><�
Tm�
8`
i
i MIN.
KEY. 10 FEET I�
INTO BLVD, 34
TYPICAL
SUBGRADE
Id
B. Install silt fence within the site. A silt fence shall be installed for every ISO feet of upstream flow length. Sift
fences shall be installed as grading operations progress.
5` METAL POST
(MIN. WT. 6.5 L81 MnDOT SPEC 3886 PREASSEM BLED SILT FENCE
POSTS AT 4 FT.
ON C ENTER TO R -
SUPPORT , APRON 6" COMPACTED EARTH FILL -- REQUIRES
S T FENCE 3 2 ' S USE OF VIBRATORY PLATE COMPACTOR
I �
6
2� 1.5'
C. Mn/DOT Spec 3882 Type I mulch (straw -hay) shall be blower applied at a minimum rate of two (2.0) tons per
acre. Tickets to verify minimum application rate shall be supplied to the city. Disk anchoring in accord with
Mn/DOT 2575.3H shall be used to secure the mulch.
PerenNal rye grass shag be sown with the mulch tf It is between April 1 and September 15 or November 10 to
December I. Perennial rye grass shall be sown at ten (10) pounds per acre. Seeding depth is 1/2 inch. 'f it is
not within the period set for germination or dormant seeding then seed shall be sown at first available time.
' "'"E OF DRAWING 1- 92 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD - ENGINEERING DEPT.
PLATE
IE'ISI °N R EROSION CONTROL MEASURES 350
PAGE 2
' 52 _ .
On slopes that equal or exceed 25% (4:1) for a length of 5o feat or greater or to swages with concentrated flow,
wood fiber blankets shall be used, The wood fiber blanket shall be secured as shown
D � � below.
1.5A Je5 ' F�_ — 4" LONGITUDINAL
OVERLAP
OVERLAP TRANSVERSE
JOINTS BY 18
6`� STAPLES X UPSTREAM 6" STAPLES AT I' O.C. -
� X
(TYR) END
X, X
• f 1 8"
6 DOWNSTREAM
6 STAPLES AT I O.C. END .
X1 ,
. . •
{ .6 x 6" NOTCH" -
T V FI WITH D END UNDER 6"
3 FOL N U �
COMPACTED
{ x x 6 STAPLES AT t O.C.
BACK FI LL • ' .
x{ x
PHASE 3—MEET AND UTIUTY CONSTRUCTION
A. Protect storm sewer Inlets with perforated plate set on top slab and covered with clear rock. Casting and rings
not to be set until immediately prior to curb placement.
1 -1/2 CLEAR
CRUSHED ROCK
8
1 2 " M I N. (TYP.)
SUBGRADE
.. fi
•
• 1/4" STEEL PLATE
_�
M
.• •• :•• PERFORATED WITH
.. •• •� • 3/8" �DIA. HOLES
AT 3 O.C. EACH WAY
.• . •..
•�•' {MIN. 100 HOLES
Be Place two rows of sod behind curbs. The developer is responsible to regrade and establish turf in areas of
franchised utility construction .(electric, gas, telephone, cable).
PHASE 4- BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
A builcring permit inspection is required before any framing begins. At this erosion control and grating inspection all
badkfilfing strati be completed, the sne should be to grade of bottom of topsoil, and the gravel pad for driveway from the
garage to the street shall be in place. A sift fence, as shown in Phase Z hem B. shall be installed at three (3) feet from
the back of curb extending from the lot comers to the gavel driveway opening. Additional silt fence shalt be erected in
drainage swales as directed by a representative of the engineering department
The silt fences shalt be continuously maintained until such time that turf is established in the yard Failure to obtain an
erosion contrd and grading inspection approval prior to framing or lack of maintenance of silt fences (all contractors are
required to use the driveway gravel pad instead of driving over the curb) will result in a stop -work order.
DATE. OF DRAWING x CITY OF MAPLEWOOD — ENGINEERING DEPT PLATE
NO.
REVISION
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES 350
1 PAGE 3
53
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
OCT
September 29, 1992
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Mr. Olson:
Re: Oak Ridge; S24, T29, R22
City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
MHS Referral File Number: 92 -3514
Thank you for providing this office a copy of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the above - referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to
0.
responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota
Historic Sites Act and through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules
4410.1600.
There are.no properties in the project area that are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or included in our inventory. In the absence of
reported properties, we have also evaluated the likelihood that unreported
historic or archaeological properties may be present. Although we cannot
state with certainty that there are no significant unreported historical or
archaeological properties within the project area, we feel that the probabil-
ity of such properties.being present is low. Therefore, in our opinion, the
"no" response to question 26a is appropriate.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Sec -
tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Pro-
cedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of
historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, it
should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal
agency.
Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at 612 -296 -5462 if you have any questions
regarding our review of this project.
S ncerely,
MA---.L
Britta L. Bloomberg
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
BLB:dmb
54 Attachment 14
345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST / SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 -1906 / TELEPHONE: 612 - 296 -6126
Minnesota Pollution Control Aaenev
celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water
Act
October 7, 1992
.Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1.8.30 East County Road B
.Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Mr. Olson:
RE: Oak Ridge Residential Development
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the ro '
residential development 1 p posed Oak Ridge
p located in the city of Maplewood, Ramsey County. Based
on the information contained in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW),
the Environmental Analysis Office staff believes that significant
gnificant environmental
effects are unlikely to occur as a result of the project. Therefor P J o e, the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not appear
concerns:
warranted. We do, however, have the following
WATER QUALITY ISSUES
16 Regarding Item no. 8 of the EAW, a sewer extension •
permit was not listed as
one of the permits required for this project. 'It would appear to be a
requirement. For information y ou may pp
y y contact Don Perwien of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Water Quality Division at 612 29 6 - 7762*
96 7762.
20 Regarding Item no. 6 of the EAW, any exposed soils must be '
stabilized.
Natural vegetation would be unable to be established this fall if the
.proposer begins grading this fall. It seems unnecessary for the radin
be done at that time of year considering the g to
e potential for runoff.
If artificial turf is established or mulch and seed can be provided, p ovided, this
may be acceptable. It should, however, be reviewed on site because it may
be unsuitable on very steep slopes.
3. Regarding Item no. 12, filling in 1.6 acres of wetland i acceptable as long
as the loss is compensated in accordance with all state and federal
rules.
4. Regarding Item no. 17, numerous steep slopes may require p Y q extraordinary
measures to ensure that no sediment is deposited in adjacent wetlands. MPCA
staff recommends building retention ponds at the ro ert 's discharge
water p p y ge points
when the contributing shed exceeds five acres.
55... At 1
Att achment 5
520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898; (612) 296 -6300; Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd a erd Detroit Lakes 9 Marshall • Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper
..� Celebration _
Mr. Geoff Olson
Page 2
50 Regarding Item no. 18, volume of runoff and peak runoff for various, rainfall
events should be modeled for the 2 -year, 10- year,. and 100 -year storm events.
The runoff should be restricted to half the existing 2 -year storm event, and
equal to the existing 10 -year and 100 -year storms at full development.
6. Regarding Exhibit D, storm water treatment is proposed in addition to the
wetland creation. This is appropriate, but the plan for storm water
treatment is not described. This should be included in the plan prior to
approval.
SOLID WASTE ISSUES
7. Two questions regarding Item no. 21 are included. The first question
pertains to the construction period. Cleared trees and brush, along with
other construction debris, would all be generated by the project. Disposal
of these wastes should be addressed before project implementation. Would
disposal by landfilling, burning, or composting be used?
8. The second question pertains to the post - construction phase. What kind of
provisions have been made to collect normal municipal solid waste?
AIR ISSUE
90 Regarding Item no. 25, further mitigative fugitive dust emissions can
include timely job clean -up, watering of areas undergoing earth moving,
ceasing operations during periods of high winds, and proper grading and site
preparation.
Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subpart 5 require that you send us a copy of
your specific responses to our comments. We look forward to receiving your
decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any questions regarding our
comments, please contact Christy Peterson of my staff at (612) 297 -82360
Sincerely,
Paul Hoff, Director
Environmental Analysis Office
.Administrative Services Division
PH: lm
56
December 17, 1992
Mr. Paul Hoff, Director
Environmental Analysis office
Administrative Services Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
Saint Paul, MIN 55155 -3898
OAK RIDGE EAW
I am responding to your letter of October 7, 1992 about the environmental assessment
worksheet for the Oak Ridge development. on January 1993, the Maplewood City
Council determined that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for this project. The following comments address the concerns in your letter: (The
numbers correspond to the numbers in your letter.)
1. The developer will apply for the sewer extension permit.
2. The City will require stabilization of exposed soi?s. The developer will not start
grading this site until the spring of 1993.
3. The developer has reduced the planned wetland filling to 1.11 acres. He will
compensate for this filling by creating two new wetlands with a total area of 2.3
acres. He will meet all Federal and State rules.
Attachment 16
57
Mr. Paul Hoff
Page. 2
December 17, 1992
4. The developer has revised his. plans to include four sedimentation basins outside
the existing wetlands. The City Engineer has reviewed the storm water plans to
insure that storm water run -off from the site will not exceed the planned levels
in the Cites Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
5. The City Engineer uses the 10 -year storm event for street design modeling. He
also uses the 104 -year storm event for modeling for the ponds and trunk storm
sewer system. The City Engineer will work with the developer's engineer to
ensure that they use the correct modeling for the design of the storrn water
system in this development.
6. The City Engineer will approve final plans for the sedimentation basins before
final plat approval.
7. The developer plans to hire a tree service to remove the large trees and to chip
the shrubs and smaller trees. The tree service will reuse and recycle as many of
the chips as possible. The tree service will be responsible for the proper disposal
of the large trees.
The disposal of the construction debris will be the responsibility of the contractor
making the debris. This typically will be in a demolition landfill or at the NSP
Energy resource Recovery Plant in Newport.
8. The people who buy the lots will contract with private haulers for waste collec-
tion. Maplewood provides a recycling program.
9. The City Engineer will require that the developer mitigate any dust emissions.
Thank -you for your comments. Please call me at 770 -4562 if you have any questions.
GEOFF OLSON, AICP - DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
go/b- 3:memo5l.mem (24 -29)
58
r•
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
-
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634
October 5, 1992
Mr. Geoff Olson
Community Development Director
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: oak Ridge Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Metropolitan Council District 3
Dear Mr. Olson:
(027--
612 291 -6359 FAX 612 291 -6550 TTY 612 291 -0904
Council staff has conducted a preliminary review of this environmental assessment worksheet to
determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review has
conclude t the EAW is complet and a w ith res to r 'o con cern s a nd r no
- -- -
major issues o consistency with Council system policies. An EIS is not necessary for regiona
purposes.
Staff notes, however, that grading of the site to accommodate either roadways or developable lots
will necessitate the filling of 1.6 acres of wetlands. Although the-EAW notes that effort has been
made to reduce the project's im. Act on wetlands, additional steps can be taken to avoid wetland
degradation. The city should redesign the project to avoid wetland impacts particularly in basins
F, G, J, & L, P, and T.
Several wetlands will be impacted with the proposed site design. A number of residential lots
include wetlands which may be filled or encroached upon during the development or construction
P g P
phase. 'The Council recommends that a "no- impact" buffer zone around the wetlands be included
in the drainage easement or development covenant for the project site. This action would ensure
the continued presence of natural hydrophytic vegetation and a natural wildlife nesting and
feeding habitat around all wetlands on the site. The specified building setback of zero feet from
wetlands is incompatible with efforts to maintain wetland quality and function. A typical buffer
zone ranges from approximately 20 feet to the DNR- recommended minimum of 50 feet.
The Council disagrees with the statement in the EAW that runoff from the site will not exceed
existing rates. The Council contends that stormwater runoff will increase as a result of the
proposed development.
The location of sedimentation basins is not identified in the EAW. The only new basins noted in
the EAW to be constructed are two wetland basins totalling approximately 2.4 acres. These two
basins are proposed as mitigation for the filling of natural wetlands. Constructed stormwater
detention basins are not to be classified as wetlands according to the Environmental Quality
Board's guidelines for preparation of EAWs. Basins constructed as wetlands or as mitigation for
59 Attachment 17
Geoff Olson
October S, 1992
Page 2
filled natural wetlands are expected to meet the definition of one or more of the eight classified
types of wetlands. A wetland by definition requires the presence of a predominance of hydric
soils and the lasting presence and prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. The continual
introduction of untreated stormwater into the wetland basins is not compatible with the identified
need to preserve the ecological functions of natural wetlands.
The Council recommends the construction of stormwater detention facilities upstream from the
point stormwater enters natural wetlands. This action would significantly reduce both the
potential for environmental harm to natural wetland basins, and the periodic maintenance cost of
sediment removal from natural basins designated for use as retention and tr basins in the
city 'R
ne Council has recently proposed a Water Quality Implementation Strategy for Surface
Water Management of No point-Source Pollution (Strategy) for all metropolitan waters. As -part
of this Strategy, the Council recommends that stormwater detention facilities meetin g National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) wet detention basin design criteria be required for the
pretreatment of stormwater generated from the site prior to its introduction into site wetlands.
Best management practices found in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's en 's manual entitled
Protecting Water Quality In Urban Areas or an equivalent set of standards are also recommended
for erosion and sedimentation control on this and future development ro'ects in the cit
P )
This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. No formal action on the EAW will be
taken by the Council. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact
Barbara Senness, Council Staff, at 291 -6419.
Sincerely,
L' y Al' 'chwarzkopf,
Res rch and Long Range Planning
cc: Jim Senden, Metropolitan Council District 3
Lynda Voge, Metropolitan Council Staff
Barbara Senness, Metropolitan Council Staff
L�7
December 17, 1992
Mr. Lyle Schwarzkopf, Director
Research and Long Range Planning, Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101 -1.634
OAK RIDGE EAW
I am responding to your letter of October 5, 1992 about the environmental assessment
worksheet for the Oak Ridge development. On January 993 the Maplewood City
pY _> p
Council determined that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for this project. The following omments address the concerns in our letter:
g Y
About your comments in the second and third paragraphs, the developer has revised his
plans to fill only 1.1 acres of existing wetland. He is ro osin to mitigate this fill with
p p g g
2.3 acres of new wetland on his property. The City will require that the developer set
up no- unpact buffer zones with deed restrictions around the wetlands.
In your fourth paragraph you discuss storm water run -off from this development. The
City :Engineer will be reviewing all the plans for the project to ensure that they follow
the Mavlewood Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. He told me that the
large wetlands on the site will reduce the stone water flow rates from the site so they
will meet the Maplewood Plan.
The two wetland mitigation areas that you described in your fifth paragraph are not
detention basins. The developer will build four detention basins for the wetlands. The
61 1.
Attachment 18
Mr. Lyle Schwarzkopf
Page 2
December 17, 1992
detention ponds will treat the stormwater before going into the wetlands. The mitiga-
tion areas will meet the requirements of the Ramsey/Washington Watershed District,
the Pollution Control
Agency and the Corps of Engineers.
Thank -you for your comments. If you have any questions, please call me at 774 -4562.
GEOFF: OLSON, AICP - DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
go /b- 3:memo5l.mem (24 -29)
62
STATE of SEP 2 9
M H CS z 0 CTLa
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155 -40--lo_
DNR INFORMATION
(612) 296- 6157
September 28, 1992
Geoff Olson
Maplewood Director of Community Development
1830 County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Oak Ridge Single Family Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Mr. Olson:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the Oak Ri
• Ridge
project. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
The DNB's analysis of this EAW leads us to uestion the adequacy of this doc
p rovi de • q q cY ent to
p de the information needed for the City of Maplewood, as Responsible Governmental
Unit to make an i • • I? tai
in formed decision on the associated impacts of this p ro j ect ect and the need
for further environmental revie �
ew. We base this conclusion on the following points.
1. Item 11b should include a determination of the resence of state- listed en
_ p .. endangered,
threatened, or special concern species, rare plant commu dt�es colonial wat r
p , e bird
colonies, native prairie, or other rare habitat on or near this site. Our records
indicate the Natural Heritage Program, which is available to rovde information p nformation in
thi• s regard, had not reviewed this project as re uired during EAW preparation,
q g,
(Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB EAW G i u,.- delxnes page 13,
paragraph 1). The Natural Heritage Program provides information vital to meeting
the state's goal of protecting our natural resource base.
The Natural Heritage Program database contains information in '
indicating this area
does contain species of special concern. There is a record for Yellow Pim e 01
� rn..l,
Taenidia integenima, from the site of the ro osed development '
h p ,p p �n the SW 1/4 of
the NE 1/4 of section 24, T2 N, R22W. This species is rare In the state,
l p , e, but h no
eea status. and this site represents the states northern -most population of this
species, and the only known p p
p y site in the metro area. The favored habitat of this
species is the edge of oak woodlands. This population will be destroyed b th
conversion of woodland ground cover y y e
on
gr a to the typical suburban landscape of sodded
lawns.
The database also contains 2 records for Blandin '.s Turtle Em o '
$ , yd idea blandingzz, a
state threatened species, found in the general area of this ro ect. n
. p ) One record is
from the south 1/2 .of section 25, and the other is from the NE 1 4 f
• / o section 2b.
Gwen the close proximity of these reports to the project area, i '
• l p, , p � a, t s possible that this
species occurs on the site if there is suitable habitat. Blandin 's turtles spend g p much
of their time in shallow
wetlands; they nest in u lands with sand soil u arils from - � y A to several
hundred
y om wetlands. Most eggs are laid in June, and hatch I September.
63 Attachment 19
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Geoff Olson
September 28, 1992
Page 2
Filling of wetlands, degradation of wetlands from runoff of lawn and street
chemicals, development of nesting habitat, and road kills are the biggest threats to
this species in the metro area.
2. Item 11a in the EAW discusses expected project impacts on fish, wildlife, and
ecol ogically sensitive resources. Item 11a notes, "Wildlife habitat will most likely
disappear trom the developed part of this site into the undeveloped part of the site.'
This statement does not correctly express the outcome of habitat loss and the
resulting displacement of the wildlife that is present. This displacement, because it
forces wildlife to compete with populations already present, eventually results in an
overall population decline.
3. Examination of the plat information provided in Exhibit C and Item 11a leads us to
question the proposed lot sizes for this project. Item 11a notes the number of lots
originally designated for this project was 186, but the project now contains 148 lots.
It appears many of the lots will not have much area available for yard formation,
which can lead to encroachment pressure on wetlands adjoining these smaller
residential lots. It is likely that the wetland fringe and buffer. areas will be
diminished as future property owners attempt to "get more yard." In articular, .lots
P
14 -16 and 31 -32 are very tight to the wetland line.
4. The DNR has been informed that the City is considering granting a blanket variance
for this project. The blanket variance will Y reduce front and setbacks from 30 feet to
20 feet. Although a local matter, we note variance wan roval revolves around the
demonstration of hardship, and in this case, the har s ip a pears to be self- created
. P
because of the project's current proposed unit /lot dense . The front yard set -back
variance, if granted, will translate into an increased unit lot density, which we
assume to be the problem which serves as the basis for this request, We note that
typically new plats must comply with zonin g standards and all lots should be
buildable without variances.
S. We note in Item 11b, and Exhibit D, that efforts have been made to minimize the
amount of wetland fillin to 1.6 acres, which is to be mitigated b the creation of 2.4
acres of new wetland. This fact is appreciated, however we must note the scientific
knowledge regarding the quality and success of created wetlands is uncertain, and
one cannot assume that created wetlands completely replace lost wetland values
from eliminated natural systems. Proper planning and monitorin g is crucial to the
success of created wetlands.
6. The grading and drainage plans do not clearly indicate whether a DNR permit will
be required for the storm sewer outfall structures. If any are proposed that are
placed below the ordinary high water elevations of the 3 state protected wetlands on
the site, the Division of Waters Metro Office should be contacted to begin the
p emu t process which typically takes from 45 -60 days to complete; this office can be
reached at (612) 772 -7910.
Our analysis of this project as proposed indicates resource impacts have not been
addressed in the planning process, and more importantly, in the EAW. For example, with
information available from the Natural Heritage Program, the project could provide for
outlot formation to protect the Yellow Pimpernel population directly affected by this
development. Also, knowing that Blanding's turtles occur in the ro'ect's vicinity, P J tY�
Ce
Geoff Olson
September 28, 1992
Page 3
proposer would have known to hire a consultant to evaluate the character of the wetlands
to determine if the site's wetlands are potential Blandin 's habitat and allow for
appropriate planting if the turtles were present. Accordin 1 , the DNR would request that
the wetlands not be filled or degraded., although the loss ot nesting habitat probably could
not b avoided without removing a significant
p � t portion of the ro'ect from consideration.
Point 2 on the previous page reinforces our view that the protect as proposed does not
reflect an adequate understanding of how development impacts a site's wildlife resources
but this does not preclude the possibility that the project could be redesigned based on this
information.
The DNR regrets that the opportunity was lost to design this project with the needs of
these special species in mind. We request that the City of Maplewood incorporate contact
with the Minnesota Natural Heritage Program n the ture as required during EAW
preparation to avoid this situation again. Bonita Eliason, Endangered Resource
E4. Review Specialist, is available to assist in this re and and she can be
reached at (612) 297 -22760 ,
g
In viewing points 3 -6, the • project's current design could significantly impact the protected
i
water p
s associated with this site. The City should, require rotective covenants, easements,
or other actions necessary to protect the wetlands from a teration b individual property
l p tY
owners. Also, we note that the further elimination of lots could serve the multiple purposes
of reducing pressure on wetlands, re ducing impacts on rare species and wildlife, and
0
removing the need for the blanket variance.
p
This .EAW is proposer volunteered, and the DNR a reciates the opportunity pp pp t to r eview
er
this document. The DNR especially appreciates the developer's efforts to protect critical
p
wetland areas. However, as previously stated, the DNR is concerned that this document
does not have all the information Maplewood may need to meet the oals of the Minnesota
Environmental
onmental Policy Act (MEPA), and the rules set forth by the EQB.
Maplewood may wish to request that the developer redesign the project to better protect
some of the critical habitat areas. For example, the developer may wish to dedicate some
of these habitat areas to permanent open space. In return, the city may wish to grant the
developer an increase in development densities on the remaining developed areas.
As an alternative, the city may wish to postpone action on this project 30 days to allow the
proposer time to incorporate this information into an imp project proposal which
could reduce the impacts on wildlife and wetlands at this site.
If the city requests a subdivision redesign, the DNR requests the opportunity to review the
revised proposal and is willing to assist the developer in identifying areas for protection or
dedication.
Thank u for the opportunity to review this document. We look forward to receiving ur
Recor Of Decision and responses y
p uses to our comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700,
subparts. 4 & 5, requires you to send us your Record Of Decision and comments within
5
65
days of deciding this action. Please contact Joe Stinchfield of my staff, at (612) 297 -4313, if
you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Natural Resources Plammng and Review Section
Office of Planning
c: Dave Leuthe
Steve Colvin
Tom Lutgen
Bonita Eliason
Lynn A Lewis, USFWS
Gregg Downing, EQB
Dennis D. Gonyea, Gonyea Co., Inc.
#930047 -01
ER4 OAKRIDGE.DOC
W. $
January 4, 1993
Mr. Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Natural Resources Planning and Review Section
Office of Planning
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
Saint Paul, MN 55155 -4010
OAK RIDGE EAW
I am replying to your September 28, 1992 letter about the environmental assessment
worksheet (EAW) for the Oak Ridge development. The following comments address the
concerns in your letter: (The numbers correspond to the numbers in your letter.)
1. Please note that the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) does not require that
we contact the Natural Heritage Program. The reference you make in the EAW
guidelines is a recommendation, not a requirement. We do agree that the
information is useful and appreciate your bring it to our attention. Since
receiving your letter, the developer has had an environmental consultant prepare
an report on the Yellow Pimpernel and the Blanding's Turtle. (R copy of this
report is attached.)
Attachment 20
67
Mr. Thomas Balcom
Page 2
January 4, 1993
The conclusion of Summit Envirosolutions is as follows:
The proposed project may have some impact on these plants if they exist
in areas of the site that will be graded. However, measures to limit
grading on the site will minimize the potential for impact and will ensure
that substantial suitable habitat for the plant remains undisturbed. We
feel it is important to state the yellow pimpernel is not designated as a
threatened, endangered or even a species of special concern in the State of
Minnesota. This plant is common in much of the United Sates and is only
uncommon in Minnesota because the State lies on the fringe of its natural
range.
In regard to the Blanding's turtle, the developer would be increasing the
wetlands on the site by one acre. The City staff and planning commission are
recommending that the City Council require buffer strips around each wetland to
protect the their habitat. The report submitted by Summit Envirosolutions
.states:
Approximately 55% of this 120 -acre site is wooded, leaving areas along
the various utility right -of -ways, along the railroad dine, and at the edges
of wetlands available for nesting habitat. Virtually all of these areas lie at
the fringes of rear yards or in outlots that will not be graded. The majori-
ty of grading on site will occur in areas that are already disturbed or in
woody cover. The wetland type preferred by Blanding's turtles will be
generally unaffected by the project.
2. Vide agree with your comments. The City can try to maxnmze wildlife habitat
within the developer's plans, but we cannot deny the right to develop without
buying the property.
3. The developer has dropped the number of lots from 186 to 131.
The City will require the developer to set up buffer zones with deed restrictions
around the wetlands. These will help to protect the wetlands from encroachment
by future individual property owners. The developer will sign these buff zr strips
to inform homeowners that they cannot intrude on these areas. In addition, all
lots will have at least 10,000 square feet above the easement (wetland) area.
The developer is requesting a variance to move the homes ten feet closer to the
road. This would provide more rear yard setback from the wetland buffer zone.
68
Thomas Balcorn
Page 3
January 4, 1993
4. Your statement that the variances will increase the density is not correct. The
proposed front yard setback variance will not increase the density in this roJ 'ect.
P
Homes could be built on these lots without the variance. The developer request -
ed this variance to help save trees. The variance would allow home builders to
move the houses forward on the lots. This would reduce the amount of adin
�' g
and tree loss on the rear parts of the lots. The City has considered the loss of
significant features as a hardship in the past and justification for a variance.
56 The developer has changed his plans to fill only 1.11 acres of wetland. He will
mitigate this with 2.3 acres of new wetland.
6. The developer will apply for any required permits for the stormwater outfall
pipes.
Since preparing the EAW, the developer has changed his plans so there will be
no filling of DNR- protected wetlands. The developer's engineer, Mr. Peter
Knaeble, has worked with DNR Metro Waters Hydrologist Marty Rye about the
need for DNR permits for the project. Mr. Rye wrote a letter to Mr. Knaeble on
November 23, 1992 that said "it does not appear a Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Permit will be required for the construction
of this development."
The rest of your letter expresses a concern that the EAW does not provide the City with
adequate information to evaluate the natural resources on this site. Since Y ou reviewed
this project, the developer has reduced the number of lots, proposed a buffer strip
around the wetlands, reduced filling of existin g wetlands so there will be a net increase
in wetlands, proposed sedimentation ponds to clean the water entering the wetlands,
and prepared a study on the yellow pimpernel and Blanding's Turtle. As per your
suggestion, the developer's environmental consultants contacted Bonita Eliason in Y our
department.
Please note that the City and developer have been working with your department on
this project since the developer first applied. We sent a copy of the developer's
application to Molly Shodeen, DNR area hydrologist, shortly after the developer applied
to the City on August 24, 1992. We received a reply on September 10. The developer's
environmental consultant has been working with Marty Rye, DNR hydrologist. We
have copies of four letters from Mr. Rye. The developer changed his plans to
accommodate the DNR concerns.
69
Mr. Thomas Balcom
Page 4
January 4, 1993
Thank -you for your comments. I will advise you of the City Council's final action on
the EAW. Please call me at 770 -4562 if you have any questions.
GEOFF OLSON, AICP - DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Attachment: Envirosolutions report
we
Ramsey - Washington Metro
m
o o.
District
�m
January 11, 1993 � V •
Mayor Gary Bastian
City of Maplewood
1 830 County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
JAN 12 1993
2785 White Bear Ave., Suite 210
Maplewood, MN 55109
(612) 779 -2207
Re: Watershed District Action on the Oakridge Development Proposal,
Dear Mayor Bastian:
The Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District Board of Managers held our regular
monthly meeting last Thursday, January 7, 1993. The grading permit application for the
Oakridge Development was on our agenda. I am writing to inform you of our actions.
The Board of Managers reviewed the Maplewood staff report on the project, our own staff
review comments and recommendations, and heard considerable comments. from the public and
the developer and his representatives. The Board reviewed those issues that we bel ieve to be
related to our decision. We did not take comment on, nor will we comment to Maplewood on,
P
issues relative to traffic, fire safety, or purchase of the property for open space.
It was the consensus of the Board that no changes were needed in the permit as drafted
(attached) and the project plans as submitted January 7,1993. The P ro 'ect p lans were determined
to be consistent with the District plans, policies and standards. However, the Board moved to
table the permit until the February meeting. The Board stated that the took this action because
they did not wish to influence your pending decision on the project and whether to order an EIS.
If an EIS is ordered, there may be changes to the project that would warrant revision of the draft
permit. If no EIS is ordered, the permit will be considered for approval at the February regular
�' g
meeting.
The Board did discuss whether they would like to take a position on the need for an EIS on
the project. After some discussion the Board moved to take no position. It was the Boards
opinion that this is a City decision.
I hope this letter clarifies our position and will be helpful to you and the other Council
Members in your deliberations. If you have any questions regarding our action, please feel free
to call me at 296 -0707 or Cliff Aichinger, District Administrator, at 777 -3665.
Sincerely,
Roger E. Lake,
President
cc Board of Managers
Ken Haider
Geoff Olson
Dennis Gonyea
70
Attachment 21
RAMSEY SOIL & WATER CONSER`%'ATION DISTRICT
r
December 17, 1992
To
From:
•
S ub � ect:
Ken Roberts
Maplewood unity Development
Deptek
Of
Bob Johnson, P.E., Chair
RSWCD Site Plan /Plat Review Committee
Oak Ridge Proposed Development, Section 24 -29
It is my understanding there is a further revision of this plan which will be
submitted to RWMW District at their January meeting.
This review is conditioned on the acceptability of further revisions to Ramsey Soil
and Water District and the RWMW District.
This site presents unique problems. The soils involved in and of themselves would
not present a problem to development. They are, however, highly erodible and
located adjacent to several wetlands. This will require careful attention to erosion
control.
The fact m.anv c on - tractors and ye ars o time will be involved before this
development is completed will make control . of wetland encroachment a continuing
problem. The wetland areas must be well established and marked m a permanent
and recognizable manner. Abutting property owners must be fully informed on the
restrictions and the reasons for their existence. Continual enforcement will be in the
property owners best interest as well as the interest of conservation in general.
2015 Rice Street
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
612/488 -1 476
Fax: 612/488 -3478
71
Attachment 22
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Ken Roberts - December .17, 1992 - Page Two
It would certainly avoid problems and provide a unique area within an urban
setting if a way could be found to keep this area in its natural state. A rezonin g to
require a larger lot size, approximately one acre, would also lessen impact.
However, the property owner can not bedenied his . ri hts to develo p his land.
With close control and continual care this can become a p ristine and desirable
location for. homes. A means of assuring ontinual control and care is necessar
y
before development begins.
OakRidge.D17
cc Cliff Aichinger, RWMWD
72
A� Summit
�`.. Envirosolutions
000
December 17, 1992
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
Associate Planner
-City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota. 55109
Subject: Yellow Pimpernel (Taenidia integerrima)
Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)
Response to Comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Oak Ridge Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Gonyea Company
Oak Ridge Residential Development
Maplewood, Minnesota
Summit Project No. 921230
Dear Ken:
As requested by the City of Maplewood, Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) has compiled the
following information regarding the yellow pimpernel (Taenidia integerrima) and the Blanding's
turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). This information is intended to assist the City of Maplewood in
responding to comments received from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Office of Planning regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Oak
Ridge Single - Family Residential Development. The subject property is located in Section 24,
Township 29N, Range 22W as shown on the attached general site location map.
Yellow Pimpernel
The yellow pimpernel is an herbaceous flowering plant and is a member of the Parsley family
(Peterson and McKenny, 1968; Morley, 1969; Fassett, 1978). It is commonly found in mesic to
moist woods and meadows (Morley, 1969). he plant can be 19 to 40 inches high and produces
an umbrella- shaped flower cluster (umbel) which consists of clusters of small yellow flowers
(Fassett, 1978). The leaves have three primary stalks, each of which has three leaflets that may be
divided into two secondary leaflets. According to Money's Spring Flora of Minnesota (1969),
the plant can be found in southeastern Minnesota ranging from Houston and Mower Counties to
Rice and Goodhue Counties in Minnesota.
According to Ms. Bonita Eliason, MDNR Natural Heritage Program, (November 23, 1992), the
plant has no official Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern status and, therefore has no
10201 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite #100 • Minneapolis, MN 55305 • (612) 595 -8888 • FAX(612) 595 -0888
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota • Milwaukee, Wisconsin Attachment 23
73
Mr. Ken Roberts
December 17, 1992
Page 2
Summit Project No. 921230
legal status in the State of Minnesota. Yellow pimpernel is common in the southern states,
however, the plant is relatively uncommon in Minnesota due to the region's climate. The Oak
Ridge site represents the state's northernmost reported population of the species (Eliason,
November 23, 1992; Balcom, September 28, 1992). We requested that the MDNR provide us
with the exact location of the yellow pimpernel population that they have indicated to exist on the
site. The MDNR is unable to provide this information. The nearest other reported populations of
the yellow pimpernel are approximately 40 miles to the south and southeast of the Oak Ridge site
in Goodhue County. '
The Oak Ridge population of yellow pimpernel is located in the southwest 40 acres of the
northeast 160 acres of Section 24, Township 29N, Range 22W (Balcom, September 28, 1992).
The September 28, 1992 letter from Mr. Balcom states that the favored habitat of the species is
along the edge of oak woodlands. The oak woodland edge habitat is common on the fringes of
the Oak Ridge site and immediately to the north and east of the proposed development.
It is the developer's intention that the site be graded in a manner that preserves as much of the oak
woods as possible. Extensive areas of edge habitat favored by the yellow pimpernel will remain
undisturbed along wetlands, at the margins of rear yards, and in open space outlots. Mass grading
and associated tree removal will occur only in the areas of the proposed street construction. With
the exception of eleven lots, individual lots will be custom graded by the home builders. Lots 1,
8, 9 49 50, 51, 90, 91, 116, 1 and 123 will be graded during mass adin activities because
�' g
the lot topography requires large amounts of cut or fill to occur adjacent to the streets. This is
detailed on the grading plan and tree survey previously submitted by Terra Engineering, Inc. All
grading limits will be. staked in the field and conform to the standards required by the City of
Maplewood tree preservation ordinance. By limiting mass grading activities and by custom
grading lots as much as possible, the developer will be :sizing disturbances to any potential
yellow pimpernel population that might exist on the site.
Our conclusion regarding the yellow pimpernel is that the proposed project may have some
impact on these plants if they exist in areas of the site that will be graded. However, measures to
limit grading on the site will the potential for impact and will ensure that substantial
suitable habitat for the plant remains undisturbed. We feel it is important to state that the yellow
pimpernel is not designated as a threatened, endangered, or even a species of special concern in
the State of Minnesota. This plant is common in much of the United States and is only
uncommon in Minnesota because the state lies on the fringe of its natural range.
Blanding's Turtle
The Blanding's turtle averages 6 to 10 inches in length. It has a domed dark blue carapace with
yellow specks. The hinged plastron is bright yellow with black patches on the outside margin.
The turtle's neck, throat, and chin are bright yellow (Coffin and Pfannmuller, 1988). This species
74
Mr. Ken Roberts
December 17, 1992
Page 3
Summit Project No. 921230
is .listed as Threatened in Minnesota Coffin an Pfannmuller, 1988; Balcom Septemb •
Enviroscience, Aug ust 27 1992 uller (1988), � P ber 28, 1992,
g � ). According to Coffin and Pfannm Blanding s turtles
inhabit states and r
provinces in the Upper Midwest, from Nebraska eastward Ontario, and Quebec. Mi into Michigan,
in
lies in the northwest
age of the species range. A lar e
p is reported to exist along the Mississip River, g
PP _ er, south of Kellogg, Minnesota.
Scattered occurrences have also been documented across the state al •
ong the �sissippl
Croix Rivers and into and St.
east- central Minnesota. Recent records from Pi ston •
(Soehren, November 24 19 � � e r. and Swift Counties
92) confirm the species presence in western
Minnesota.
The turtles prefer to inhabit c •
aim, shallow wetlands rich in aq uatic vegetatio '
John Moriarty, wildlife � g on. According to Mr.
Y� a biologist with Hennepin County Parks the b •
turtles are lar a ty best habitat for Blandin 's
g wetlands or wetland complexes greater than 1 g
sand g 0 acres ul size surrounded. b open
y uplands. Sandy uplands are nece to p rovid e ' y P
1 �Y p ide nesting habitat (Balcom, September 28
992; Moriarty, October 1992; Coffin and P '
Pf�uller, 1988). According to Mr.
laced to g M or i arty 1992), nests are
p receive direct sunlight to assist in incubation of the
n are eggs • As
a result, nesting would occur in o
pe eas, at the edges or in clearings of woods or al
wetlands, and would not likely occur on north- � ong
acing slopes. Most eggs are laid in June and hatch
in September (Balcom, September 28 1992 )0
Adult females may travel relatively long distances to find suitable nesting habitat. Coffin and
Pfannmuller (1988) and Balcom (September 28, 1442) report that turtles may travel 0.3 mile in
search of adequate nesting habitat; Carol Dorff, MDNR Division of Wildlife, reports that turtles
may travel up to 1.5 miles. Due to the tendency of Bland* turtles to travel within this range in
urban or suburban areas, their habitat is susceptible to fragmentation (Moriarty, October 1992)
and road kill (Balcom, September 28, 1992)4
The MDNR Natural Heritage Program data contains two records for Blandin
g g base contai 's .
a developme g turtle within
1.5 miles of the Oak Rid
g p ent. Records exist for the south 320 acres of Section
the northeast 160 acres of Section 26 ection 25 and
, Township 29N, Range 22W (Balcom, 28 S ort September 1992).
According to a technical report prepared by Enviroscience (August, 1992),
h )� g s turtles have
also been sig hted ted to the northwest of the Oak Ride site in •
. g Section 11, Township 29N, Range
22W
In August of 1992, Enviroscience conducted
. n the Ma d a site .walkover to identify Blandin 's 1
i Maplewood Es • • �Y g turtles
P Estates Second Addition site in the southeast 1 •
29N Ran 60 acres of Section 13,
Township Range 22W. Suitable habitat for Blandin 's turtles .
no specimens were f g was identified on this site, but
found.
The 120 acre `oak Ridge site contains 21 .
wetland basins, three of which are listed on th
Protected Waters Inventory. Nine of the on- a DNR
site wetlands provide the shallow marsh (Circular 39
Type 3) habitat re orted to be fav
P favored by Blanding's turtles. Soil sin the ... .
as identified b the Soil • vi of the site,
y oil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties •
Service 19 Y noes (USDA -Soil Conservation
80), are predominantly Kingsley sand. I •
g y y o� M��medl- Kingsley complex (loamy Ronneb P
sand and sandy loam soils), y fine sandy loam, and Braharn loamy fine .sand. These sandy
75
Mr. Ken Roberts
December 17, 1992
Page 4
Summit Project No. 921230
soils could provide nesting opportunities for Blanding's turtles. On -site nesting habitat is limited,
however, by the heavy forest cover throughout the site (as previously discussed, the turtles place
their nests along woodland edges where they will , receive direct sunlight to assist in incubation of
the eggs).
Approximately 55 percent of this 120 acre -site is wooded, leaving areas along the various utility
right-of-ways, along the railroad line, and at the edges of wetlands available for nesting habitat.
Virtually all of these areas lie at the fringes of rear yards or in outlots that will not be graded. The
majority of gra .ding . on the site will occur in areas that are already disturbed or in woody cover.
The wetland type preferred by Blanding's turtles will be generally unaffected by the project.
Our conclusion regarding the impacts on potential Blanding's turtle populations is that disturbance
to the Blanding's turtle habitat would be muiimal as a result of the construction of the proposed
Oak Ridge residential development. This is due to the fact that the wetlands proposed to be filled
or impacted are generally less than one acre in size. Since Blanding's turtles generally prefer
wetlands comprising 10 acres or more, wetlands providing potential turtle habitat will not be
filled. The larger wetlands located on the site are not proposed to be filled and fringe impacts
from grading on the adjacent uplands shall be kept to a inimum, South and west facing slopes
adjacent to wetlands, also considered to be preferred habitat, are not proposed to be siOnificantly
altered or regraded with the exception of the area to the north of Basin H. Disruption to .potential
turtle habitat does not appear to be significant as a result of the construction of the proposed
subdivision.
We cannot predict nor control the effects of human activity subsequent to the development of this
parcel of land. Education of land owners as to the habitat of the Blanding's turtle may be helpful
in protecting any turtles that my reside in the immediate area.
76
Mr. Ken Roberts
December 17, 1992
Page S
Summit Project No. 921230
LIMITATIONS
Summit's opinions, conclusions and recommendations were based in part on ,information Summit
obtained and evaluated from current sources including the client, and municipal, state, and federal
agencies. Verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information is not warranted by
Summit or included in Summit's scope of services. Summit's report was prepared in accordance
with Summit's general conditions and terms, and no other warranties, representations, or
certifications are made.
Sincerely,
Summit Envirosolutons, Inc.
t�
FFF �
P, JJ/
Dawn R. Kieft
Project Manager
Coord.
77
Mr. Ken Roberts
December 17, 1992
Page 6
Summit Project No. 921230
References
Balcom, T. W., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Office of Planning. Correspondence
to Geoff Olson, City of Maplewood. September 28, 1992.
Coffin, B. and L. Pfannmuller, editors. Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1988. ,
Eliason, B.., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. Personal
Communication. November 23, 1992.
Enviroscience. Maplewood Estates Second Addition Blanding's Turtle Study for - the. EAW.
Technical Report, August 27, 19920
Fassett, N.C. Spring Flora of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,
Wisconsin. 1988.
Moriarty, J., Hennepin County Parks Wildlife Biologist, Personal Communication, October 1992.
Morley, T. Spring Flora of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,
Minnesota. 1969.
Peterson, R. T. and M. McKenny. A Field Guide to Wildflowers Northeastern and North -
central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 1968.
Soehren, D., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Wildlife Manager. Personal
communication, November 24, 1992.
United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service and the Minnesota
Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties
Minnesota. 1980.
W •J
Oki
TERRA ENGINEERING, INC.
Land.. Planning - Civil Engtnsering - Consulting
8080 Wal Road
Minneapolis, MN 55344
(fox) 934 -6642
934 -4242
December 16, 1992
Geoff Olson
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Oak Ridge
Maplewood, MN
Dear Geoff:
esterda with
Per our meeting yesterday
Y ourself and other members of the Planning and
.
Eng i neering Departments, we are requesting the following in regards to the above
g g p
referenced project:
l A reduction in the standard
()
street width from 34 feet back -to -back to 30
feet back -to -back.
- Per suggestion by Bruce Irish (Assistant City Engineer).
- A roximately 3600 sy
PP
less of bituminous for the City to maintain, patch,
seal coat, etc. for the
remaining life of the pavement.
- Reduction in the total
street surface area will reduce the amount of sand
and salt that will g et
into the adjacent City sedimentation basins and
wetland areas.
- Other cities have similar standard residential street back -to -bask widths:
Minnetonka
27.3' Maple Grove 30.0'
Eden Prairie
28.0' Chanhassen 31.0'
(2) As we discussed, we understand that the City would like to abandon
approximately 600' of 16" watermain in the rear yards of lots 88 -92. This
xi „Y been assessed to this property. existing 16 watermain has already . Since the P P Y
owner of this property has already paid for this watermain, we are requesting
that the Ci t p ay m a for 600' of the new 16" relocated watermain that will be
constructed as part of this project.
If you have any questions or need adc'itional information, please call me.
Sincerely,
Ceter
� Knaeble
C Dennis Gonyea
79 Attachment 24
To: Ken Roberts
From: Maplewood Open Space Committee
Date: November 5, 1992 0V 6
Subject: Oak Ridge Development
The Maplewood Open Space Committee has included the Oak Ridge Development property in our city
wide inventory and rating of open space. We must inform you that this particular property (identified
as153B in our system) has rated the highest of all of the properties on our inventory. In our rating
process our goal was to identify key properties with the most scenic, esthetic and conservation value, to
assure that the city retains its unique character. We rated 66 properties across the city on 54 different
criteria. No other property in the city compares to 153B. (Please refer to the attached property
ranking). Several features make this property an outstanding candidate for preservation as open space.
The predominant feature is the large stand of completely undisturbed mature oaks. (Please refer to
the maps attached to this letter). This area of oaks is unlike any other wooded area in Maplewood. All
other wooded areas in the city show evidence of disturbance, by past grazing or by development of the
surrounding areas. We feel strongly that this stand of oaks should be protected from future
disturbance, as it could be a valuable educational, esthetic, and scenic resource. What makes the stand
of oaks even more valuable is its close proximity to the other features of the property, which include a
massive undisturbed wetland, and rolling hills. Also, this property is just across the railroad tracks
from Jim's Prairie.
The Maplewood Open Space Committee would like propose the following options for this property
regarding its preservation as open space, or development:
Option 1.
The number one recommendation of the Maplewood Open Space Committee is to preserve as much of
this property as possible as conservation open space. The ideal situation would be to designate this
entire property, as well as the Priory property farther to the east, as open space, and not allow any
development in these areas. At this time this would probably require the City (or county) to purchase
the land.
Option 2.
The second option would be to protect as much of the undisturbed oak forest as possible. To exercise
this option the City would need to purchase, or in some other manner require that the developer set
aside a piece of the property containing the oak forest. This would require careful consideration to
assure that the oaks remain undisturbed. Simply clearing land around the set aside land would create
edges which would allow new species of brush and tree to take hold, and invade the mature oaks.
However, if care was taken in design of the allowed development around the set aside oak stand, this
option could be very realistic and effective. The other features of the land that the committee
identified as valuable enhancements, i.e. the large wetland (protected by the state), the rollin g hills and
the close proximity of the Prairie would still be intact. If development must occur on this property we
feel that this option would best achieve the goal of the committee to maintain the character of the city.
The developer would benefit from higher property values due to the presence of the open space
80
Attachment '25
elements. Because so much recent development in this area of the city has involved nearly complete
clearing of the land, we believe that it is imperative that some conservation open space be set aside at
this time, or there will be no option to do so in the future.
Option 3.
If none of the wooded area of this property can be preserved as open space, the developer should be
required to preserve as many of the oaks as possible. This should require education of the developer
on the. special building practices required to prevent tree damage. This type of education is available
from the DNR Metropolitan Region, Division of Forestry. This type of development is expensive but
could greatly benefit both the city and the developer financially due to higher property values. This
option would help to maintain the character of this area of the City, but the only example of
undisturbed oak forest in the city would be lost forever.
Option 4.
Allow the development as proposed by the developer. The committee does not recommend this
option. The oak forest would be severely disturbed. The character of the area would be drastically
altered. The scenic and esthetic significance of the wetland and Jim's Prairie would be greatly
diminished.
Thank you,
Terry Spawn
Chair
Maplewood Open Space Committee
CC:
Open Space Committee
City Manager
Mayor
City Council
a
NORTH SAINT PAUL
r � 68
0
c 2.
0 1.
Hillside W , 0 3
Pork J .
V Y KNOLL CIR.
4.
RI PLEY AV
1. MARYJOE LA.
2. TIERNEY AVE.
3. MEADOW DR.
4. RIPLEY AVE.
119 I 120
3
.Y MCKNIGHT LN
° � —
30
0 LARPENTEUR AVE.
' 169 312 573 515
d
�, IDAHO AVE.
Q
10,100 w
cn
- �NTANA AVE.
OD w
En
U
6 8 r
o
�.N
5 P I
I
1 MICHAEL L 0 R
2 REBECCA DR
W
EBRASKA , ����_�_���;��:.;••.:••.: `
I, 0
_
3 PINETREE DR
•... RAN
LANA-
OAKHILL CT z
. i
:�:`� ?'��::�• ANGELA CT
",'�'�`: cn
Jim --�
Proirie
lil
5 6 1 7 I �I>
I •Q
5 PINE TREE DR
` 6 BIRCHVIEW DR
r
_ IC EY L�J
7 ROLLING HILLS DR
ELKHEART LA L
I RHIN_DRD Q AVE.
�
LA � ) NT
gg L OYOT ANTELOPE WAY
o
w
� I
BISON 9 2 AMBERJACK LA
I- W 3 BEVERDAL.E RD
T �
z� = Z
w a Q w
2 4 4 BOBCAT LA
31 1 3 5 COUGER LA
a LL . v
- 4 4L J5 IW HAWrHORNE
0
AVE
E. MARYLAND AVE.
E.ROSE v o ST.
CC o
Nw Ltj
o cn AAVE.
o GERAN /G ��•
0
�O•
o
n � LAAI ,�, ,� A%/C' hAMr►�IIM
AREA TRAFFIC COUNTS
SITE (AVERAGE NUMBER OF VEHICLES — DAILY) N
i
82 Attachment 26
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
Z
PLAT SITE
;o
Ci
G
(10)
4W
2634-61
PROPOSED STREET VACATION
I
PROPERTY LINE MAP
PROPOSED STREET VACATION
...........
83 Attachment 27
4
ACORN GREENHOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
2322 -2386 MONTANA AVE. EAST
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55119
September 11, 1992
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
Associate Planner
Office of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Re: Neighborhood Survey /Proposed Oak Ridge (Gonyea) Development
On behalf of our twenty -eight resident families on Montana Ave., our Associ-
ation Board would l i k e to present the following concerns with regard to the
proposed Gonyea "Oak Ridge" development.
It appears that development of this area is inevitable; however, certain
changes should be made in the plan to control the amount of traffic which will
use Montana Ave.
According to the proposed plan., Montana Ave. will carry about two - thirds of
the traffic to and from the proposed 148 homes. Nebraska Ave., a street
parallel to and south of Montana Ave., will end at the pipeline and would
Carry traffic to only six home sites. Both Larpenteur and Montana Avenues
cross the pipeline -- Nebraska could also., thereby relieving some of the
unacceptable amount of traffic on Montana Ave. Heavy and light construction
equipment used to develop the project would also create a problem for several
years.
We feel that a provision for additional ingress and egress routes should be a
part of the plan. Putting Nebraska Ave. through could provide this.
We would appreciate your consideration of the above.
Sincerely,
Joa Norton
Board President
tf
84' Attachment 28
City of Maplewood,
September 10, 1992
Regarding the Neighborhood Survey on the Oak Ridge Development.
We are not in favor of this project. We would like to see that land left as it is. It
is such marshy land that it is wonderful for the wildlife. It would also make a
wonderful community park.
But knowing that will probably never happen, we would rather see it .zoned as
single- family residential versus multiple- family residential. When single -
family dwellings do go in it would be good if a playground area (shown on the
enclosed sheet) would be provided for our children in the area. We know
there is a playground off from Nebraska Ave. on outlet D, but it is hard to get to
and so far away for the children on Mary St., Idaho Ave. and Sterling St.
We would like to be informed as to what is going on and to progress.
Sincerely,
t J
Jeff & Celeste Loibl
1595 Mary Street
Maplewood, MN 55119
85
Attachment ttachment
SEP 2
City of Maplewood
Department of Planning
1838 E. Co. Rd.B
Maplewood, MN
Dear Planning Manager:
I live at 1581 N. Sterling St. My neighbors and I recently received
a questionnaire about the wooded area south of us to be purchased
by Gonyea Development Co.. We have deep sincere concerns about this
there is alot of wildlife back in this area. What.would become of
that? Also when we bought our homes we were told this was
protected land and if it was ever used it would be used as
parkland. Our other concern is the population in the 622 school
district. The area schools are to the maximum capacity right now,
with over population in the Middle School. Now with the threat of
combining North High with Tartan H igh scares us more. I think
people moved to the Maplewood Oakdale Area because we were truly
invited by the woodsy secluded area and to have our children in a
school that could accommodate a small intense. learning environment.
Now bring up the threat -of combining the high schools takes away
from the small school settings we had all hoped for. We didn't
want big number schools like White Bear West St. Paul, Simley and
so. on that. was again one of the beauties that brought us to the
area We don ' t think we need 157. homes in one of the last beautif u l
heavily wooded areas Maplewood has left. Thank you for taking the
time to read our concerns. Were hopping some of these concerns well
also be yours! Please advise us of any meetings on this situation,
for we. would be deeply interested. Please consider leaving this
land for the future. Take a walk through the trails on this
beautiful land and watch the animals and see if you can destroy
what wildlife and country setting that we have left.
Sincerely,
Pamela K. Simon
T.
S'
rnson
1581 S St.0
�- �1Z9
f xW r S- 1K -•
86- Attachment 30
December 2, 1992
Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner
Community Development Dept.
Maplewood, MN.
Dear Mr. Roberts:
We have reviewed
the revision of the Oak Ridge development presented by the Gonyea
Company Inc dated November 9, 1992.
• development has the po tential to create significant,
It i s our opinion that the . proposed de p Pa,
vironmental effects. We request that the city of Maplewood as the
irreversible, en Study to be
respons tal unit (RGU) order an Environmental Impact S y
ible Bove rumen
co mpleted b a other � the RG U, with the cost to be borne by the proposer.
y an $ enc y
RG U staff is an inadequate analysis of the issues
The EAW prepared in August of 1992 by . q •
s to address other otential issues For example, it assumed that control
descnbed and fail P
caused b storm water runoff' in this large, fragile area could be controlled
of soil erosion
by systems y y
ms currentl in use in Maplewood; they have proved to be inadequate; it gave no
consideration to a p etroleum p ipeline in the middle of the project; described a large,
inters P P Pe
in series of wetlands as an "isolated, non -DNR wetland "; failed to mention
threatened animal P spe cies al and p lant s cies on the property; assumed that animal, songbird, and
:
migratory water populations fowl would simply move to. some other part of the pro ject; and
did not co p •
consider the impact of the "future projects „ identified on the proposers plans.
-
Our request for an EIS is based on the following:
I
aSYpN ND EDIMENT TIt�hi N L: The proposed project has the
tl d estroy some or all of existing wetlands within the
likely potential to per y ,
boundaries b storm water runoff during the development period or accumulated
project bo y
tin after development. The wetland to be filled in the 'western part of the project is part
sil ting P
of a leng interconnected wetland extending from Montana St. on the North through to
Beav Lake. A pr op o sed street will run at ..Beau p Po night angles to the natural drainage, which, ,
even
with culverts will create a darn. Signif Meant runoff damage has been and is
occurring J S n areas ad'oinin the p roposed site: the protected DNR wetland 226 -W the
P
wetland north of Nebraska and East of Currie, and wetlands along McKnight Roa d at •
ka and enteur. The Ramsey County Soil and water Conservation District
Nebraska Larp
report describes P P�
' s the numerous steep sl o p es, in the project area and expresses concern for
erosion and sedimentation control The EAW also d the area as having many steep
slopes. Local controls of runoff and silting have not worked in these areas and it is not
reasonabl y e to believe that the will work in an area characterized by steep slopes.
II SOIL QUA.LLTY &SUITABILITY FOR I3UILD1NG: The Ramsey County Soil
and Water Conservation District response to the EAW recommended that to avoid future
development p roblems, as the result of inherent limitations of the soils resource, the city
p ment the
s hould require the developer to provi a site specific soils information detailing
sho q , , �
methods that will be utilized to overcome limitations to development It further states that
wetland soils are inherently unstable and unsuitable for development.
87 Attachment 31
0
1
An analysis of soil types to establish whether areas of the site a •
re unsuitable for building
should be made as the CS
WD recommends. Maplewood's.1988 attempt to build '
sewer within the project area South of Nebraska as related to us by a city official,
demonstrates the point. Core samples taken at one int on the
p property _caused the
engineers to estimate cost based on peat to a depth of three feet. The depth was hi
variable throughout the area from p highly
three to as much as thirty feet deep. The environ
hue quan nln ntal
impact caused by removing g quan es of peat should be studied.
III WATER TABLE: The water table ' •
in the project area is very close to the surface
6 feet. M '
estimated in the EAW to be approximately any of the ..existing. homes North and
South of Nebraska and along Myrtle Court suffer from wet b asements at the present time
and the owners are concerned about the otential for furthe •
. P er damage caused by tampering
with the natural flow of water through the neighborhood. Ma lewoo •
Engineering Dept. P d public o ffic i als and
the En
gi g p are aware of these problems. Homeowners North of La enteu
e x p eriencing � r
Ave. and East of McKnight Rd. are currently Y Pe acing substantial ,problems caused by
a rising r table where the city has approved building in wetlands
contemplated at Oak Rid • g such as is
contem
P Ridg Again, city officials are aware of the roblem. With
adjacent and one nearby evelo merit e P one
Y p ex periencing sub - surface water problems, the
potential for the same result in the Oak Ridge project should •
Exp erts in g P J obviously be considered.
E
xp Hydrology are needed for such an evaluation and an •
EIS would incorporate the
needed review.
IV THREATENED SPECIES: The Dept. of Natural tural Resources letter of comment
dated July 28, 1992, describes a state threatened species and a flow '
.: p flower species of special
concern- within the
proposed project boundaries. The issue of ecologically se •
resources was not addressed in the .EAW. � Y nsitive
The potential _impact on threatened or
endangered species normally requires an EIS. The evaluation •
so aluatlon of the impact must be made
b
y eone with qualifications, probably in the De artment of Nat ral Resources.
V WILDLIFE: As in IV above the imp act o •
� • P wildlife ex n wildlife and bird populations caused b
eopment should be evaluated by wildli experts. The EA Y
the devl e P � and the DNR comment
both acknowledg that the current populations of rabbits squirrels, de
foxes q de er, pheasants
migratory waterfowl ,
, , raccoons, 25 -30 species of identified songbirds lus re
animals and predatory birds will be driven from the P P y
area. This is a significant
environmental effect. We believe that the EAW is erroneo
populations will ous where it states that these
pop 1 simply move to some other part of the area. DNR •
representatives we have
conferred with express concern that most of these populations will be permanentl driven
from the area. Y
VI PETROLEUM PIPEL : A p etro leum .
pro In an area of steep p oleum pi pel i ne runs roughly through the middle
of the prot � e
ep slopes and soils of unknown quality. Potential
�' safety
issues must be addressed before roads and homes are built on slopes downhill from t
pipeline, or contractors move a ui merit he
. q p from one part of the site to the other over a
pipeline covered with only 18 inches of soil. A represe •
• .. e P entative from Williams Pipeline
stated to us that the soil in the vicinity of the pipeline was unstable .
� ,that when the vegetation
is removed from the
surface, it is quickly eroded by storm water. Again,
evaluation through an EIS is required,
g n, a competetent
..
• to you in response to the. EAW,
we resented most of these substantive issues y P
A a group, � r transmittal letter dated September 3, 1992. We
within the 3a day period specified in you o
have rece
• kind from y ou* To the best of our knowledge, n
received no response of :any k y • ,
• • ire an EI.S. The rules of the Environmental Review
decision has been made to requ us of the decision
� that the RGU respond to our .comments and advise .
Program requir
riles #4410.1600, EAw comment period, and
concerning an EIS.. Based on these .. been
• need for EIS we conclude that no formal decision has
#4410.1700, Decision on n 0,
• as been made to our substantive comments and the
made or communicated, no response h
• t is our o pion based on our discussions with and written
decision period is still open. I p ental imp
State County ar Federal agencies that -substantial environm Pa
commentary .from Y d must be initiated,
• this ro'ect and an Environmental I
w mpact Stu y
ill result from p )
ulti le adjacent landowners, but kindly respond to
This request is signed by m p )
Gerald F.& Joyce E. Moran
1472 Myrtle Court
Maplewood, MN. 55119
/�z
PHONE i
7 /
f-7 7 0
NAME ADDRESS
t ? A
c.
L 4�
c
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
a�.�� U J!o'�J p oP o�� 7 G %(, cG'v%Y�i� Vi�i�i!��"'^' - 'lv �� �Li.G °'"' c.. 70—Zq6l
7 7 0 �o o �
r7l
7,c( 0 7-�
kx—
Ism-
moll / /. T
In
--N6
0--f
90
AJ
(
�v fto V##�,
f7-
�
91
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
[ � � � f \ \. �
�'• fir'`/ , � 7 '�1��
r
i
t
l
r� 14 7r�
i
i 3O 00, 6
ON
,
�7
�. fir" �' - i y
IL �
-- 1
l
70 J
AIA
tAIC
t�
92
-7
CAP( ak
4o I k
6,;� 3
qXA oz---Omv 4WA00%l-j -�o te
P>'7 de4
�0?300
CLok&.
Fr
Dpn,�ct Mc �so"1
�6m a-
z37/ 160 �.1��(
Carne
1st
93
NAME
lAe
ADDRESS
���, �' y�Drr7ar�Q� �'`�
Ai
v
60Z
PHONE
7-77- �' '.a? O
mi r j� � ; . �-
L4
L
• 'L)zz� �t
--z 1 X ov
�- 3LI 9
oA7+�j A
L.
l7t7C - C
7 7 el' S--
7 '-73 - ooZc! . ' ,
t a 41
777 /��i
76
'01^
7 77 - 5 7i r I
94
U -.01 � 0
0 00'
21
4
ADDRESS
���, �' y�Drr7ar�Q� �'`�
Ai
v
60Z
PHONE
7-77- �' '.a? O
mi r j� � ; . �-
L4
L
• 'L)zz� �t
--z 1 X ov
�- 3LI 9
oA7+�j A
L.
l7t7C - C
7 7 el' S--
7 '-73 - ooZc! . ' ,
t a 41
777 /��i
76
'01^
7 77 - 5 7i r I
94
Lj
)
ry6 �c;>q
All
To
r TV li p
o oeo l o m
�j�f.� 4- � �� G✓ '23
4`y 5t
95
December 21, 1992
MINNESOTR WETLAND CONSERURTION ACT OF 1992•
"
Economic considerations alone do not justify
adue rrse actions .... ,
Ladies and Gentlemen, a
My name is Gerald F. Moran and I reside at 1472 Myrtle
Court, Maplewood, MN. Thank you for the opportunity
to respond to the Staff Report and to the Oak Ridge
Proposal, I am speaking on behalf of myself and my
wife, Joyce, and on behalf of e citizen's group
encompassing those persons whose names appear on
the petitions proulded to you.'
As e citizen's group,, we respectfully request that the
P require an Environmental lmDact
Ltatement for the Oak Ridge We have
provided substantive comment to the office of
Community Development, the City Council, the Mayor
and to you in numerous correspondence since
96 Attachment 32
Septe mbar, 1992 s toting that the p ropa$ed projec t has
the potential for significant enuironmentel effect.
With these comments and objections, we have met the
requirements for an EIS provided for under the EOD
Enuironmental Review Program .
Secondly, we citizen's group respectfully request that
you re lec t the ueriances requested bu the Ir000ser,
Those ueria nces refer to the zoning ordinance
regulating setback of buildings an lots and e ueriance
to the city fire code regulating the length of cul-de-
sac S.
Na h has been demonstrated to justify s
blanket setback ueriance, other than the proposer's
desire to increase unit density. This variance is not in
kee no with the soiri t and intent of the ordinance and
Mill hue iMpact on aroaerty usiues o f #hose eHis #ina
ho_
The 1500 foot c ul -de -sa c requested by the deueloper
will haue two cul-de-sacs branching Pram it and
constitutes e significant and potential public safety
threat to eHis ting and proposed homes in the eu ant of
fire, flood or e gas leak from the Williams Pipeline in
the immediate vicinity.
M
Rdditionally, the 1500 foot cul-de-sac will terminate on
a 20 to 30 degree slope. The present limit on city
street sloes is 8 degrees,
This variance, if approved, represents a compound
variance to the fire code and to the city street cads. It
also represents a significant hazard t*o the eK fisting
homes adjacent to the proposed development. This
variance is not in k9 with the spirit and intent of
the ordinance end oases e potential jQublic safetu
thr eat existing end araoosed homes.
XRCKGRDUND•
The Oak Ridge project proposer does not own this
Property but proposes to purchase it an e contingency
basis. He does not intend to build an this land, He
intends to rearrange the Ind with profit margin as his
motivation. And, hie is asking the City to modify, waiue
or change the zoning and fire codes tO allow him to do
just that,
It is important to keep in mind that the assurances the
City receives to protect the wetlands in the area are
from the PrODOser, not the myriad of builders and sub-
contractors who will eventually do the construe #ian.
The proposer his no nested interest in the area outside
of profit from selling building sites and will not be
around to police the builders. Moreover, the proposer
cannot bind builders to any agreement he makes with
the City.
The Deed restrictions described as protective elements
i the Staff Report are useless without e monitoring
system and sanctions for violation, At the present, the
C has no means of redress when e builder cuts trees
he wasn't supposed t-o cut, or damages wetlands he
wasn't supposed to effect. Pro tection after
deug does not e Kist in Mao lewood today,
We have heard many comments that the City is
concerned about being .sued if they don't allow the
proposer to develop the lend. lVe again coin# out that
the iprODOser is not the owner nor will he build on the
prop Moreover, the City has the right and the
obligation to maintain certain reasonable regulations
concerning property use and it also his an obligation
to the taHpaying homeowners to support and enforce
the eHisting code restrictions. We, as e group,
endorse and support the City in maintaining and
enforcing these regulations.
Our basis for asking you to approve an EIS is set out in
our request for an EIS dated December 2, 1992. A copy
of that document has been provided to you by mail.
would like to highlight several items and point out
discrepancies in the Staff Report recommendation that
an EIS is unnecessary,
It is important to remember in your deliberations, that
the ERW furnished to various agencies for review was
preoered bULthe er end, as such, is a self- serving
document. It is not an an objective statement of the
facts and gives e favorable to spin to whit the
proposer wishes to do in the arse.
In corroboration of this statement, the Department of
Natural Resources U re R ort, dated September 28, 1992,
states as followsl� "The DNR's analysis of this EAW MMWMMMM�
leads us to sues #ion the adeauecy of this document to
provide the information needed for the City of
MaMewoodg ReSDonsible Gouernmental Unit. to make
are informed decision on the associated iMDacts of this
100
aroject and the need for further environmental
re view."
"Our analUsi s of this pro as proDosed indicates
resource
imp
have not
been addressed
in the
planning
process
end, more
importantly, in
the EAW.
'.' However,, as 11remously stated. the BNR is concerned
that this document (EFIW) does not haue all the
information Maplewood mau need to meet the goals of
the-Minnesota Enuironmental Policu Act. (MEPA) and the
rules set forth by the E0B if 9 ".UeTc
STAFF REPORT:
The Planning Commission his been asked to epproue
the Oak Ridge Proposal based on e Staff Report.
However, we do not believe you can do so as the Staff
Report is mill ending with rage rd to the necessi ty of an
EIS; it omits significant comments from the Ramsey
Soil and Water Conservation District document dated
August 26, 1X92; it omits substantiue comments from a
large group of homeowners who did eKte nsiue research
into the ramifications of this proposed deuelopment; it
mis- states the content of s euerel documents attached
to the Report,
101
I
�h. The stiff report states that 4 agencies responded to
the ERW and that three agencies, the Mn. Historical
Society, the MN. Pollution C fi gency, end the
Metropolitan Council conclude that no EIS is required.
That is inaccurate for the following reasons.
1) .There is no Minn. Historical Society report as
referred to,
21 TheNilnn. Pollution Control Agency letter state
0 10 u�C
as follows: "Based an the information contained in the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. the
enuiranmentai analysis office staff believes that
significant enuiro nmental effects are unlikely to occur
as e result of the project, Therefore, the preparation
of an EIS does not O warranted." LL41 U 0 IL
fis indicated e boue, the ERW was prepared by the
proposer and the PC was responding to that document
only. The PCO respondent did not hue access to
comments of other agencies such as the DNR or Ramsey
Water and Soil Conseruation District. fidditionally, the
responding PCR party is concerned only with air quality
issues, not water quality issues.
102
3) The Metropolitan Council simply stated that
"the ERW is complete and accurate with respect to
regional concerns and raises no major issues under the
council system policies." V10� Metropolitan Council
addresses 9ion issues, nit local issues, therefore,
this is nat their jurisdiction. And, in fact, the letter of
October 5,, 1992, is critical of the ERW with respect to
sto rmwa#e r runoff,
Based on these facts, the statement made by the Stiff
Report that "three of the agencies did not feel there
was e need for an EIS" is misleading and not accurate..
An accurate statement is that an EIS is not
contraindicated by any of the Staff Report
at tech men# s.
Enuironmental Impact Issues are as follows@
103
SOIL EROSION RNO SEDIMEN11TION:
Soil erasion and sedimentation will have e substantive
environmental impact an this -site, and requires an
Environmental impact Study.
The history of control of wetland damage in
Maplewood has been poor. Within seuerel blocks in any
direction of the proposed development you will see
wetlands that are being destroyed in spite of the
regulations the Staff Report states will be used to
protect this site.
The fact is that the controls do not work because there
is no formal monitoring system in place; when
uiolatians occurr, the city has no redress. The only way
to protect the wetland is to prevent the initial
encroachment. flgain, arotect ion after deuelopment
does not exist in Maplewood todeu.
SOIL !RURLITY RNO 10111 TRBLE. a
The Ramsey foil and Water C District report
9 v OTC.
dated flugust 26, 1992 states as follows. The wetland
soils are found in la _e wetland comoleties and within
104
small isolated "oa# holes" within the site boundaries
The wetland sails are inherently unsuitable for
development and should be left in the wetland
condition. If wetland areas are to be developed, III
organic end unsuitable mineral soil materiel must be
removed and replaced with suitable mineral sail fill ":
and "Fine teHtured soils can be more sus le to
frost heaue,, changes with changes in soil
moisture con #ant, end oaor bearing strength. These
soli characte ristice should be assessed for each lot and
roadwa prior to site douelol2ment ".
The Ramsey Soil Ce Water Conservation District report of
December 17, 1992 states in part that: "This review is
conditioned on the ecceo tabili t!j of further reuis ions of
the plan which will be submitted to RWMW District at
thei r J meeti ng." end;
"The site presents unique aroblemsu ... "soils ere,
however, Mahig erodible ad!" to seueral
wetlands. This wilt require careful attention to erasion
control, " end;
"The fact menu
contractors
and veers of
time will be
inuolued before
this deuelopment
is completed
will
105
meke control of wetland encroachment a continuing
a and;
"It would certainly avoid problems end orouide e
unique area within en urban set tin if S we U be
found to keen this area in its natural state."
The fallowing is another example of the need for this
testing: The City of Maplewood made the decision to
instill e sanitary sewer an this site in 1988. A single
sail boring indicated 3 feet of peat end the project
proceeded based on this finding. However, there was a
considerable cost overrun due to the fact that the peat
depth was variable throughout the site, ringing from 3
feet to S depth of 30 feet.
Why sail testing? To insure reasonable quality in the
homes that are erected; to ensure that roa ds and
homes are built an stable sails and become stable
properties that add to the property values of the
neighborhood. A project of this magnitude on soils of
unknown stability represents e risk to the long term
viability of the project, e risk to neighborhood
property values, and makes control of wetland
encroachment e continuing problem.
p
And once again use point out that. the proposer will not
be ground to policy the builders, the City has no vehicle
far redress of violations nor do they have the stiff to
ensure compliance.
Water problems throughout the existing Caues Addition
are consistent with the EflW acknowl edgemen taf high
water tables. High water tables are e problem in
several other areas of Maplewood as well. Further
study is required to determine what the effects of
additional building on an already high water table will
be. The City of Maplewood is p resen #ly experiencing
difficulties in another neighborhood where building on
a high water table has further raised that water table
end damaged neighboring properties.
WILD THRERTENED SPECIES:
The ERIV completed by the proposer states that "the
d will drive wildlife to another area". To
_ the contrary, the ONR report of 9128142 states that
"deuE Iopment in this area will result in overall wildlife
population decline ". Under EQB rules, a substantetiue
issue such as this is enough to require an
Enuironmental Impact Study.
107
OTHER ISSUES:
Impact an already auercrowded schools, traffic
problems, police and fire protection was addressed in
this citizen's groups response dated September 13,
1992, and will not again be brought up at this time. A
copy of this document was prouided to the members of
the Planning Commission through your mail bOH at City
Hall. Howeuer, if you require additional copies, please
let me know.
co NC LU S ION•
In conclusion, we citizen's group request that the
Planning Commission of the City of Maplewood
recammend to the Citg Council that this project
proceed without an Enuironmental Impact Studg,
- EIS is required, as set out bg the EQB, by virtue of:
Impact an the wetlands;
Impact on endangered species of animal and plant
tife in the area;
_ Destruction of mature, 75 year old Oak and other
trees;
The DNR report dated September 28, 1X92;
Ramsey Soil and Water Conseruation District
reports dated August 26, 1992 and December 2, 1992;
not
R n
Soil Erasion and Sedimentation potential;
Impact on wildlife in the area including, but not
limited to, Owl, Red FOH, Pheasant, Deer, Woodchuck
and the bird POPulation,
in addition to the EQB, the City's own ordinances,
specifically, Article lHG "Enu ronmentei protection and
Critical Area" sets out guidelines and regulations that
must be followed with respect to "protecting
significant natural features which preserve the natural
character of neighborhoods, p rotect the health and
safety of residents, protect water quality. and preuent
erosion or flooding. There is precedence for the city
protecting arses where development would affect
significant natural features end where the protection
would save III or pert of a significant natural feature.
We request that the Planning Commission of the
City of Maplewood recommend to the Citg Council that
the ueriances as requested bg the proposer be denied:
_ A hardship an the pert of the proposer has not
been demonstrated that would occasion e blanket
setback variance. Reduced profit margin due to
decreased unit density is not e definition of hardship.
109
This variance is not in k the spirit and intent
of the ordinance,
A variance on the. Cul-de-Sac length would be a
compound uarien ce to the fire code end to the city
street code. The 1500 foot ul- c de -sic as proposed will
terminate on e 20 #0 30 degree slope wherein the
present limit on city street slopes is S degrees; and the
1500 foot proposed cul-de-sac will have two other cul-
de-sacs branching out from it with no through street in
the event of a disaster such as fire, e gas leek from
Williams Pipeline in t vicinity, or flooding.
ThIs would nose a
go-tential public ssfetu
1hreat to existing and grODosed homes. Further. it
not in keeping with the spirit end in
tent of the
Qrdin nce.
110
\� SIERRA
CLUB
January 6, 1993
JAN 14 .g3
Maplewood City Council
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Residential Subdivision - Oak Ridge Project (Witches Woods
Iwrww�� � •�w�wwwwrl � � �
Dear Council Members:
The St. Paul Group Sierra Club, Northstar Chapter ( "Sierra
Club ") submits the following comments concerning the need for an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) concerning the proposed Oak Ridge
Project. The Project Proposal provides for the construction of
approximately 141 single - family homes on a 117 . 8 acre site located
east of Larpentuer Avenue and north of McNight Road in Maplewood
The Site is currently totally undeveloped lands and consists of 65
acres of forest, 43 acres of wetlands, and 10 acres of brushland,
on hilly terrain. An EIS should be completed before this council
approves development of this precious habitat.
SIERRA CLUB
North Star Chapter
POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
The Sierra Club requests that the City require th preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS ") with respect to the
Proposed Project because the Proposed Project has the potential for
significant environmental effects, and additional information is
necessary before reaching a decision about the existence of
potential significant environmental impacts. The specific
potential significant environmental - impacts which warrant further
.investigation include:
110 The filling of wetlands,
2. The destruction- of forests and habitat without an on -site
survey of the Site's significant biological resources (including
rare and endangered species) or consideration of the effect of the
111
Attachment 33
qX9 1313 Fifth Street SE, Suite #323 •Minneapolis, MN 55414 • (612) 379.3853
Proposed Project on the biological diversity in the general area of
the Site.
3. The pollution and damage of wetlands by surface water
runoff, increased erosion, and alteration of the natural buffer
zone which surrounds the wetlands.
The need for an EIS is governed by the Rules of Minnesota. If
there exists a potential for "significant environmental effects,"
an EIS is required The criteria for determining whether a project
has the potential for significant environmental effects include.
A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental
effects;
8 cumulative potential of f ects of related or anticipated
future projects;
C. the extent to which the environmental effects are
subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory
authority; and
D. the extent to which environmental effects can be
anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or
the project proposer, or of E I S s previously prepared on
similar projects.
Minn. Rule. 4410.1700, Subd. 7.
The fact that the project proposes destruction of an
undeveloped oak forest, filling wetlands, and building 141 houses
on the perimeter of 43 acres of wetlands mandates a finding there
exists a potent_ 1 for. significant environmental impacts. The
criteria set forth above demand a n EIS for this project for the
following reasons: 1) the effects of the project are undeniably
irreversible; 2 ) no one has undertaken a comprehensive study of the
potential cumulative effects that this and related projects will
have on the Maplewood Community; and 3) once the project is
subdivided and sold to individuals owners there is virtually no
ongoing environmental regulatory authority to oversee protection of
this area. Accordingly an EIS should be ordered.
The concerns of at least two of the government agencies which
reviewed this proposal should be taken into consideration .n
determining whether there is a potential for significant
environmental effects. The D.N.R. offered the following comments
when reviewing the EAW on this project:
1) "Wildlife habitat will most likely disappear
from the developed part of this site into the
undeveloped part of the site [The EAW]
112
does not correctly express the outcome of the
habitat loss and the resulting displacement of
the wildlife that is presents This
displacement, because it forces wildlife to
compete with populations already present,
eventually results in an overall population
decline."
2)
"It is likely that the wetland fringe and
buffer areas will be diminished as future
property erty owners attempt to get more yard."
3 "We note that efforts have been • made to
minimize the amount of we g
} wetland filling which
is to be mitigated by the creation of 2
acres of new wetland. This fact is
appreciated, however we must note the
pp
scientific knowledge regarding the q uality and
succes of created wetlands is uncertain, and
one cannot assume that created wetlands
completely replace lost wetland values from
p y
eliminated natural systems. "
DNR Letter dated September 28, 1992.
The Ram se y Soil and Water Conservative District voiced the
.
following concerns over the project:
p
This
site resents unique problems. The soils involved
in and of themselves would not present a problem to
development. 7 The are, however, highly erodible nd
Y
located adjacent to several wetlands. This will require
careful attention to erosion control. The fact many
c Y
contractors and ears of time will be involved before
p
this
development is completed will make control of
wetland encroachment a continuing problem. The wetland
ares must be well established and marked in a permanent
and recognizable manner. Abutting property owners must
full informed on the restrictions and the reasons for
be y
their existence. Continual enforcement will be in the
property owners best interest as well as the interest of
owne
conservation in generals
it would certainly avoid d problems and provide unique area
within an urban setting if a way could be found to keep
this area in its natural state....
Letter fro m om Soil and Water Conservation District, Dec. 14, 19920
The prop project ect also. fails to take into consideration the
' �
cern over the protection and preservation of wetlands.
growing con p conclude without
It is unrealistic and overly optimistic to ,
113
further. study, that these 43 acres of wetlands will not be
significantly impacted by development of the bordering lands. The
filling of wetlands is prohibited by Federal and State law and is
to de done only as an issue of last resort. By Executive Order NO.
91.3 Governor Carlson ordered that destruction of wetlands is to
avoided, minimized, and mitigated. See also Minn. Stat.
143G1222(h). There has been little demonstrated need to destroy
any wetlands for this project.
Most importantly, the City should not accept the summary
conclusions of the Project Developer that the efforts to mitigate
will prove successful. Efforts at "mitigation" have an alarmingly
poor track record. In this case there needs to be additional study
undertaken to examine the following proposed mitigation efforts.
One, the adequacy of the proposed manmade wetlands should be
examined because the creation of wetlands remains an inexact
science. Two, the adequacy of the proposed ten foot "buffer zone"
.should be reexamined. Ten feet seems a rather small distance for
protection of the wetland, and more accurately reflects the
developer's attempt to squeeze as many lots as possible into
limited space. The City of Mohtemidi, for instance, requires a
seventy -five foot wetland "buffer zone," a figure which seems more
likely to protect the wetlands. Three, the enforceability of
"restrictive covenants" has not been addressed. By whom and how,
these covenants are to enforced is an issue which merits
considerable further review. Covenants are no substitute for
designing a project in a fashion which adequately protects the
wetlands from its inception, rather than relying on future
enforcement of some unknown covenant by an unknown entity at some
unknown time. Finally, the adequacy of the settling basins and
proposed erosions controls warrants further review.
A recent article in the Star Tribune echoed the concerns over
wetlands development, encroachment concerns and the failure and
uncertainty of mitigation effects, as noted by the following
excerpts:
Another wild card is "mitigation," a federal
requirement designed to replace wetlands lost
to development with new, man -made wetlands.
But such a requirement, which usually applies
only to projects that fill more than an acre
of wetland, doesn't guarantee good results.
Duplicating nature is an imperfect science,
follow -up checks are spotty and enforcement
penalties are rarely meted out. often,
mitigation has resulted in the scooping of a
hole out of the ground - wetland in name only.
Studies to find out how mitigation is working are
underway. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which
can veto Corps of Engineers wetlands permits, recently
114
awarded the Minnesota office of the National Audubon
Society a grant to perform one such study. It will take
four years.
But unofficial observations reveal that there
are plenty of problems with mitigation, Paul
Burke, a wildlife biologist with the Twin
Cities field office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, has viewed as many as 100
mitigation sites in the Twin Cities in the
past five years. He said about one - quarter of
the efforts were poor or non - existent, and
another quarter were good. The remaining half
were somewhere in between, he said.
And mitigation remains unproven, more art than
science. The idea that humans can duplicate
nature's handiwork in less than a fraction of
nature's time has created plenty of skepticism
about mitigation's value, even among federal
and state officials.
Another concern is that the new state law is
being administered by cities, putting them in
the position of regulating the very
development they're trying to attack. Not
surprisingly, with as many as nine different
agencies weighing in on a single wetland,
things have often gone awry.
Star Tribune, January 3, 1992, pages 1, 12-13*
In addition, an EIS should be required because the information
provided with respect to substantive categories in the EAW are
incomplete and deficient, The EAW does not adequately identify the
type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects of the
Proposed Project or the impact of the Proposed Project on the
environment of the Greater Maplewood community. For these reasons,
Sierra Club requests the City to require the preparation of an EIS
to thoroughly and critically investigate and describe the
environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.
. The following sections of the EAW do not adequately consider,
the potential for significant environmental effects of the Proposed
Project:
Project Description. The description of the Proposed Project
is inadequate and insufficient. It is a cursory description of
that the site will look like when complete and not discuss the
impacts, physical manipulation or waste that will occur when the
proposed project goes forward. It does not discuss the
construction and operation methods and inaccurately describes the
115
timing and duration of the construction activities . Therefore, it
fails to accurately inform the public of the substantial impact the
proposed project could present.
Land Use. There is no discussion of the compatibility of the
Proposed Project with adjacent and nearby land use as required by
the EAW. This omission is particularly significant in light of the
proximity to adjacent wetlands, open space, a golf course, and
other undeveloped acreage which may be impacted by the development.
Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources, The EAW
states that "wildlife habitat (squirrels, rabbits, deer, and other
small game) will most likely disappear into the undeveloped
part of the site." There is no description of what "other small
game could be. There is no discussion of how the Proposed Project
will affect the wildlife resources on or near the site. Obviously.
the Proposed Project will result in the loss of most of the
wildlife on the land. There should be an investigation into the
wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources that live within the
Site and the impact of the Proposed Project. This property is
.important because it is one of the last forests in Ramsey County
containing both valuable wetlands and an oak forest.
Permits. There is no discussion concerning the need for any
D.N.R. permits.
Soils. The discussion and description of the soils is
incomplete. A survey should be done to give an accurate
description of what will be .impacted by the proposed construction,
Erosion, drainage, and other factors need to be addressed in the
EIS*
Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff, The EAW does not
address the quality of the site runoff before and after the
Proposed Project. There should be a detailed comparison of the
quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project.
The issue of encroachment of the wetlands needs to be carefully
studied. The effects of the runoff of fertilizers, chemicals , etc.
on the wetlands should be investigated, and the effects on the
wetlands flora and fauna of the increased quantity of runoff, and
the change in the quality of the lawn and street runoff which is to
be directed into the wetlands. In addition, additional research
should be directed to study whether filling wetlands,, constructing
buildings, and paving surfaces will ,impact water surface
elevations . The EAW improperly concludes that the project will not
effect surface water elevations. This conclusion is without
support and is undoubtedly incorrect.
In addition, the EAW was not properly published as required by
law. See Minn Rule 4410.1500(B). It was not sent to a newspaper
of "general circulation" for publication, but was only provided to
a local paper of limited circulation ( Maplewood Review available
116
only by subscription, with a circulation of. only a few thousand
residents More importantly, it did not event published
Failure to provide public notice of the EAW warrants
reconsideration of the environmental process, which will be at
least be mitigated by requiring an EIS
Finally, the time limit for rendering a decision on the E IS
has passed. Minn Rule 4410.170.0, Subp._2 (A). requires that the
decision be made within 30 days. after the close of the eaw comment
review period, which presumably closed several months ago. The
failure to follow the publication and time limits rules for this
environmental rev process may be partially mitigated by
requiring an E IS on this protect.
The Sierra Club urges the Maplewood City Council to . order the
completion of an EIS on this project. As the Responsible
Government Unit, the City Council has an overriding responsibility
to make sure that the proposed project is carefully analyzed before
it is approved, and .before irrevocable damage is done to the
environment. This is one of the few large remaining wetland areas
in the.area. It is a unique resource that is.ranked as the most
desirable open space in the City. The beauty of the site will be
destroyed by the proposed project. The ponds, swamps, wildflowers
and wildlife which make up the scenic urea. will vanish. The
wetlands, forests, and wildlife will be adversely effected by this
project, S ince this project raises the potential for irreversible
significant environmental eff ects, an EIS is required for the
project
Sincerely,
Ron Williams
C t,�
117
(jf� Oak Rid Development g oes throu the Maplewood Parks and Recreation
�B epartment is proposin to purchase land bo put a pla ri next to the railroad
trac across from the grain facilit Maplewood would be puttin our children at risk b
drawin the children to pla near the tracks. We believe this location would be unsafe
and irresponsible and would put Maplewood at risk of law suit should an accident occur.
This petition is against havin a pla b the railroad tracks.
J od.& Szo
20
30
r
4. ��i f t � � �4 l , .l � �` /(r -� r. ;�c. /_ � /��- e
`LYJ� �� it
�l -
5.
60
02t
ew-o.
70 -woe
84,
100
90 Iyro
r � �
%Ool
100
c �
11. � /�� � ljN��'z' / ��?a�l� - nom
Ile
120
718 Attachment 34
130 _ � ,_
iL
140
1 5.
11
f
16. Chu; n1fc;�£� m � ..,,,,;�
f�
18, � C Sk
200 / 58 X 73
22a 77 o:� '107
230 izi;z
� 't.Gl .1 A
240
25* � ,��p�J� ,yC�,do�
260
27
D,i,� oB�:
I the Oak Ridge Development goes through, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation
apartment is proposing to purchase land to put a playground right next to the railroad
tracks across from the grain facility,, Maplewood wd uid be putting our children at risk by
drawing the children to play near the tracks. We believe this ocation would be unsafe
and irresponsible and would put Maplewood at risk of law suit should an accident occur.
This petition is against having a playground by t tracks.
I'Ile
l
346
Uj
1-kI
)
120 S�eYZ,�i•.� �
SG.Y..�s
PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Gonyea Company, Inc. requested a change to the City's land use plan
from R -3M (residential medium density) and OS (open space) to R -1 (single dwellings)
and OS (open space).
WHEREAS, this change applies to property located east of McKnight Road,
between the Chicago Northwestern Railroad and the Hoyt Avenue right -of -way. (PIN -
24 -29 -22.24 -0010)
.WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 21, 1992.
City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent
notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The
Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and
present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council approve the plan amendment.
20 The City Council discussed the plan amendment on January 19, 1993.
They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commis-
sion and City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described change as shown in the staff report presented at the meeting. The Council
approves this change for the following reasons:
1. The developer is proposing to develop the site for single dwellings.
2. Single dwellings would be more compatible than multiple dwellings with
the homes to the north of the site.
3. This change would reduce the allowable density and traffic from this site.
Adopted on , 19930
Attachment 35
121
RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE
WHEREAS, the Gonyea Company, Inc. requested changes in the zoning map
from R -3 (multiple dwellings) and M -1 (light manufacturing) to R -1 (single dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located east of McKnight Road
between the Chicago Northwestern Railroad and the Hoyt Avenue right -of -way. (PIN
24- 29 -22 -24 -0010)
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve the change.
2. The City Council held a public hearing on January 19, 1993. City staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave
everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written
statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations
from the City staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described change in the zoning map for the following. reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of
the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use
of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and
that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed
change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical,
efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as
public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
5. It would be consistent with the proposed development and with the
proposed land use change.
Adopted on , 19930
Attachment 36
122
SUBDIVISION CODE VARIA110N RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Gonyea Company, Inc. requested two variations from the
subdivision code.
WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Oak Ridge Development that is east
of McKnight Road and north of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad.
WHEREAS, the legal description for this property is:
That part of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, described as follows:
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, EXCEPT that part platted as
CAVES LAKEWOOD SECOND ADDITION,
That part of the .Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter which he northerly of the Chicago, St. Paul, Mpls. and Omaha R/R,
That part of the South 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter lying northerly of the
Chicago, St. Paul, Mpls. and Omaha R/R, and westerly of a line drawn from a
point on the north line of said south 1/2 distant 910.2 feet west of the westerly
ROW line of Century Avenue, to a point on the northerly ROW line of said R/R,
distant 1043.58 feet southwesterly of the westerly ROW line of Century Avenue,
and there terminating.
City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Section 30 -8 (b) (3) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires
developers to limit cul -de -sacs to 1,000 feet in length, unless no other alternative is
possible.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing cul -de -sacs of 1,500 feet long for
Arlington Avenue (east of McKnight Road) and 1,340 feet for Myrtle Street.
WHEREAS, this requires variations of 500 feet and 340 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of these variations is as follows:
1. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council deny the variations.
Attachment 37
123
1
2. The Cit Council held a public hearin on Januar 1.9., 1993. Cit staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review .and sent notices to the
surroundin propert owners as required b law, The Council g ave
ever at the hearin a chance to speak and present written statements.
The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the Cit
staff and Plannin Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cit Council approve the above-
described variations, because:
1. 1 0
The variations will save an existin wetland and a woodlot with -fort
lar trees.
2. The Cit approved a similar variatio for two cul-de-sacs in the Budd
Kolb Second Addition.
Adopted on 19930
124
SUBDIVISION CODE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Gonyea Company, Inc. requested a variation from the subdivision
code.
WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Oak Ridge Development that is east
of McKnight Road and north of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad.
WHEREAS, the legal description for this property is:
That part of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, described as follows:
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, EXCEPT that part platted as
CAVES LAKEWOOD SECOND ADDITION,
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and the .Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter which he northerly of the Chicago, St. Paul, Mpls. and Omaha RJR,
That part of the South 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter lying northerly of the
Chicago, St. Paul, Mpls. and Omaha R/R, and westerly of a line drawn from a
point on the north line , of said south 1/2 distant 910.2 feet west of the westerly
ROW line of Century Avenue, to a point on the northerly ROW line of said R/R,
distant 1043.5.8 feet southwesterly of the westerly ROW line of Century Avenue,
and there terminating.
City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Section 30 -8 (b) (3) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires
developers to limit cul -de -sacs to 1,000 feet in length, unless no other alternative is
possible.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a cul -de -sac 1160 feet long for Montana
Avenue.
WHEREAS, this requires a variation 160 feet.
Attachment 38
125
WHEREAS, the histor of this variation is as :follows
The Cit Council held a public hearin on Januar 19, 1993. Cit staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surroundin property
owners as re b law. The Council g ave ever at the hearin a chance
to speak and present written statements.. The Council a lso considered reports
and recommendations from the City staff and Plannin Comrm'ssion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cit Council approve the above-
described variation, because:
1. There is no practic alternative.
2. The cul-de-sac len will be reduced when the propert to the north is
developed.
Adopted on )1993.
126
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Gonyea Company, Inc. requested a variance from the zoning ordinance for all
the lots in the Oak Ridge Development. This development is east of McKnight Road and north
of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad.
WHEREAS, the legal description for this property is:
That part of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, described as follows:
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, EXCEPT that part platted as CAVES
LAKEWOOD . SECOND ADDITION,
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, the Northeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter, and the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter which lie
northerly of the Chicago, St. Paul, Mpls. and Omaha R/R,
That part of the South 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter lying northerly of the Chicago, St.
Paul, Mpls. and Omaha R/R, and westerly of a line drawn. from a point on the north line
of said south 1/2 distant 910.2 feet west of the westerly ROW line of Century Avenue, to
a point on the northerly ROW line of said R/R, distant 1043.58 feet southwesterly of the
westerly ROW line of Century Avenue, and there terminating.
City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Section 36 -70 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires a front -yard
setback of at least 30 feet for single dwellings.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a front -yard setback of 20 to 25 feet.
WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 5 to 10 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve this variance.
2. The City Council held a public hea-mg on January 19, 1993. City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportu-
nity to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports
and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission.
Attachment 39
127
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve a variance of up to
ten. feet for the minimum front yard setbacks in this plat.
The City should approve this variance because:
1. The amount of significant natural features on this site create a hardship that is
unique to this property.
2. Approving this variance would preserve large trees that would be lost without the
variances.
341 This variance would allow .a wetland buffer strip.
4. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance, since most of the lots
would have similar setbacks.
This variance shall not apply unless the following conditions are met:
1. The reduced setback is needed to avoid the loss of large trees or encroachment on
the wetland buffer strip.
2. There must be at least 75 feet of lot width at the building setback line (Code
requirement).
3. There shall be no more than a five -foot difference between adjacent front setbacks,
unless approved under the provisions of Section 36 -70..
Adopted on 1 1993.
128
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Gonyea Company, Inc. requested that the City vacate the following
described street: the. undeveloped Hoyt Avenue right -of -way, between Sterling Street and
Glendon Street.
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
1. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve this vacation.
2. The City Council held a public hearing on January 19, 1993. City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting property owners as required
by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and
Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, after the vacation is approved, public interest in the property will accrue to
the following abutting properties: Lots 10 -18, Block 2, Bradley oaks Addition, Maplewood
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above -
described vacation because it is in the public .interest. It is in the public interest because:
1. The adjacent properties would be better served by other streets.
2. To construct Hoyt Avenue, the City would have to fill a wetland and construct a
new wetland to compensate for the filling.
This vacation is subject to the retention of a drainage and utility easement over the right-
of-way.
Adopted on ) 1993.
Attachment 40
129
CODE VARIAnON RESOLt7TION
WHEREAS, the Gonyea Company, Inc. requested a variation from the City Code.
WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Oak Ridge Development that is east of
McKnight Road and north of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad.
WHEREAS, the legal description for this property is:
That part of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, described as follows:
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, EXCEPT that part platted as CAVES
LAKEWOOD SECOND ADDITION,
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, the Northeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter which lie
northerly of the Chicago, St. Paul, Mpls. and Omaha R/R,
That part of the South 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter lying northerly of the Chicago, St.
Paul, Mpls. and Omaha R/R, and westerly of a line drawn from a point on the north line
of said south 1/2 distant 910.2 feet west of the westerly ROW line of Century Avenue, to
a point on the northerly ROW line of said R/R, distant 1043.58 feet southwesterly of the
westerly ROW line of Century Avenue, and there terminating.
City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, Section 29- 52(a)(9) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that
local residential streets shall be 32 feet in width, measured between faces of curbs.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing 28- foot -wide streets.
WHEREAS, this requires a variation five feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows:
The City Council held a public hearing on January 19, 1993. City staff publishes? a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as
required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to spew. and
present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations
from the City staff and Planning Commission.
Attachment 41
130
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described variation, with the condition that there shall be no parking on one side of the streets
and the developer shall pay the City for the cost of no parking signs.
Adopted on 2 1993.
131