Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 03-04 Special MeetingAMENDED AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CO ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA EA. PRESENTATIONS F. CONSENT AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M., Thursday, March 4, 1993 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Special Meeting G. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Maple Woods Estates Second Addition a. Environmental Impact Statement b. Land Use Plan Change: R -3M to R -1 & OS (4 Votes) c. Land Use Plan Change: Sterling St. (4 Votes) d. Zoning Map Change (4 Votes) e. Street Vacation: Ripley Ave. (4 Votes) f. Street Vacation: Sterling St. (4 Votes) g� h. Preliminary Plat Code Variation - Streets H. AWARD OF BIDS I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS J. NEW BUSINESS K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS L. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. 2, 3. 40 M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. N. ADJOURNMENT MEMORANDUM To: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Maple Woods Estates Second Addition DATE: February 24, 1993 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Mr. Roger Kolstad, representing North Suburban Development Inc., is proposing to develop lots for 49 homes. The name of the project is Maple Wood Estates Second Addition. This development would be on a 31.6 -acre site that is south of Ripley Avenue, between McKnight Road and Sterling Street. (See the maps on pages 24_ and 29.) North Suburban is requesting that the City do the following: 1. 2. 3. Determine if the City should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Change the City's land use plan map as follows: a. Change the land use classification from R -3M (residential medium density) to R -1 (single dwellings) and OS (open space). (See the maps on pages 25 and 26.) b. Drop the minor collector designation for Sterling Street, between Larpenteur Avenue and Holloway Avenue. The City staff is recommending that the Council drop the minor collector designation on Sterling Street, south of Larpenteur Avenue. Change the zoning map for this site. This change would be from F (farm residential) to R -1 (single - dwelling residential). (See the map on page 24.) 4. Approve the following street vacations: a. The part of Ripley Avenue right -of -way that is 150 feet east of Lakewood Drive. (See the map on page 27.) b. The part of the Ripley Avenue right -of -way between Currie and Myrtle Streets. (See the map on page 27.) C. The west one -half of Sterling Street from a point that is 120 feet south of the North Saint Paul border to a point that is 350 feet south of the North Saint Paul border. The developer is proposing to build a cul -de -sac at this point. This would make Sterling Street adead -end street from the north. (See the map on page 28.) 5. Approve a preliminary plat for 49 homes. (See the proposed plat on page 29.) 6. Approve a variation from the City Code to reduce the required street width from 32 feet to 28 feet (measured from gutter to gutter ). BACKGROUND March 2, 1992: The Maplewood Planning Commission held a public hearing about this proposal. This hearing included a proposed land use plan change, street vacations on Ripley Avenue, a preliminary plat for fifty lots and a zoning map change. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal subject to several conditions. These included having the developer prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project. The Commission also recommended that the Council order a feasibility study for the improvement of Sterling Street between Larpenteur Avenue and the North St. Paul border. (See the minutes on page 184.) March 23, 1992: The City Council held a public hearing and tabled this project until the City competed an EAW. DISCUSSION Environmental Assessment Worksheet The developer prepared the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) at the request of the City Council. (See the EAW on page 35.) The State does not require an EAW until there are at least 250 detached homes. The purpose of the EAW is to gather information about the potential environmental impacts of a project. The City is to use this information to determine if the City should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The City sent the EAW to thirteen Federal, State and regional agencies and to several neighbors. We received eight written replies. There were several suggestions for changing the project. Neighbors of the project site wrote two of the comments. Both neighbors want the property to stay undeveloped. They want to preserve the wildlife, woods and wetlands. The Minnesota Historical Society stated there are no known historic properties and a low probability of unreported historic properties on the site. (See their letter on page 56.) 2 The Metropolitan Council had two recommendations about the project. These are to pre - settle storm water before it discharges into the wetlands and require a twenty -foot "no- impact" buffer zone around the wetlands. (See their letter on page 57.) There is a proposed staff reply on page 58. We will send this letter after the Council decides about the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) stated, "the Environmental Analysis office staff believes that significant environmental effects are not likely to occur as a result of this project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not appear warranted." The MPCA also had several comments about wetland impacts, a storm water permit and surrounding land uses. (See their letter on page 60 and a proposed staff reply on page 62.) The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requested clarification about the information in the EAW and had several comments about wetland impacts. Another concern of the DNR was about the impacts on wildlife. They felt that the EAW was not complete in describing these impacts. (See their letter on page 65 and a proposed staff reply on page 67.) Since the DNR wrote this letter, a consultant for the developer provided the DNR with additional information about the project. After they received this information, the DNR wrote the developer's consultant on January 11, 1993. The DNR said "our review indicates the changes proposed in your letter of December 2, 1992, adequately addresses our concerns associated with this project." (See the letter on page 71.) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had several specific comments about the proposed development. They also had several comments that a person could use for any proposed development. As with other agencies, their biggest concern was about the impacts that the project would have on the wetlands. (See their letter on page 72 and a proposed staff reply on page 76.) The last set of comments that the City received about the EAW were from the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. They have requested that the City require the developer to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. They feel that an EIS is necessary because they believe that the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental impacts. (See their letter on page 79 and a proposed staff reply on page 116.) In review of the comments the City received about the EAW, five of those submitted had a concern about protecting the wetland. In fact, wetland impacts of the proposed project were the main concern of the Met Council, MPCA, the DNR and EPA. The developer is preserving the wetlands and most of the trees. They also are giving the City a 2.8 -acre outlot (park) and a 6.6 -acre outlot around the pond. The City, through its plat conditions, policies and plan reviews, can insure that the project would not 3 cause significant environmental effects. Staff is also recommending several conditions, such as wetland buffer areas with covenants, to address their comments. We received most of the letters about this project in October 1992. Since then, the developer has changed the project to address the concerns of those who commented. The changes included adding a sedimentation basin to treat storm water runoff and proposing a buffer area around the wetlands. The developer also hired a consultant to address the EAW concerns and hired another consultant to do a habitat study for Blanding's turtles. Environmental Impact 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) staff, told me that an EIS takes nine to twelve months to complete and costs at least $100,000. He also said that only one out of 120 EAWs go to an EIS and that very few cities require EISs for residential projects. It is very difficult for the developer of a 49 -lot subdivision to justify the time and cost 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. 2. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by public regulatory authority. Staff feels that the developer has adequately addressed the environmental issues. We base this on the changes to the plans, the EAW, the comments from agencies and special interest groups and the staff report. The developer could build the proposed project so it would not cause significant environmental effects. An EIS is unnecessary and may be cost - prohibitive for the developer. On January 25, 1993, the City Council determined that the proposed Oak Ridge project did not need an EIS. This project was for 128 lots for single dwellings on 118 acres. Land Use Plan Changes R -3(M) to R -1 An advantage of this proposal is that the developer would build a project for single dwellings instead of multiple dwellings. The current land use plan on page 25 shows 4 this site planned for R -3M (residential medium density) uses. This designation is for double dwellings, town houses and small apartment buildings. The proposed R -1 (single dwellings) land use designation is primarily for single dwellings. I have shown this change in the map on page 26. The homes to the north of this site are also shown as R -1 on the land use plan. A concern of some neighbors is the increased traffic from this project. The proposed land use plan change would benefit the existing neighborhood by reducing the allowed density on the site. This means there would be less traffic than if the property developed according to the current land use plan. The proposed project would have 0:11:4-1-11 .55 units per acre or 49 homes. The current R -3M designation would allow up to 9.5 apartments per acre or 300 units. Sterling Street If the City vacates Sterling Street, the Council should drop the minor collector designation on Sterling Street from Larpenteur Avenue to Holloway Avenue. Regardless of the decision to vacate Sterling Street, the Council should drop the minor collector designation on Sterling Street, south of Larpenteur Avenue. This is a local street intended for the use of adjacent residents. Street Vacations Ripley Avenue There is no public need for two parts of the Ripley Avenue right -of -way on the north side of this plat. The developer would dedicate new streets with the plat. The City does not plan to build any more of Ripley Avenue in this area. The developer would use the right -of -way that is 150 feet east of Lakewood Drive for an extension of Ripley Avenue. The south half of the part of Ripley east of the extension would become part of Lot 12, Block 3 in the proposed plat. The north half would go to the school property to the north. The developer would dedicate the south half of the vacated right -of -way, west of Myrtle Street, for park. The north half of this right -of -way would go to the owner of 1807 Myrtle Street and the City (Hillside Park). This would allow the owner of 1807 Myrtle Street to expand without having to provide a 30 -foot setback from Ripley Avenue. The City should keep an easement for trail and park access for the existing trail on this right -of -way. Sterling Street Vacating Sterling Street is a controversial part of this project. On March 16, 1992, the City received a petition from sixteen residents on Knoll Circle and Sterling Street to close Sterling Street. (See the petition on page 176.) Several people at the March 23, 5 1992 hearing spoke against it. The developer has designed his plat with Sterling Street closed. He is proposing to build a cul -de -sac that would be south of the North Saint Paul border. The part of Sterling Street that is next to the plat is a substandard, gravel street. The standards for a City street include bituminous pavement and concrete curb and gutter. This section of Sterling Street has the highest per foot maintenance cost of any street in the City. There are three alternatives for Sterling Street: (I put them in order of preference.) 1. Vacate the west half of Sterling Street by Lot 3 and let the developer build the proposed cul -de -sac. The City would then only maintain the gravel surface by the Hill- Murray fields. The City should require that the developer build an asphalt path from the cul -de- sac to Larpenteur Avenue to allow for pedestrian and bicycle access. 2. Require a permanent through street for the developer's three lots and leave the rest gravel This is not a good alternative if the Council intends to build the rest of Sterling Street in the future. The developer will be constructing utilities in Sterling Street for his plat. Building Sterling Street then would be more cost effective than doing it in the future. If the Council chooses Alternative 2, they should require that the developer dedicate right -of -way at the end of the permanent street. This would give the City the option of building a permanent cul -de -sac bulb in the future. 3. Build a permanent street from North St. Paul to Larpenteur Avenue. Building Sterling Street may not be practical. It would be very expensive. The City could probably not sustain assessments to the adjacent properties if the City built the street. Building the street would require a DNR wetland filling permit and wetland mitigation. Under the new wetland rules that start this summer, the City would have to show there are no possible alternatives for filling part of the wetland. The DNR may deny the permit. From an environmental standpoint, it would be better to abandon this part of Sterling Street and return it to wetland use. If the Council chooses Alternative 3, they should order a feasibility study. The developer would need this project to start his utility work. 6 Preliminary Plat Deadline for Plat Approval State law normally would have required the City to act on this plat application by November 14, 1992. The developer approved a time extension until March 12, 1993. This plat review has taken longer than usual because of the EAW process and the issues raised by other agencies, special interest groups and residents. If the City Council decides to order an EIS and approve the preliminary plat, the EQB requires that the Council add three conditions. I have not included these conditions in the recommendation because I am not recommending an EIS for this project. The Council would have to add the following conditions to those on page 17: 8. This approval does not prevent the City from imposing changes in the project or mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid environmental impacts that the EAW shows, comments received on the EAW, the EIS or comments received on the EIS. 9. Complete an EIS according to State rules. 10. This approval does not prevent the City from choosing another alternative design or a "no -build alternative" over the proposed project because ' of environmental reasons consistent with State law. Wetlands and Drainage There are several wetlands on this site. Proposed Outlot A on the plat covers most of the large pond on the east side of the site. The. State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protects this pond. The developer is proposing to keep these wetlands. The developer is proposing a .sedimentation basin to protect the water quality of the large wetland. Storm water run -off will first enter the sedimentation basin before going into the wetland in Outlot A. The sedimentation basin will allow materials suspended in the water to settle out before the storm water goes into the wetland. The City Council should require the developer to dedicate Outlot A to the City. Additionally, the City should require the following to help protect the wetlands: 1. Have the developer record covenants against the lots next to the wetlands. These covenants would inform the property owners about the wetlands and the rules for protecting them. 2. "No- impact" buffer zones of twenty to fifty feet and twenty -foot building setbacks around all wetlands. The buffer zones would keep the areas around the i� wetlands natural and undisturbed. The buffer zones and building setbacks would help protect the wetlands from the effects of urban development such as filling, mowing and run -off. 3. Permanent signs around the edge of the buffer zones. These signs would mark the edge of the buffer zones. Soils The Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District gave the City the following comments about this project. They noted there are two soil types on the site. The first is the Urban land - Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 ' percent slopes. The Kingsley soils unit is well suited to development if soil erosion and run off from the urbanized areas can be controlled. Also, wet basements can be a problem in lower lying areas if not properly drain tiled. The second soil type on this site is Aquolls and Histosols, ponded. This soil type is usually organic and usually ponded year round. This soil is very poorly suited to development. On this site, this soil is in and near the large wetland on the east side of the plat. This soil would not be a problem for the proposed development. This is because the developer is not proposing to change the wetland or develop house sites near the wetland. The Soil Conservation District summarized their comments with "the site should prove feasible for the proposed development." The City Engineer commented that the developer will build and complete the streets and utilities and then will turn them over to the City. The City requires soil borings and a soil engineer's report during the final design of the streets and utilities. The City Engineer will require the developer to address any unsatisfactory soil conditions on the construction plans. In addition, the City Engineer must approve the construction plans before the developer starts construction. Trees The plan on page 30 shows groups of large trees (8 inch or greater in diameter) scattered throughout the site. Most of these trees are cottonwoods located on the eastern one half of the site near the large pond. The Cites tree ordinance does not protect cottonwoods. There are also about 125 large oak trees on the property. The proposed grading plan does a good job of working around the existing large trees. The plan shows the developer would remove 92 large trees. 90 of these trees are cottonwoods. The City Engineer told me that the tree plan the developer submitted does, not count all the trees that the proposed grading would remove. The developer should submit to staff a revised tree plan that accurately reflects the effects of the proposed site grading. However, the proposed lot layout should help to preserve most of the large trees on the site. Utilities The developer is proposing to connect the sanitary sewer in the new Ripley Avenue to the existing sanitary sewer at the intersection of Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue. The developer is proposing this connection between Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 and along the south side of Outlot A to Sterling Street. This sewer line would be in a utility easement between Lots 3 and 4, Block 3. Parks and Open Space Many of the neighbors stated they prefer to keep this whole property for open space or a park. In 1992, the Maplewood Open Space Committee rated this site 19th out of the 66 sites that they studied. The City would have to buy this property to keep it as open space. The City has not included this site in its park acquisition plan. The City is considering a bond issue for the purchase of open space. The City has not yet developed a specific plan for the amount of the bond issue or which sites the. City would purchase. The City will be acquiring parts of this site for open space. The City is requiring the developer to give the City about 6.6 acres for the pond on Outlot A. The developer is proposing to give the City about 3.7 acres for park land. There are two areas that the developer proposes to give the City for park purposes. The first area is 2.85 acres in the center of the plat that the plans show as park and Outlot B. This area is along the Great Lakes pipeline from Ripley Avenue to the south and north of the south property line. This land also includes a 20- foot -wide strip between Lot 7, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3. This strip would provide access for the residents on the new Ripley Avenue to the proposed park. The second area the developer is proposing to give to the City is on the north side of the plat. It is between Myrtle Street and McKnight Road along the Ripley Avenue alignment. This area is about 38,200 square feet (0.87 acres). It provides a wider public access to McKnight Road and Hillside Park next to the existing City trail. These two areas would give the apartment residents to the south access to Hillside Park and McKnight Road rather than going through private yards. These two areas also would provide walking paths for the current residents. Many of these residents say they are now using this property for walking and observing the wildlife and the wetlands. Trails in these locations would be consistent with the trail concept that the City approved with the 1969 PUD plan for this area. It is also consistent with the bicycle /trails map in the Comprehensive Plan. (See the maps on pages 33 and 34.) 9 Trails The developer should construct trails to allow pedestrian and bicycle circulation within and through the development. I have described the specific trails on page 15 of the staff recommendations and show there on the map on p a g e 32. The City should require the developer to build these trails with the streets in the development. This is so the new property owners see the trails when they consider buying a lot. The City has had problems before when putting in trails in other developments after the owners build and occupy their homes. (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. Pipeline A Great Lakes pipeline runs southeast to northwest across the middle of the site. This is in outlot B and in the Ripley Avenue right -of -way west of Myrtle Street. The developer has designed the plat so the new lots would have the pipeline in the rear yards. The City Code requires that a builder set a house back at least 100 feet from a pipeline. (The developer has shown this setback line on the preliminary plat.) The proposed lots next to the pipeline would be large enough to meet this requirement. Plat Design Changes The developer should show a 20- foot -wide area between Lots 21 and 22, Block 1 to accommodate a trail from the end of Myrtle Street to Outlot B. The developer could move the lot lines for Lots 17 - 27, Block One to accommodate this trail and to reshape Lot 26. The developer should change the lot lines around the proposed Ripley Avenue cul -de- sac. The developer should drop the 20- foot -wide walkway area between Lot 7, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3. The trail from Ripley Avenue should go between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 with the sanitary sewer and water main. The walkway and utilities would be in a 35- foot -wide public easement. This will require reshaping Lot 7, Block 2 through Lot 7, Block 3. These changes also should make the lot lines radial to the centerline of the street and to the cul -de -sac. Lastly, the developer's surveyor has drawn the south one -half of the Ripley Avenue right -of -way 40 feet wide. The existing property line maps show the south one -half of this right -of -way being 33 feet wide. The developer should change the Ripley Avenue right -of -way to show the correct width. 1® Zone Change Staff is recommending that the City change the zoning map for this site from F (farm residential) to R -1 (single - dwelling residential). The City has done this with previous plats that had an F zone. This change will prevent the property owners from doing any activities that might be a nuisance (farming or nurseries) to the other neighbors. Reduced Street Widths Section 29 -52 of the City Code requires that local streets be 32 feet wide (gutter to gutter). The Code states that the City Council may permit variations from this requirement in specific cases that do not effect the general purpose of this section. The City Engineer is recommending that the developer build 28- foot -wide streets with no parking on one side in this project. The Council recently approved the same street widths with no parking on one side for the Oak Ridge development. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Make a finding there is no need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) for this project. This is because: 1. There would not be significant environmental effects because the conditions for approval would guard against any such effects. 2. There are no foreseeable cumulative potential effects of related or expected future projects in the area. 3. The City and other public regulatory agencies will require mitigating measures and conditions to avoid any environmental effects. 4. There have not been any other environmental studies, done in Maplewood that show any expected environmental effects because of this project. The City bases this decision on the staff report and the Cites letters responding to those who commented on the EAW. B. Adopt the resolution on page 177. This resolution changes the land use plan from R 3M (residential medium density) to R-1 (single dwellings) and OS (open space). The City is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 11 2. The developer is proposing to develop the site for single dwellings. 3. Single dwellings would be more compatible with the homes to the north than multiple dwellings. 4. The City has already planned the homes to the north of this site for R-1 use. 5. It would reduce the allowable density and traffic from this site. C. Adopt the resolution on page 178. This resolution changes the land use plan by dropping the minor collector designation on Sterling Street between Hoyt Avenue and Holloway Avenue. D. Approve the resolution on page 179. This resolution changes the zoning of this property from F (farm residential) to R-1 (single- dwelling residential). The City bases this rezoning on the findings required by the City Code and that the R 1 zoning is consistent with the proposed change to the Cites land use plan. E. Adopt the resolution on page 180. This resolution vacates the following parts of the Ripley Avenue right -of -way: 1. East of a point that is 150 feet east of Lakewood Drive. 2. That part between the west line of Currie Street and the west line of Myrtle Street, subject to retaining an easement for trail or park access. The Ci ty should vacate this street because it is in the public interest. It is in the public interest because: 1. The City does not need this right -of -way. 2. The. adjacent properties have adequate street access and other streets would better serve them. The developer shall file the vacation resolution with the final plat. F. Adopt the resolution on page 182. This resolution vacates the west one -half of Sterling Street from a point 120 feet south of the North St. Paul border to a point 350 feet south. The City should vacate this street because it is in the public interest. It is in the public interest because: 1. The City does not need this right -of -way. 12 2. The adjacent properties have adequate street access and other streets would better serve them. The developer shall file the vacation resolution with the final plat. G. Approve the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition preliminary plat (received by the City on February 12, 1993) . Before the City Council approves the final plat, the developer shall complete the following conditions: 1. Have the City Engineer approve 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 conditions: a. The grading plan shall show the depth and location of the Great Lakes pipeline. The developer shall only grade those areas that the City Engineer determines the developer needs to construct streets, utilities and sedimentation basins. b. The City Engineer shall approve the final tree plan before anyone starts to grade the site or before the City approves the final plat. This plan shall include having the developer mark all trees that the developer will keep on the properly during and after development. The developer shall mark the limits of the tree removal and the City Engineer shall review this. The developer shall have the protective fence and erosion control measures in place and approved by the City Engineer before the developer does any grading. The plan must meet the Cites tree ordinance. C. For the sedimentation basin: (1) It shall provide 0.10 acre -feet of storage above normal elevation for each tributary acre, based on the Maplewood Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2) If the slopes on a basin are steeper than 10 horizontal to 1 vertical, the developer shall fence the sedimentation basin. The fence shall be five feet high, vinyl -clad chain link and shall be at the high water mark. The developer shall landscape the sedimentation basin site with evergreen trees. (3) To provide room for storing sediment, the developer shall excavate the sedimentation basin to four feet below the normal water level. 13 (4) The construction of the sedimentation basin shall not extend into the wooded area between the basin and the wetland. The developer shall limit the tree removal for the outfall pipe to a 20-foot-wide corridor between the basin and the wetland. The outfall pipe shall discharge to the normal water level of the wetland. d. The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. e. The City limits the grading on the site to only the land that the developer needs to construct the home p streets, utilities, sedimentafiion basin or drainage requirements as approved by the City Engineer. f. The utility plans shall show the following: (1) Abandon the water main in Ripley Avenue from McKnight Road to Lakewood Drive. The developer shall move and reconnect any water services from this water main. (2) Replace the water main between Myrtle and Lakewood with an eight -inch ductile iron pipe water main at the proper location in the right -of -way. (3) All new water main in the development shall be eight -inch ductile iron pipe. (4) All new water main in easements that are not under a trail and that cross the pipelines shall be in reinforced concrete casing pipe. (5) Abandon the sanitary sewer in Ripley Avenue between Lakewood Drive and Myrtle Street. The existing sanitary sewer in Lakewood Drive shall connect to the new sanitary sewer in Ripley Avenue. g. The streets shall be 28 feet wide from face to face of the concrete curb and gutter with no parking on one side. This street width is subject to approval of a Code variation by the City Council. 2. The final plat shall have drainage and utility easements along all property lines. These easements shall be 10 feet wide along the front and rear 14 property lines and 5 feet wide on the side property lines. (Note: This is different from the typical easements that the surveyor has shown on the preliminary plat plans.) 3. Sign an agreement with the City that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all public improvements and meet all City requirements. b. Place temporary orange snow fencing and signs at the grading limits. C. Have NSP install street lights in five locations, primarily at curves in streets. The exact location and type of lights shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. d. Construct the following eight-foot-wide bituminous trails at the same time as the developer builds the adjacent streets: (1) over the Outlot B, between Sterling Street and the trail between Lots 21 and 22, Block one. (2) Between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, to the trail near the south property line. (This is instead of putting the trail between Lot 7, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3.) (3) Between. Lots 21 and 22, Block 1 to the trail in Outlot B. (4) On Sterling Street from the end of the proposed Sterling Street cul-de -sac to the south to Larpenteur Avenue. These trails shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. e. Completely reconstruct Ripley Avenue between Lakewood Drive and Myrtle Street. The reconstruction shall include concrete curb and gutter that shall extend to the north end of the curb returns on the north side of Ripley Avenue. These curb returns are for the intersections of Ripley Avenue with Lakewood Drive and Myrtle Street. f. Build all streets with a two -foot sand subcut, an eight -inch gravel base and at least 3 1/2 inches of bituminous. 15 g. Install perforated in sand subcuts at each catch basin lead crossing. h. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer areas. These signs shall mark the edge of the buffer areas and shall state there shall be no mowin g , vegetation cutting, fillin or the g dumping of lawn waste. Extend the concrete curb and gutter on Sterling Street from the proposed cul-de -sac north to the existing concrete curb and gutter. j. Pay the City for the cost of no parking signs on one side of all the streets and all other directional and street signs. k. Install removable vehicle barriers on Sterling Street at the south end of the cul -de -sac. 1. Remove any junk, debris or tires from the wetlands and .the site. 4. Make the following changes to the plat and related plans: a. Drop the park label from outlot B. b. Show a 20-foot-wide extension of outlot B between Lots 21 and 22, Block 1. Rearrange Lots 17 -27, Block 1 to meet all City Code requirements and to reshape Lot 26. C. Change the utility easement between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 to a 35- foot- wide public easement centered on the property line. d. ' Add the following easements: (1) A 20-foot-wide storm sewer easement between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1. (2) A 30-foot-wide utility easement between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. (3) A 3o-foot-wide utility easement between Lots 20 and 21, Block 1. e. Show the width of the easement on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 3. This easement shall be wide enough to accommodate the storm sewer pipe. 16 L Drop the drainage easements for the ponds on Lots 6 through 9 and 16, 17 and 18, Block one from the final plat. g. Drop Mary Joe Lane from the grading and utility plans. h. Change the 20-foot-wide walkway area between Lot 7, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 to a 20- foot -wide utility easerrlen .. Rearrange the shape of Lots 7, Block 2 through Lot 7, Block 3. This Change shall include the required 35-foot-wide public easement between Lots 2 and 3. Block 3 and shall make the lot lines radial to the curve and cul-de -sac. a nge i. Ch the park label along the Ripley Avenue right -of -way to Outlot C. 5. Deed Ouflots A, B and C to the City. 6. Record covenants or deed restrictions with the final plat that do the following: a. Prohibit the construction of a house or its attachments within loo feet of the Great Lakes pipeline. (This effects Lots 1 - 6 and Lots 22 - 27, Block 1 and Lots 1 -7, Block 2) . b. Prohibit the construction of a house or its attachments within twenty feet of a wetland boundary. These covenants or restrictions shall inform the property owners about the pipelines and wetlands on the site and prohibit any mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping, including yard waste, in the wetland or in the 20 foot buffer strip around the wetland. (This effects any lot abutting a wetland.) 7. The developer shall remove alt existing debris on the site, including any existing foundations, pipes or loose debris. The developer may bulkhead and leave existing water and sewer pipes if they are forty feet behind the rear of the house pads. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the City may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. H. Approve the resolution on page 183. This resolution approves a City Code variation for 28-foot-wide streets. This variation is subject to no parking on one side of the streets and the developer paying the City for the cost of no pazking signs. 17 CITIZEN COMMENTS We asked the surrounding property owners for their opinion of this project. Staff sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 120 properties, we received 59 replies. 10 were for the proposal, 46 were against and 3 had no comment. Those in favor had the following comments: 1. Developing the land with single family homes is an acceptable idea as long as our property is kept private. (Monette - 1712 McKnight Lane, #57.) 2. It is a viable alternative to what has been proposed in past years. (Donatell - 1720 McKnight Lane, #49.) 3. As I understand, if it fits with the PUD concept. We already have apartments, town houses and a commercial corner and there is room for single - family housing. (Malley - 1722 McKnight Lane, #47.) 4. The additional tax revenues and boost to the local economy -jobs and materials. (Walters - 1723 McKnight Lane, #46.) 5. I like the idea of single family homes going up. (Wiedl - 1775 McKnight Road N.) 6. I would prefer to see the land developed as single family rather than multiple family units. (Gorman - 1782 McKnight Road N.) 7. We prefer single family homes. We hope the streets would be developed to take care of the traffic flow. (Kotula - 1837 Lakewood Drive.) 8. It will help the bus lines to extend out this way; housing project is a good one. My concern is that we retain more woodland. It is becoming scarce because of its destruction in the building. (Sister Raler, Saint Paul's Priory) Because of the number of comments in opposition I have summarized them as follows: 1. Keep it as a natural, wild, open land or as game preserve. This development will result in the loss -of wildlife habitat. 2. Make it into a park. 3. Opposed to the loss of trees. 18 4. It will endanger the wetlands that need protection. 5. It will create drainage problems. 6. It will increase traffic. 7. There is a traffic problem at Ripley by Myrtle at the access to Hillside Park. Staff comment: The City is requiring the developer to improve Ripley Avenue between Myrtle and Lakewood. This will include the improvement of the intersection of Ripley Avenue and Myrtle Streets. This improvement will make the edges of the streets clear and should make for improved traffic flow. 8. There will be trespassing and vandalism on the town house property (including the outdoor pool). Staff comment: The Director of Public Safety told me that the construction of homes with private yards would decrease vandalism of the town house property. 9. See the letters on pages 170 through 175. 19 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Area: 31.6 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped with basement foundations in the west one -half of the site. A Great Lakes pipeline easement goes through this property from south to the north and west along the Ripley Avenue alignment. Property Owner: Maplewood Properties, Inc. SURROUNDING, LAND USES North: Houses in Maplewood and North Saint Paul, Maplewood Middle School and Hillside Park East: Sterling Street and Hill- Murray High School South: The Maple Woods Estates Apartments and the Maple Woods Town Houses West: The Maple Woods Town Houses and McKnight Road PLANNING Proposed Density: 1.55 homes per acre. Lot Sizes: The average lot size in the proposed plat is 16,000 square feet. This is larger than most of the lots (from 12,000 - 16,058 square feet) that are to the north of the proposed plat. The City Code requires at least 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of width for each lot. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed City standards. SITE HISTORY May 15, 1969: The City Council approved a conditional use permit for an 80 -acre planned unit development (PUD). It included all the land between McKnight Road and Larpenteur Avenue and between Ripley Avenue and Sterling Street. This PUD included 146 town houses, 540 apartments and five commercial buildings. The commercial buildings were for a gas station, professional offices and shops at the corner of Larpenteur Avenue and McKnight Road. The approved PUD plan is on page 33. One of the permit conditions was about the timing of the phasing of the PUD. This timing gave the developer until October 30, 1976 to finish . the buildings in Phase 2. This phasing plan also gave the developer until October 30, 1977 to start the buildings in 20 Phase 3. The developer did not meet either of these deadlines so the PUD expired for the undeveloped areas. October 8, 1970: The City Council gave final approval to the building plans for the apartments. August 3, 1972: The City Council approved the final plats that divided the PUD into major lots. The plat also divided one of the major lots into 72 town house lots. This approval was subject to several conditions. It stated that the original plan of a pathways system for the area still stands. January 1974 - March 1977: The City and the Maple Woods Town House Association took many actions about the building of a fence between the town houses and the apartments. The town house association wanted to build °a fence, but the Ci ty did not approve it. The association erected an illegal fence, which required court action by the City to have the association remove it. go /b- 4;memo7lk.mem (13 -29) Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Hillside Neighborhood Land Use Plan Map (Existing) 4. Hillside Neighborhood Land Use Plan Map (Proposed) 5. Property Line Map (Ripley Avenue Street Vacation) 6. Property Line Map (Sterling Street Vacation) 7, Proposed Maple Woods Estates Second Addition Plat 8. Proposed Grading Plan (with tree inventory) 9. Proposed Utility Plan 10. Proposed Preliminary Plat with Staff Comments 11. Approved 1969 PUD Plan 12. City Bicycle /Trails Plan (page 15 -10) 13. EAW 14. Letter from Historical Society 15. Letter from Met Council 16. Letter to the Met Council 17. Letter from the PCA 18. Letter to the PCA 19. 10 -12 -92 letter from the DNR 20. Letter to the DNR 21. 1 -11 -93 letter from the DNR 22. Letter from the EPA 23. Letter to the EPA 21 24. Letter from the Sierra Club 25. Letter to the Sierra Club 26. Blanding's Turtle Study from Franklin Svoboda and Associates 27. 12 -26 -91 letter from Klitzke's 28. 12 -23 -91 letter from Charles Quistad. 29. 12 -27 -91 letter from Georgene Karpiej 30. 12 -20 -90 letter from Lucy Paschke 31. Petition for the closing of Sterling Street 32. Land Use Plan Change Resolution - R -3(M) to R -1 33. Land Use, Plan Change Resolution - Sterling Street 34. Zoning Map Change Resolution 35. Street Vacation Resolution - Ripley Avenue 36. Street Vacation Resolution - Sterling Street 37. Street Width Variation Resolution 38. Planning Commission minutes 39. Project Plans (separate attachment) 22 MoNow.; man - a NORTH SA PA UL 29 A NOEL OWAY CA *11sido w kk L RI AV CLE � Y mc xw6m r LN AK ... ..... ........ LARPENTEUR � o T2914 R22W. IDAHO A 14113 ♦ owm� � 23 7 &A% I (1) CURRIE ST 'K8 RASKA wev (2) MYRTLE CT (2) PA I ANTELOPE NOY OWNS proir/0 2 AAWERJACK • LA R; 3 BEAVERDALE RD CA 4 BOBCAT LA ELXWAO?r LA 5 COVOER LA pr -1 C 31 rr f8 � � W 00 4M Fl it � �41_�W &A A All ol Aso ST A AV SE it K""WoXL AV 4 z LOCAT MAP .......... .......... .......... .......... SITE .......... 4 23 Attachment 1 AV 12 AV W . :. Q o s s NICHA EL DR 2 REBECCA DR %3 4 3 PINE TREE DR 4 BIRCHVIEW DR Ns DR B E LANA Or OAK NIL I. iCT :: ::. 5 PINE rREEDR O 6 BIRCH TREE DO? A A N G �C'1� EEO 7 ROLLINS HILLS OR MIC 1-61 IVY HAWTI4ORNE AV ST A AV SE it K""WoXL AV 4 z LOCAT MAP .......... .......... .......... .......... SITE .......... 4 23 Attachment 1 (,P, to _ ( ") 17 1 LIS .- • HOLLOWAY AVENt1Et �► '`c is _ _ ; �, _ _ C, ? . S - 1 {� 493 &L 1 ;7•t. ' Of f ' • ,+� �• 2 1 W 3 o x .. � , NORTH{� 3(j� s s.str. a� • n . , . 27 mat 4 a v y �MIt"r ST. PAUL. VAl.. t • ra- I- O 2 HILLSIDE Zc�-) t 1 3 MAPLEWOOD PARS 't v MEADOW , (L1) (3!) s 7 E) 1824 01814 5 • oa i 17 �►,� . 'MIDDLE SCHOOL 4�K) o o M 4 i Id ` D - r S � a 2 � 3 t { 182$ . •O. R3 1831 c > h.� : s p 7 a 3 CIRC` 1 - ..__....:__.._ x$25 ;�,, �a 9 R• . t 1821 i a _ 1818 17 ' ' ' R I PL.E�f ,) 1815 18 4 q a 7 1815! Q + �J s • t �F KN LL IX ::,i : � �� p �� X03 r`"� �` y • 1$07 2448 1 �Y � N o 24$g tt �_ �.�.�. . ............ I. .... ............. : ........... . ............. 1806 � :�,�,,�..:::: LE Y AVENUE E: :� RIP U ............. ... . I ........... ... et; r.... • ::' s L Y' R3 w HILL — MURRAY W� HIGH SCHOOL ....... ..... ... ... ... .............................. .... ....... .... -. - - - ; r . w•» . • u n d •.i •.TA•: ..... . ........ ........ • . M • A ti •FI •M• C 1 • iI, to a n 1 L L C .10 •a f w IA f It '� dig• ` `��� j /� 1 L Is » (I % O 1 1 f b o PUD j Ix ui F • 1 11 i HILLSIDE.* W R 3 CENTER �' �;; *r ; MAPLEWOOD APARTMENTS p. • ` t o p FIN � v PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP SITE 24 Attachment .2 4 N J ` O NORTH SAINT PAUL C ... North St. Paul Road to 4 - 1' - . , m jor collector R-1 y o� O_ , U; P S 0S - -, Z •; W S -� �„� �R`-3( R 3(N� Y :: v �.... t....... o E ► �1 .., W ~ Larpenteur tuna jor arterial i H R-1 .j cn R• _ _ W m ' o E 0 M_ 1 E . 0 > REVISED R 3(M) c CD R -1 Single Dwelling g g lot areas) . R -3M Multiple Dwellings (5.5 - 9.5 units /acre) !' R -3H Multiple Dwellings (9.5 - 16.3 units/acre Mc Knight NC Neighborhood Commercial - Center Open Space CO Commercial coal Office Center BC M Business P Parks (M) ) ss Commercial (Modified Center S School LAND USE PLAN .. f;'. SITE EXISTING 4 N 25 Attachment 3 1 NORTH SAINT PAUL a f , C bov R..:. »•. North St. Paul Road uwt,� , ` p = , m jor collector V R : a Y t ♦° of Q - � o O ' ix P � , S 0S — N. ev P . S �r .. . , R 3tNU z Y w ir --� _ R-3 . z o t E Lar enteur w p m ajor arterial � i � R -1--J _ R-3 (M W :� , r m coo •- ac E M -1 REVISED QS R -1 a� Single Dwelling (10,000-sq uare-foot R 3M lot areas) . Multiple Dwellings (S.5 - 9.5 u nitslacre) R -3H -Multiple Dwe . Dwellings (9.5 - 16.3 units/acre Mc Knight e NC Ni h both Neighborhood Commercial Center Co Commercial OS Office Center open Space BC(M) Business Commercial P mercial (Modified) Center Parks S School SITE LAND USE PLAN PROPOSED 26 N Attachment 4 LA_ r� GG T, S3) 03) oo.l)l o (4 C JFR) o X33 �$5� o/ •. •C 2 Ore)- SIL 57 6 4 4 C4 t1 Cam) . SAO) 5 jo) f ro -- PARK 0(77)6 9 in lqr ( i 8 � 7 14 7 7) l A-4 LJ 8 9 u Ic - --------- Ir ♦ 10 LA_ r� (45) 4 5�6 MAPLEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL f.. AA5�0 if1-14A 1 a QM1 co; Avp PLAT SITE Ac , t � !I o � :1 I { !1 � 2 1. L M t 6 � 0 5 so (44) Al a 7 • 0 b2y A 14 oo.l)l o (4 o X33 �$5� o/ •. •C J34 5 5 SIL 0@4 12 (.6 3) t1 Cam) 4 f .(76)5 10 0(77)6 9 in lqr ( i 8 � 7 8(79) 0. (45) 4 5�6 MAPLEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL f.. AA5�0 if1-14A 1 a QM1 co; Avp PLAT SITE Ac , t � !I o � :1 I { !1 � 2 1. L M t 6 � 0 5 so (44) Al a 7 • 0 b2y ♦ for* 4W %% o/ •. •C 5 5 SIL 'it f ti l A-4 (45) 4 5�6 MAPLEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL f.. AA5�0 if1-14A 1 a QM1 co; Avp PLAT SITE Ac , t � !I o � :1 I { !1 � 2 1. L M t 6 � 0 5 so (44) Al a 7 • 0 b2y PROPERTY LINE MAP STREET VACA TION 4 27 Attachment 5 ♦ 5 PROPERTY LINE MAP STREET VACA TION 4 27 Attachment 5 Rio 0 N 6 MAPLEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL vE. (44) ono 51 4 r - 1 • ,Fc 11. s , Y Traf? - ' 0 5 � P.A. � - 7 r IASI= t (3 3) 15 4 Z � � G t Oct" ID j dom 3+ 6 5 8 4 -- � • - • • Gs� .. c t �. 2,0) i Z •, 3 ( r z M .83 Zj -wist Ls IN sv � 0 0 ,o till. M P L q m&% 1�V'0 NORTH SAINT UL PA • I 2 3 � 4 h i (7)aO C k • • � (Z3) 0 113. � •�, .4 at ' 0 KNOLL o •• 8 7 8 $ CIRCLE 1 7(4>> • b a z7 �) 9 'IS ` t 4 8 RIPLEY (241 140,3 33 �.� 6 . .• �'b► o .b N 8 7 '' N 40 � . O 3 4 (31) c �4z 4 ,14 �. K R.3o o � 5 t;4 7 • 1 0 o - C3) i T. C ivo wt a 3 N. 3 1. rpw%w N ' V r r •r r r - r PLAT SITE P � • I � � W W �% 1 1 Z � W ` V1 40.23 o r, • PROPERTY LINE MAP STREET VACATION Attachment 6 Q N u ° 1�. C w 0 I L - >Otu•0 a °0 o k^ Q~`.� IY�oa F O� a. Z z 0 Q Q d Q ac z �- Sao u wff 4z� DLO WWI Qa 0 o �- 3 0 W s J a � STERLING — — — STREET 641.57 ` ♦- i T . a f �aM oeN�i 7 � o ee ' T if J r 04 CA , 311410 .^ ii � , 4� �. � � ? ♦ i N _ , y '+ r � •� 0 � � � h C'4 �► 2&p G. � I ti � �Q '' ►may 4p J336US _ a *see n i e•e` is Luis rorW .ot MYRTLE��a 0" ,saw R a MO;x�sY k.y JIMS X18 � `� �,, y ��� 1 *� ,saso �o ,wr70 •a•a�•1w� � e ,ltl0 Vt ap�710• Y t •� 187 i _ t N J P , tQ . , t into J 9 a H Z 1 �� ^ � -0- o I coo Q CL = .Gt,LZ.00 S ,/i z Q °� q) CIA -- - - --1' - - - - -- 9) ! • . • • • 00 29 Attachment 7 s n ar c c s � I Q N !z ♦- i T . a f �aM oeN�i 7 � o ee ' T if J r 04 CA , 311410 .^ ii � , 4� �. � � ? ♦ i N _ , y '+ r � •� 0 � � � h C'4 �► 2&p G. � I ti � �Q '' ►may 4p J336US _ a *see n i e•e` is Luis rorW .ot MYRTLE��a 0" ,saw R a MO;x�sY k.y JIMS X18 � `� �,, y ��� 1 *� ,saso �o ,wr70 •a•a�•1w� � e ,ltl0 Vt ap�710• Y t •� 187 i _ t N J P , tQ . , t into J 9 a H Z 1 �� ^ � -0- o I coo Q CL = .Gt,LZ.00 S ,/i z Q °� q) CIA -- - - --1' - - - - -- 9) ! • . • • • 00 29 Attachment 7 O 0 vm t Z V. ;i jl 11�f� s t 0 .0-% Ch 4) 0 0- O w C 0 FL V Q E CL Z 0 Iff- 0 Z 0 U w U) C/) LLJ F- 9< F— Cn LU 0 0 Lij .j CL 2 4• �: : J1 1 1 • � 133ULS 3PMf15 tv 2 12!1 ------ --Sam f 1 i � 101 Jk 0 —ISO# —Olaf � CS `s ��/ •ti ;. �, •.: •:. I ....- ..............s�1 :, ,. .: / / 1 � , ^" :;`;- "•^•"'A• i I i � :!i �3 3:Ti 1�: — — — — - — Sao � ` /r, '� - - -- - ---•� _ - - -- - IVA g n -P • 1 �ls' o 'C4 I'A 7 s i l l Z ti j 3'V.1 r rrl It I I j j r "V. of ra. 4"v— i.q In* j a C C Do 0 coo '0 ' 00'/ a U. ui C uj 0 .01 % LU 7 . 4 4 • 0 1 L) it N � ;.-� ` `, � ' � ' t •`_ � -•, '`�. !'' Toy s .......... . N , % ..... % W QCO1_ y sw r`} . •�j � � i - -' � , �� era - �'� � I r wj or 3AIU0 OOCA'3xV I / #cap Y too. ic el 05 se A; :k Oro, = 1 . �'I , , .� i Q o � � �t� ' `i J�>; E Lit x J Lj r % lb t -C C % t; its I r N r Or % I've V 30 Attachment 8 IMF- 0 t i � - • � Q� 1: s o _j %Ell Zt > - 11w v v ,, I ; e �: 4 'A z 813 %; It Cc : o -4 rL 49 V. 4 u 0\ (L ro a �z 4k O 44 c* 0 z V ~ 40 133"I8 •NIIU3).S 3 t v dp• AU �Ij . 3Nrl Alivi^i 1 'l ; , • ''ti:' l ��•{ . , M I ; ; '' 10 : _� i_ ' _...+ ter/ � �-• .,, � �� t '• a ¢ < 0i M 1% v e qj , W O 'A 2 C .0 old C 0, A , 04 A V ciao .,A (\L C\J 0 t l N - N ;or T X 01" N11 it M�z 0- - - to -,ITa cj ., ;;' . �', �' . ++a i ;; a: " IN % % % N% A. ... 3AW ooc)A;).V-1 w i c\j CL SCSI S Ar 40- 1� PEON-" N La .j iz" jj��,� �+1'•' i r �`' V:11?11: IfAel j, x 41 % , ` l ( f `� .'� r ' _ v • C A% cc % dr son. 2. uj M % CL a J �. 133UIS 31Ift 5' t < °- - ~_ ;,/��•� t , ; 4 `.. i , LN k 1 Y �z CL 1144 v -------- -- a ik __ too 'lot* *.-Of 4 . ,1 -------- sL_ ------------- --------------------- Goat— IL -12 CIVOU LHO" L . x7n O w-i 1 � L 0 I j Ivi r got x wo IV L JJJV.1 r 31 Attachment 9 V a� gig J e3 .� t n � Cs to 0 2 v . 4 Q a 0 Ill J 3 �- 0 U w OC Q �- --- p lu ff Qat 4Q� 0 3 � [L U ? 1 GnL[ i o tom 1 r' . , EE? TRAIL -- — - i - - '� a■trt �� tta tawt ■wt Et: Mw vp t A << t • 35 FOOT EASEMENT • ; % TRAIL ' 4 � 't I� t • REARRANGE LOT LINES r low � � � -tom' • ' -'� � �� �� � � "•' '''�' "- 20 FOOT P -- 0 -` EDESTRIAN WALKWAY j QOOUdl111 r n � ' ' • / � : L Z � N �! �� , ~ • •1ST F-11 `� - t �;i_ Gll =T �~ `•" , • a // •`+ REARRANGE LOT LI st f i l l cc CL rsrRns •' 4 � _ W vs 4 1p lousip •t .ttw z ' A r s dj t!1 ai lot s I x . ...:. iA 0009 .....•...... PROPOSED PLAT WITH STAFF CHANGES 32 Attachment 10 r` 33 Attachment 11 2 -16 94 BEAM Rvz. - f •�.._ . 4 � w CO. JUD, a.s.s. ss CO. RD,, R ROSSL WN Avs, r L I �ra�nravR Rvso fill h t M � • w • s N x o EXISTING BIKEWAYS ON STREET ••••••• OFF STREET PLANNED BIKEWAYS mm- ON STREET amme-m O STREET BIKEWAYS /TRAILS PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAM N � . o 0 0 ac w s s o a � N � r N H s w s =MARYLAND AVE. . STILLWATER RD, MINNEMAxA AVE. CONWAY AVE. T.B. I2 /I - 94 UPPER AFTON RD. LOWER AFTON RD. LONDIN LN. NAILAND RD. ----- LINWOOD AVE. HIGHWOOD AVE. - CARVER AVE" -� • N is m a a �c Ind � m u Attachment 12 Figure 28 Ena vironmerYtal Assessment Worksheet (EAVI� 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 itse1f. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 296 -8253 or (toll -free) 1-500- 652 -9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review ) or consult "EAW Guidelines," a booklet available from the EQB. NOTE To REVIEWEN Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30 -day comment 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 the EIS. to Proj Tide Residential Subdivision 7 Maple Woods Estates 2nd Addition 2. Proposer North Suburban Deve lopment r I nc 3. Contact person Jack Menkveld r Address 8741 Central Ave NE .Blaine Minn. 55434 Phone 786 -6000 RGU Cit of Maolewood Contact person Kenneth Roberts and title Associate Planne Address 1 830 E. Co. Rd, B Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone (612).770-4566 4. Reason for EAW Prop radon EIS scoping ❑ mandatory EAW ❑ citizen petition 0 RGU discretion ❑ Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s) 50 Project I ocadon S 1 /Z 2 SW 1/4 Section 1_ Township _ Range 2 2 _ County R am - ev City /Twp M_a,r, l a Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW. 8. a county map showing the general location of the project; Exh #1 b. copy(ies) of USES 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries; Exhibit #2 C. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features. Exh #3 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. Exhibit # 4 E. Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice: 1 35 Attachment 13 7. Project kbgr tuda Data Total Project Area (acres) 31.61 Acres Number of Residential Units. . Unattached 50--_ or Length (miles) • 4 Miles Attached None ConunercW / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space) Total square feet; Indicate area of specific uses: Office Manufacturing Retail Other Industrial Warehouse Intutional Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Building Height(s) 8. Permits 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 Comp. Plan Revision Pending completion of Rezone Prel. Plat approval Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District Grading & Stormwater Management Approved exhibit# Corp of Engineers Wetland filling Approved exhibit# 9. Land Ilse 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. Land is vacant, however there are existing building foundations & utility lines that were installed as part of a PUD in 1977. All these founda & utility lines will be removed or property abandoned. These foundations & utility lines should present no soil contamination. 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 Before After Types 2 to 8 Wetlands 5* 2 5o29 _ Urban /Suburban Lawn — 22982 wooded /Forest 1 Landscaping — 3.5 Brush /Grassland 11 Impervious Surface Cropland _ Other (describe) 11. Fish, Wiidijfe, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources IL 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. DNR Wetland on-.property Small animals (rabbits, squirrels etc) live in and around property, (wetland 62 -240W) 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 (tear the site? 0 Yes 0 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 m" w* =' a or avoid adverse impacts. See exhibit #9 & #10 2 36 12. Physical impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or h drolo 'c alteration dyed ' • outfall structure, d' imp of an surface water Y .Wig' Big► diversion, es iden gr Po y Cake pond, wetland, s age ditrch)? ❑ Yes m If y ify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; vol dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area fected• timing and ulnas of in water surface elevations; sp dis Po sal sites; and p rop o sed mitigation of $ a d extent of fluctuations po $anon measures to impacts. There is 16.1 acres presently draining rom ' g site into wetland, 24 acres of site will drain to pond after development. The in ' no significant affect on o creased run off well have pond level. 11 Water Use a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? ❑ Yes XX No For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other reviousl un rmi • se of the well and the Unique well number ' P Y pe tted wells, give the location and P� q (�f known). b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including ewaterin )? Q Yes If es n 8 g )( NO y es , 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. VT T..M - 3 • C. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? W%Yes ❑ No If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. WAter for the development will be supplied by St Paul city ater system. ystem. This is an existing system with sufficent capacity p y to serve development. 14. Water•relatod land Use Management Districts Does any part of the project site involve a sho zoning istrict; a delineated 100 - y ear flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? C3 Yes. N S o If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restricwons of the district. 15. Water Surface Use Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ❑ Yes 0( No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft wage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. 1W 16. Solis Approximate depth (in feet) to: Ground water: minimum 2 + f t . average 15 + f t Bedrock: minimum average Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. (SCS in tions and soil boring log need not be attached. 861C - Kingsley complex - majority of site -all development on these P soils 266 —Freer sict loam - small area west end of site -will not be disturbed 1055 - Aquolls & Histels - Ponding area on east side of site 342C - Kingsley sandy loam 17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded or ex See Exhibit # 7 . g g excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 14 ; cubic yams 7 6 0 W) 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. Silt fence installed at limits of grading activi soil & seeding g y� Top g of disturbed areas a fter Grading completed to reestablish cover 3 37 IS, Wow Quality. - suriros WeW Rurwff a, Lompart the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and /or treat runoff. See Exhibit #8 b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. F.stimatie the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff mail a lake consult "EALW Guide 1 w about whether a nutrient budget analysis is naeded.) See Exhibit #8 190 Water ousitty - Wastewaters. 8• Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters produced or treated at the site. sewage e only 1 Domestic g y b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after Ireatnnent, or if the project involves on -site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (including nd water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the recei i 8 ng waters. (If the discharge may aj*d a lake consult "EA W Guidtlines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is nwdad.) C. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvements which will be necessary. Metropolitian Waste System 20, Ground Water - Potential for ConoWnsdon 11. Approximate depth tin feet) to ground water: 2 + minimum; 15 0. average. 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. None 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 21. solid Wastes;, Hazardous Wasta; storage Tanks 8. 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 separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. Household & yard wastes - City of Maplewood 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 4 38 22. Traffic Parking spaces added 10 0 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) i Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated cif known) and its timing: , . 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. per ite trip generation manual - 6.5 trips per unit per day. There are 3 local city street serving project with majority of traffic being added to 2 of these (Myrtle & Lakewood) 23. Vehicle - related air "s ions 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 involves 5W or more parking spaces, consult "EA W Guidelines" about whether a detailed air quality analysis is nerdad.) Due to small amount of-traffic generated, the 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 O 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? 0 Yes ❑ No If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed treasures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. Construction equipment will create dust and noise Approx 30 day construction period - Equipment working during hours of 7 AM to 6 PM. Maplewood Middle School is located to .the north of the site. The school building is about 800 feet north of the site. 26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? ❑ Yes $] No b. prime or unique farmlands? ❑ Yes XX No C. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? 17 Yes ❑ No d. scenic views and vistas? 0 Yes EkNo e. other unique resources? ❑ Yes JD 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 betaken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Ap p r o x a 4 acres-of project t o be dedicated to city as park land. Approx 5.9 acres wetland to be dedicated to city.: Trail system within proposed park will provide access to existing city. 27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include. glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas; and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) ❑ Yes XX 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? 0 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. Comprehensive land use plan with city of Maplewood Designates property as med. density res (7 Units /acre) Proposed used is low density residential. 5 39 29. impact on k*astructurs and Public servlm Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infra services or public s be required to serve the project? IN-les 0 No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure /services wed. (Any infrastructure that is a "connacted action" with aspect to the project must be rise d in this EA W; we &EAW Guidelines" for details.) Streets & Utility lines extended.within this site. 30. Related Devalapnwts; Cumuladve Impacts 8. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? ❑ Yes 0 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? M Yes 0 No If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review, C. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? 0 Yes M No If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project. d. If a,b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other development. This site was part of an approved PUD ( 19 6 9) which was partially constructed (existing townhouses & apartments adjoining property) PUD approval on this site expired because construction did not commence. in a timely manner. 31. Other Potondal Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts 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 EA W is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scopng Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. None CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (a113 certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance of the EAW for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor) A.!, hereby certify atio ained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature B. [hereby certify that the project described in this W is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or project components her th escri this document, which are related to the project as "connected actions" or "phased actions' a ectivel Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60. Signature C. 1 hereby certify t c co plat n to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list. Signature Title of signer `Associate Planner Date June P. 1992 6 Minnasou Erw4a nr,o"I Wility Board. Revisod June 1990. 40 r7 %Vs� i PER O SCH, Jr High SCh PAW 2 - t 6URKE CATION IER AVE MAI CENTER �t'3t L U IN I _ SELM T LA .qtr. SKILLMA N AVE V� E M >ac Zoe ins � O K N O � PLAZA ' Z v S K I L ' N AVE. SKILLMAN M *E B S TE R SITYRER _ ` - > t asN D= Q t au S ER S C H AV ME � c Pa k Q � v !� o !2 >. �• RY ti' o pr h �RYA N AVE W � W ; � G�0.gN � CFRs ' i 3 COWFRN I 020 . • ,. A�iFORn 1 �L 3G AVE N � .. a � = GRANADA: > .. .� IDAN o AV H illcrest ° 8 H �- c� AH AVE. PER O SCH, Jr High SCh V DISTRICT p IER AVE J CENTER � Z D= Q OLL CIR Hill MURRY W U. 0 I m HIGH SCH Lei � W� �� , f CKN HT / Li 32ND ST. N. 1680 y Q . • ,. A�iFORn 1 LARPENTEUR AVE >- 3G AVE N � .. a � = GRANADA: > .. .� IDAN o AV H illcrest ° 8 H �- c� AH AVE. '� 4 a IOWA AVE W z cc Z 5111CH TREE OR W Wf 4 --� Z ROLLING HILLS DR U dl _ HOYT AVE a -+ 0: W > W S� ' MONTANA AVE MONTANA AVE to �h � EBR ASKA AVC N- Club NEBRASKA AVE , p :` W tJ► �B�► ,55�► E'E► 1b � S� �++ �` Q � V NEVADA (n AVE J F W u ICH EL ARLINGTON AVE d. = h �- 0 J (X �' c RYAN DR BEMLANA H 25th ST N c +� h CT N l SHERWOOD A f NUT DR OAK HILL COTTAGE AVE Z ...- S ~ W ANGELA z CT T ST N Q E R H uP CLEAR AVE Z .MICKEY X lA 23R0 o, IVY -o AVE cH A VE LN �� ,�• �• �•Z► UPP HYACIN TH P vE � P T�IgEN COYOTE r^ LA <�±! '� ma . Z W 1 C? ti� U 22 ND 0 `�' '` 22ND i ORANG P►v AVE J 42 N � BISON ° oR �; Z H w 0 c sr h uft 21ST TH OR �1+ NOKOMIS AVE W HAW .� ( j � AMS ER A LA CUA N AYE .� IV -- MARYLAND �„ AVE J ARYLAND :, . W_F- a>: ROSE AVE AVE rL J O E .,.1 O v AV W o o Z GEft a W y �` G ERA N M V coo � GERANIUM ���► S TJESS c�, v ~ Z MAGNO �o �d�► G� Z B M A N L A ~ �_ '' R 0 O 4 J BEAVER LAKE SCH h ST N> > oc 49 W E 3 a �. W W p�E t �- sl�`t 3 Z _ AMES AVE y C (' L&CROSSE AV Q W lid Q J � t, N o 8 cASE AVE z W 9 60 .J H RVEST TRANS v 0 15TH s STILI_W '� ! � SE 'w 1- ORATION SCH J 4,• -O♦, j + . VE W Vf O J w BRAND � �' l Q. Q *4 � _ Z Q H A� 4TH STN o Q- r $ a< �. yy ' �'s� , 0 '' 'L V) BRAND W ST 1. A .,j Z E. 7TH S1' o a o 0 A E. 7TH P s V Z > ?� �� P Y r t t 3 oc �► N0� R O S Q N v7 9 J U nion 9� �- us AVE. f usHAV W z cc �- Cemetery H : ST _ 0 z REANEY Q AVE 120 Q f MIHNEHANA AVE 11TH g I' %ST WASM � MiNNEHAHA AVE EASTERN 0.. 0 GTS �. � -<� -..�) r"'. Z _ 10 O > SCH ■ BEECH T > _ M RG RET ST. bn M RG RET AVE Z >< Z T, . h ST N 3 i ` z E 6th ST 41 I = > o qp -Pb EY,- k 1 11) !T Z ST. PAUL EAST QUADRANGLE Iv MINNESOTA UNITED STATES 7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC ) DEPARTM ENT OF THE INTER NE /4 ST. PAUL 15' QUADRANGLE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2 250 000 FEET 4 98 99 O 1 2. MI. TO MINN. 36 4 93 00 _ _ - • `► 5 01w0 m E. WHP E BEAR LAKE 4 M R Z ! W 503 ► ►f ► � - 57 30 I i ,. , ■ • ' NORTH ST PA�r�1......1... ........NORTH` 'T fl _ �-- a a j irCoun�' �t� . • • S • • •.• .. •' • t ' 14OLLOWAY• ' AVE ��0 "�!0 . '! -. ••• / !Ql� -�` _ �' !O /0 Home ? 1 ; •�� .' • � -- . ... 0 3 j a �AId(IC� \� '�'/ t ' ••- • � i V �•`� 1 •� i • • N• H111 •• P. kena al t' LJ fa 1 • ii , • • • �:'• r • �� D a�� t.. _-- H T' � ..t l • .. \ ' i ••,• r 't !±• '\• tsuD5t8t.1 •- -• • / •- - • -� _ �, w ✓ . _.- -. ' \ • I p ( �t . Ar op iNurrav — 1 ` UGC �` ! . t PRIC A i�' sch .. O ---� �. Hil - - ° esen ion ' - �' ! g _ t ► , �s� -,� �( � :: / i �\ it •t "�� ..1 , }Y e• �� O Is E �.. __ �t . r • ;� i! • , '; �• . , .• ."•� ,IW7. - �L ARAPNTE`tl h�` AVE H -- - /, • -- •F - - ---•- � �' is 1 �. = / ' . `� . ' • � • - ..'� ! �.,� �'-K � _ . . � O � - - - �. � •' _ � � : .. • if •'. �'� , r � t • • � � � • Lak SC f' �� �' 1 / '\ �. ��, J� V••4b 1 ��• , ' Q • .`, 103J 1 0 6. - y r nd• � ' user , r 'i; �. -. ip . t___ i 4 •. �el Park _ _ _- • - _ ; - o . _ .. ' � � :Ir -�� � . i E 2 ; N£ �^ �� !� / L. _ -_- �;' ti = ?i R �� r ;1 - 1�` �. 0 O • • �R IOSB' '�� • All - gas a cl 0 �X ARLf TON brary g�! Av ;' ' �';: �9 �._ �_ �' �� *_ �'' - - }`' --.1= •� ! 0 p ,.O•. _ 7� 3 . �\ _ ,�' � •;� • -- '� ~ �J1i. OO �- •n'J 984 ,,t,••,� �} / _ . •'t •, ` . . `f ;a'-' /' • t.•. � • . � - __ `_ �' -' 'LIZ - _ ; - J . �' o�� 'C �• � Q - - .. � -Q �_"',`. � 3 7 E co GE -- Ala #er Tan - l ��:- : -- '' �'� �•� •, - / 2 nt Yy 2c A. a - .... 7 7,---- - a I " 1\ -: I .. Z • ` { • 0 t I , — I 0 0 1"0 �■ ... !► • 1016 . -+Y.- k 1w Hazel P43t tJ ,i .;,`. g , �� , .. 1 _ 1 r 0 - '` - y - x'1.1 - _ - \ CD. 6 ve -L-ake. oil ea Vet Lak '• • \ - 1, � J - , t- ( � , ­e = 1 i... i r� _ - 1 i �e t. ,� (' � •�" OO • ••• ; 1`" \�� /p2 ti lam" ti . � NIMUMS ' 4� , N `"� ' ' ! • • • • • • • •• `r J O is ` ~� , �--' 1 l 1 4 t ,r � • \_ + MES AI/� A g :: ; • • Midv • . M ; • IR t a .... ale. • f. �-� r-ti.' •i Q \ • • •• 2 • - • .; •NM■ • \.. • ... PI�. "� t \ -�c - :: ' .: .Transfigure n ! �. N ti � • Oethio &I L 1 ATE 0 0 t 6� Sch' ..... : ' . r -- - ` • • • • • 1• • �• .�� r :T o ,, r- jj 1 fi' • i • •• • • � t • : % \ •I : • 1.• •t•• •. i 1 • C • ' 100 ��� ^_--_ f -,.,., ♦ • • • . • 7d •. • • r J , • • , �.' \.- t • • • • • • • • �" • n ' ! E71C H 03 LOCATION MAP In J. Pit �r, North Suburban Development Co. ~ 4— IV C/o Mr. Jack Menkveldt P.0 Beii 34004 Im 186-0000 ^~�~ Inirlwal 0. mm x� « 'nu '' , ,�. �, | | ° ~~ ~ ' `~� . . RAW fee. _ �--.'~~.~==~° /\ \�� ,=°,°~~.°,^~ �" � | Von#. o 406 P ee, 0aw pmmnmmery Utility Plan oY: MAPLE WOODS ESTATES SECOND ADDITION City of MAPLEWOOD Ramse Count It 0. ZI ZI JA E -'4 A.': 1%*1 X ; r too % I a 126 to ISF ! T kid 21 f \ . � \ / ' LA_— Land Allocation � | ` ` ---'--- ---- ---' —'��.c��� --------' | =~- Ir "� ~01=~~°~ ,or, —| It SOVIe°~ Lois ____—~=Act" _________°60Acres ~~er~SO41I~_—___~"Acres ~1101 -_______.=Act" pmcuMmmRr UT/Liry PLAN PARED"" _~~� =~=� CHARLES mmomr CONSULTING ENGINEER M0010411 PI W&L S34*4 ~_~_..~~~ _~ &-p- ininifir. rL 814wf* E:x u (9 it # 4.1 #4 PROPOSED The project consists of developing de p g a 31.6 Acre parcel for single family detached housing. The development of will include construction. of ne p the site w streets within the 31.6 acres that connect to existi ng city streets; installation of water sewer, gas., elec, telephone and cable e TV within the site; grading of approx 14 of the 31.6 acres to accommodate street utility cons ruction and prepare b and p P building pads for proposed streets, storm sewer catch basins and lines.will be ins t to control run off of st alled orm water and direct storm water to an existing low land for temporary storage. The site has u existing ' instal g tility lines and foundations that w led In the early 1970s. These ere properly abandoned tility lines will be d and the foundations and other site wi disposed of.' be removed and ds debris on the .. . The project shall commence _u o • plat p n completion of law decision and approval of p by Maplewood and will require a to complete. q pprox 60 days s 44 ir awa Wa►shington Motro 0 District �x.+a- I V3 rr •* 5 222" White Boar Ave.. Maplewood. Mn.. 551og (612)779- 2207 PERMIT Permission is granted to conduct grading operations in accordance with the Rules and Rt ulations and Mituge®ent Plan of the District for the pro act P • Ma le woods 2nd Addition d owned by North Suburban Development , District Permit No. 92 - , subject to the following special provisions 1. Construction shall be in accordance with the plans submitted to the District as of March 4; 1992. 2. The site soil erosion and sediment control facilities shall be installed and maintained to conform with the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District standards, as detailed in the enclosed Attachment A. 3. The site soil erosion and sediment control facilities must be installed prior to any . site grading operations. The District's Administrator must be notified once these facilities are installed. Grading operations shall not begin until the .District Administrator approves the installed facilities. 4. All grading operations shall be conducted in a manner to minimize the potential for site erosion. 5. In areas where concentrated flows *will occur (such as swales and areas in front of storm sewer catch basins and intakes), the erosion control facilities shall be backed by a stabilization structure to protect those facilities from the concentrated flows. The stabilization structures, such as snow fence, shall be approved' by the District Administrator, 6. Any damaged silt fencing or other erosion control shall be restored to their originally installed condition daily. 7. All areas disturbed during construction shall be restored as soon as possible. Any areas that have been finish graded and areas that have been disturbed but have no active grading g o r site building construction shall be seeded and mulched within 14 days. All mulch material shall be disced into the soil in a direction perpendicular to the storrcmwater flow over such areas. 8. All soils tracked onto paved roadways shall be removed daily. 9. All construction site entrances shall be surf aced with crushed rock across the entire width of the entrance and from the entrance to a point at least 50 feet into the construction zone. The Board reserves the' right to review and revise these special provision as circumstances may require. This Permit may be suspended for failure to COMP i y wi th the gbove specified provisions. Approved March 4 Recoaiaend Approval: RAMSEY•WASHINGTON METRO WATERSHED DISTRICT ngineer =ate C4 Tit NOTE: THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT IN NO WAY PURPORTS TO PERMIT ACTS WHICH MAY BE PROHIBITED BY OTHER GOVERJdMIENTAL AGENCIES. 45 j- Washin9ton Metro e � District 0. PERMIT 2223 White Bear Ave.. ma d, mn. 33109 1/E1 Z! 779.22 07 Permission is granted to conduct grading operations in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and Ma nagement Plan of the District for the project P Ma le - Woods 2nd Addition owned by North Suburban Development , District Permit Ho. 92-12 , subject to the following special provi s ions : 10. All. storm sewer .catch basins not needed for site drainage during construction shall be covered to prevent runoff from entering the storm sewer system. Catch basins necessary for site drainage during construction shall be surrounded by a silt fence or double ring of staked hay bales backed by snow fence. nce . The fence or bales shall be installed and maintained around all catch basins utitil the tributary areas are restored 11. Properly designed filter blanket and riprap shall be installed on the downstream side of all storm sewer outlets. 12. All riprap shall be designed and installed with a filter material and meet the Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications for riprap and filter material. 13. A silt fence backed by snow fence shall be installed and maintained directly downstream of all outlets. 14. The District Administrator, Cliff Aichinger (779- 2.207), shall be notified of the pre - construction meeting so he can arrange to attend the meeting. 15. The storm sewer discharging into* wetland KL -74 shall be extended to outlet at the normal water level of the wetland, Elevation 998.5 or lower. The Board reserves the right to review and revise these special provisions as ci rcum sta n ces may require. This permit may be suspended for failure to cmply with the above specified provisions. Approved 0. March 4 . 19,x,,,• Recomend Approv RAMSEY - WASH I NGTO N KEM WATERSHED DISTRICT 1 ' President E n gineer JatQ Stignature NOTE: THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT IN NO WAY PURPORTS TO PERMIT ACTS WHICH- MAY BE PROHIBITED BY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. 46 DEPARTMENT of THE ARMY• ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1 25 . ' 1421 U.S. POST OFFICE & CUSTOM HOUSE YEARS u of S Ennives T. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 -1479 1866 -1991 e[w�aa REPLY TO e r l 9 , mb ' 19 91 , ATTENTION OF � Dece • ' Construction- Operations ' Regulatory (91- 1579N -12) Mr. .Ken Roberts Maplewood Community Development bepa'rtment r 18 30 East County Road B s Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 •, SUBJECT:. Maplewood Estates, 2nd Addition ..We have reviewed the information which Y ou p rovided us about the development .,proposed by . the North Suburban Development an Com between P y McKnight Road* and Sterling Street, north of Larpenteur street The gradin g plan indicates the potential for minor wetland encroachment. However, we have- determined that this work is authorized by a,. nationwide Department of the .Arm permit, provided the enclosed conditions and management practices y g P s are • ' ':�' -•� �'•• •'' followed. This determinati :� `�• :�''•'���� `� �' i.na � n covers only the project referenced above , which is •, .: • , also shown on ,the attached plan sheet. If the design, location or a r purpose of the work is changed, the proposer should contact us to make sure the work =•_ would not result in a violation of Federal law. It is their responsibility to ensure that the work complies with the terms of this letter and any enclosures. ALSO, IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED STATE PERMITS AND APPROVALS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE PROJECT. This confirmation will be valid until the nationwide permit within the regulation is modified, reissued, or revoked. It is incumbent upon the public P P to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public notice announcing the changes when they occur. Also, if the work is commenced or are under contract to commence before the date the nationwide permit is modified or revoked, the developer will have 12 months from the date of modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit confirmation. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Tim Fell at (612) 220 -0360. De rmination: 330.5 (a) (26) Jack Menkveldt 1 (� Ben Wopat Chief, Re latory Branch Construction - Operations Division MAKING A DIFFERENCE One hundred twenty -five years of dedicated engineering and professional services 47 j E� t...N I t6Cl` RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA - SHEET NUMBEi ( Joins inset sheet 1 1 ) R. 22 W. 1 2 260 000 FEE 1 189 15313 *NVOO ROAD c 266 Q2 7 16-IL 858C 120 1055 00 k 4 w . a i a 153C 342 P. 49B 42 3 1530 028- TJ _ . .. . 15 452 ... 266 342C ��JRT 30 * M .NT PAUL Yw, • -T- 10 7 153 86* a to x w s. , `�. , ;+! '` . , • ,� ,; 0 . 0 %r - v X 342C'l� 3428 Lu YbP 342C 86101% v B. # 153 .0-4. v ip 32% Alt 1027 861C 3426 A. . _ '�' , �' '''• ` lip 2 6 c z APLEWOOD'i %13428 34ZC r - 8 j -j C Wk 61 0 3428 >4 342C E" LARPENrEuR AVENUE z WTN. 44 - .342 k 14 34 11165 z E" - 142D 3, •1 4 . 2C Z 3420 28 U `34 861C W 41 42C 5. > .4 s 5048 w del 4 C 34 Ik- 1696 . 343p, 1029' 15PEI 544` 2 17-A MfKr 342C 9 896 342C 40 —1538 :L 541 120 *tS N%T'?A 10 •. , 30 342D `"55 C 861C 342C _ 1 264 1029 861C 452 544 u i6 342C 541 2 255 000 FEET (Joins inset, sheet 18 4 6 456 507 "Are • EX 4 1 10:�>rr la ATTACHMENT 18a* Approximately 18 acres of the site will be developed to incl . P imp ervious surfaces lawns and p lantings* The remainder of the p site ( approximately 1 4 acres) will consist of woods t grass and wetland Two small lowlands exist in the south and west edges of the side. A DNR protected wetland exists in the easterly portion of the site. All of these areas will remain undisturbed. Prop osed surface water runoff is estimated iiy use of the rational for.mu ] a for a 10 year design storm with a 30 minute duration t for which the rainfall intensity is 3.3 inches pe hour. A Composite runoff coef is ient of 0 yi e3 ds a total runof of 42 C fs . The storm water system has been designed to meet the requirements of th Rams ey o- a hin g ton Metro watershed District and the City of Map.3ewood t s stormwater management plan* 18b,. ipproximately 75% of the runoff from the site will he directed to the existin g P onding area WNR Wetland. 62� 24OW) located in tba eastern portion of the site* The remainder of the site will drain from rear yard areas to the small existing lowl referred to above. The runoff wi not ad vgrsel,y impact water levels on adjacent or downstream receiving waters based of revicws by the watorched Diotr ict onginooro . The runoff will be treated by existing lowland fringe areas that will be undisturbed. 49 TOTAL P.03 STATE OF 1! DEPARTMENT CF NATURAL RESOURCES sQ0 IAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL MINNESOTA • 65155.44 ONR INFORMATION tbtZf Z96 -6151. April 23, 1992 Geoff olson, city Planner city of Maplewood 1830 Co* Rd. B Maplewood, Mn 55109 Post -it"m brand fax transmittal memo 76711 # of Pag r Feel" Q � 1 1800 ne R 7 4-1JV 414., Re : proposed residential dove l P o meat in SW 1 a ec. 13,' T29N R22V, Ramsey Co. tar. 01s OAt database has been reviewed to determ The Minnesota Natural Her itage natural. features are e pla or anima. species. or other significant if any rar p e -- mi- Ie_ -Qf - -the -- above- referenced projeCt. A print -out known to occur with an d alc�n with an explanst�n of -- the - _forma t - - - of -t e of the results is enc Los t . B d a fact sheet about Blanding' s Turtle ( a print -out. I have enclose Minnesota. Threats to a s p ecies that is listed as threatened in . bland inQi i y , � o wetlands, in which the turtles 1. eve . this sp ecies include filling of shall P u plands o ' which are used for nesting• and development of candy upl atural Heritage Heritage database is maintained by N The Natural � its within the section of =t is the most c p Program and the Nongame Vildlife Program, om lets source of g Wildlife, Department of Natural Resourceso i lent and e ota' s rare, endangered, or otherwise sign P data on Minns . o and other natural features, and is used n animal spec ies, p�.ant communiti re features. The fostering better understanding and protection of these ra is drawn from many parts of 14innesots, and s information in the databa se an a comprehensive survey of the tantl. ed, but it is not bused. P cons tantly being update state. Therefore, there e are currently Many significant natural features rz sented by the database, Because there present in the state which are n rep of the �Jolog resaurc$s of the pro j e0t has - not been an on -site suzVey area, it is p exist for which we • p ossible s ible that ecologically significant f eatures. . have no record. y ou and for our interest in -hank ou for c onsult i ng us on this �a tter � Y view ote'8 rare r�saurcee. please be aware that re minimizing impacts on Minnes es onl on race natural Natural Heritage and Nongame Programs focus y by the Nat. V iew or a p p roval by the Department of ..features. It does not constitute re pP Natural'Resources as a whole, Sincerely, Bonita Eliason . Endangered Species Environmental Reviev Coor dinator Natural Heritage and Nongame I1ildlife Programs 6121297 -2 ' .• AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 50 Ma Estates .Second Addition Bland lngs Turtle Study for EAW August 27, 1992 Submitted by: ENVMOSCEENCE, INC. 6474 City West Parkway Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (612) 944 -8486 51 Exhibit 10 I. Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the existence or potential existence of the Blanding's Turtle (Embydoidea blandingii), a State threatened species, at the study site. II. Study Site The study took place at the proposed housing development site in Maplewood, located between Mcknight Road and Sterling Street, south of Ripley Avenue. III. Study Method The site was surveyed on August 25, 1992 by a biologist from Enviroscience, Inc. The survey consisted of a site walkover to identify the wetland and upland habitat and its suitability for Blanding's turtles. Section 11, northwest of the project site where Blanding's turtles have been reported, was visited to compare the habitat P P there, with the habitat at the project site. In addition to referral to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Program database, the DNR Regional Wildlife Biologist was also contacted to identify any other known significant natural resources. The Ramsey County Soil Survey was referenced to determine the presence of suitable soils for turtle nesting. Iv. Results The project site is an undeveloped area composed of upland grassland, wetlands, and woods. Previous human disturbance at the site has resulted in P redominance of early successional and weedy pioneer lant species. The trees are mostly ounce P P YY b aspen with more mature woods in some areas, such as southeast, which include elm, ash and boxelder. The grassland is composed primarily of non - native weed P P Y species such as brome, bluegrass, spotted knapweed, and thistle. Soils on the site are classified by the Soil Conservation Service as primaY ril Urban Land- Kingsley Complex. However, Urban Land is defined as miscellaneous land which is more than 90% covered by buildings, concrete, asphalt, and other impervious surface. This is not the case on the project site, which is undeveloped. Therefore, the soil type is primarily Kingsley soil which is about 32 inches of sandy loam. Field observation of the surface soil verified a sandy loam consistency. 52 Four wetlands were identified on the project site. Wetland types, as delineated by the National 'Wetlands Inventory, were verified in the field. The westernmost wetland is a Type .4 (PUBG) of 0.7 acres. The north end is covered with duckweed, the south end is open water. The pond is shallow, with depths from about 4 to 24 inches. Very little vegetation is growing in the pond. The west side of the pond is urban lawn and the other sides support primarily willows Pp p Y dogwoods, and boxelder. The southwest wetland is a Type 4 (PUBG) of 0.7 acres. It is vegetated with floating pondweed and some cattail. Reed canary grass and late g oldenrod surround the edges. The surrounding habitat is mix of urban lawn, shrubs, trees, and upland grassland. The two southeast wetlands are Type 4 (PUBG) of 0.6 and 0.3 acres. They are mostly open water with some cattails. The surrounding area is primarily a mixed woods of aspen, boxelder, and elm. The northeast wetland is a Type 3/4 (PEMC /PUBG) of 5.0 acres. It is mostly cattail with a small area of open water. This and the previous wetlands are part of a wetland complex which is on the DNR Protected Waters inventory. The Natural Heritage database does not have any records of blanding's turtles on this site. They have been recorded in Section 11 to the northwest, a roximatel • . Pp Y 1.5 miles away. No Blanding's turtles were identified on the project site at the time of this survey. V. Discussion According to Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna, (Coffin and Pfannmuller, 1988) the Blanding's turtle refers calm, shallow water, q vegetation, rich aquatic etatio p g n and sandy .upland areas for nesting. Females may travel up to 400 meters to a nesting site. The wetlands on this site are shallow, have some aquatic vegetation q B- and are near upland areas. Although much of the area adjacent to the wetlands is wooded, sandy upland areas were observed nearby b and the trees. This 'combination of shallow wetland and sandy upland may provide suitable feeding and nesting habitat for the Blanding's turtle. Similar soil tYP a and wetlands are found in Section 11 where the turtle has been recorded. Without intensive surveying over a period of time the presence or absence of Blanding's turtles on the site cannot be conclusively determined. However, they were not observed at the time of the survey and have never been recorded at this site by the DNR. The proposed project would not impact the wetland habitat of any potentially existing turtles. It would, however, alter the nesting habitat. The existing grassland or open sandy areas would be covered with either urban lawn or an 2 53 impervious surface such as houses and asphalt. This alteration would reduce the available nesting habitat. The presence of automobiles and the increased exposure to humans would also detrimentally impact turtle by increased P otential for vehicle collisions, for example, possible nest destruction by pets or children, or other human activities. VI. Summary Blanding's turtles were not observed on the project site at the time of this survey. Similar habitat to this site is found on the section to the northeast where Blanding's turtles have been reported. Suitable habitat for the turtles may exist on this site. If Blanding's turtles do exist on the site, they would be negatively impacted by the presence of a housing development on the site. 3 54 ,. •ire �7 .(. • / w ti :. } "" .r..�: _. .t v-• s. .w w .ss R.wa C! M'r .T �..:.: � ■ .• .t„ -,rj .. "• �..�,� ,r �.�y '•.0 y "' •.,;' ° '' R � s s b '#�� ! .t-RC � _ `•`� r . V A ` SS� � l L ���'.' r » 'f ir�'�..' �: >:w " 'rlt�ih � .fir R : � �i , '.. ��r.. - � '.r I. •� � � `'r. .° � em u.; 1 '•- ,•�.� �<a%s� x f'~" ;\S o, ! .1: � • 1) .:.. •� • �� S � .. a :..{. j � �„ �_. .. -_ i 1 + t ^'.i � •w • �� } t `• a i7 a r9 Yi a vs.�Y >t +R ff\ //� \'�' F�" • .- �.•{.r._\ �"�''.� yet � _ it • i p�0� 1Vd� • Cgte�/ is ' "" i y�3 .... l i•' ,, •vRr�rtx o�+t�++r'C� l ^ ` '� � `-�'' _ _ � 1 ' ♦. 927 � �t� �..�x +/ =�, t • s N� t iw• Z�'s .ts�yy -K s�'t'r. «,- '�' r ` _ • , �V l .i • • � � .,Ir ..� • ,. .1.. `_ Lt�7 - - 4 EM �>•�t.. .� \� Wr. �,; ..,.,,,,, +�•',•,ir, ..L,V ,... " Fi, %v.a _. __ C _- -_- '•� I . .1. • .i % � r� s �� �V V� %` •� " I' Illi� `'x i';" r j�"�J•• '�+ 4 , T MC. �'.r ..� l �.� \� /� • 1.. , � J r �` .• \ • arrn(� 1 uu ii l�yr r j , = >. r n . z: , Sx °�: x " �F, •Y, _ k t _ ✓)/ (/ • Y � \\ � • ` t t� � �� _ i ��.• i3 :.�._ e_ .r:.~±XCa`,�f" t�'°y`t+d' Ei , N � ��y'.-•�,! tom!• -. .. �, • rr�/.��'►� a • • � � t T .'��."x' S.: ° c x 'a, .f.':,." .,.. ;�..... �j - • ^ / / �.. /T 'PE �\a . �'. ■ ■�J ,, a r�iy�l• • 1 s : • '' .� rn. ,'�?"' *. r� '�`• ' .►e',.' '� �,,,,�,"'••�Mr. yea. -.'. • !ii'" ,// i �, �� \ .. ._ _ i � ,.".•! ti a. „ r . s-, \ .,-+' -f+� fb 4 ,,. }T" ' N •. .'a�t- ''eL"'t� n. '_ / / PY'1 r . ■ , i ,.: �� .. . • . .• � i ' x• �'t� i u l i y..i�•r„ $ �- f� 4 ,a• t � fi' h°'�•+� � .�s� / i t / •� -��... • r / • ■ �• 4 ■ 1( �� s •• • � r • r t 1s��o•� csoarw<'tr...r `'�.�r -a �/� ° si• :. -�= -.. • • • ■' � / .. • t _ Q�' •� A:. 1 , - g py • � � r4..'8: �'' t ♦ /.!�. • r • • i n O .'t:� z '4 . -. ,...y,. t at ..1,•f1•, a.•^^•.� �, / / • • • �'�.� � `� • 'w r • \�L - --� . �'���`s -. '8` .� i:� *r S` �z•r�- �i1.3. ?:.,,�.r+,`y�, .tr•;*�,�; ��� jr i : ■ is V /1 �.. ,a. � y '" a ,. t 3a R it .s t ,.,:•'�a` w • • yl: r� n e . •. r :. a a i t w : s :b•.,A, :�♦••ar ' ... _ _ .... • R w �. �" r V V si � S • • � r w"�f- ..ri7• .:.•S, aY _,•�.'R y � `F a ", . •. � ! .. .,�..�f 7 r .,r Y'+ e. Y�r�1t,) /.�y' �' �. i• , •' • r � t/ .- _�. •'.'•� ° %�� J N.><' L-s.� ��MfG •It'. 4� t•i�. .t `�1 �•!" �I•� ' (J( ■ � r 1Fr►d� 4Et � / j � Ulna in ;; .r. t ..�k^ a� �� J- • t J 1��. -.. _ _. i ".f ' a..�. ''G . x v E h. 1 _- !:: T� ' ! w •t �r f t ///• • ■ _ 11 !�/('�l -Y' `t 1t��0.\ • ` . /j` ` •st .."'- . - 4' I - ,°_ -..__ '� \"�`•_.:. \ /g ^• ,� 1 / -.- D / 1 �� T` ' �.. �.,.�.�, 47 1 _._,� _ _ �j•� ,s} •' fl. Y r' ` • t Z f J v T t �• v `/l .•w -T V� , `J ` 'Jyf,� .i_ a --• ---� _ M' --�► - f - - - - -�� = » f : "��� - •' +'' #.�� ', ' 't r� "''r ' `'�; lt. r r f , .:,;• { { .a%'•+\ 1.�, : ^ �., i i r-f. ,+ a - 5'.. i L V ;:, .. • w . • aS , k' - _ ff 0 95 • �.l \ i ` ' j v .� ,s • r•��•i� r. � �•t --mil- ( • ■ � � t `�' � 1 � '� > ,� <• ; y �ri..�'i`J ' +�j 2 - rli Q �oS.� +,rt•��.��,, :� ` � r �.Zef��.t +�i�f�.t', t•�+ F i i i■r r a• w _ r�. y ?�% / i _ j • c� �y '; y r � ` �' a _ t o ` 4 �T s • fit t �.:' : �. . 1. � \ : • �. • ��• •• � � \ • �� l.■ � n• t ,.. , � '/_ ' 1 ti ! a .s�`.. zY Y � � ♦�,vfi♦. _ �' - s ; � �:F - ..... ::'�j � • ... .�....� (N�,,iwRq} • t .� t � •�'. , s�%s v �.'�$ f ` ��. �/' , :, • .. f �a x •ex - 'a+ ;( `` .k (• • ' S, j i r �.r' t S1 . t•�''`4ry .. • ,,t b.a: %' [v., ,� T .:f • T. 4 0 I i f /�J st■ •• 1 : / • :1 s r rx i l w y Y s :t . U � � a j5� ) t '� t C -j i �-•�'� f; f 1� w `T ,r -. 1 s r F" L Yes x�`f r ' j -' p 1A X r' • _ -- • •• 130 �.L �: re r ��: t r ^ r � It 1Z Y i - � • ""'+ n - �� t / ' ,, •�,� - '"' i � •� � F l��i ?. � !� t �.`,� ' � � i i , � t � w,� •.r y +r4. ?' �s r ,,• �.fi n...t P ►s'�FZ ►+r•Z' ....:...::.._ _• ... rub �. •� M �. \t \ \`. y` : % v f._r /'�•� r ,. 1 �II '�.:� I!•: _' '.i F �.. ti'i.": k L > 1 .» l -v e_ + ep •i- _ s�'. .. .. a• ...r - . `' ` , 1�..! ■'::iK�.� '' • l `z,J � ./ � � Q • � `� ♦ .� r '{. r-+" "? -t. � = {$x '� -iC-1� •- " -- --__ , s. " - t / r G.� - 7'• / � -- t_ _ .� •i • ,�- `'` l i i + �i `� • y;.- e„�.:.�.�.•:t,.:��,�{�.:iF� y r te . cr J .j .•s•(K.'�.'t��R� r ,'Z_ ..'``\ <._'•-•' ... _. . _ .... _.. �.. ♦ {/C , r _ f f ey, t h am { r ! '�`► .k. ♦ .!. i,�- '6• a iF �z rt , e t \•... ` - .:;-. y.' t � • ' . .. r . ` r 7 f 1 `I Z , '/ (•.. i s t .• `rs" .. .•,.t si►,. f .s '". 1 t' `t'' ` _.. �: . •� ' /' .. -/ 11 ,1 ■ r • .. - f V I 1 ( i�.: 1' 1 < °'`i :..mss ' � - `y rw.l.,s,M� • ._._ \ \ i ... -! _ � r�- •/ , )t �� V l ,�tR •' - _ 1 ! [j' �.7 wa / �� ,3,; �t .i!, ��. ,� ! '4 L � �.. " ;''r �.. ,_s..- .R.•,• .� .�:.- .._,,, �� \, i r r i • . � • • • ' .. 1 ' r : •. j / �J s Q, 1Q f< ''•�.iC� �k..3 r �;. '1 ,:ir ",x„ .! �` I t s \` , _ '!' _ J • r r -• r f • V f,i ' �.•�.•ry fi a- i V!C t"...� s •r:_ �; ac" yv'�•f �. A..Y' s3 .{ • r ♦ ''j , 1 M 1. ° ,. • �g,a -- i �R,} �• �.• c a• 'x'.• .�S"" *•5 y snl - �,/�•�1 fr • � f'r1'� • � � � i �� • • � . • • � • • % ;� � � Q � 4 �u < �. / r #>� �'�'• `sC� �� �/ �' �y ��` R } � fi y �. «� �.>,�•"�yGt+v �.- :, . +� ( fs\ I,� i •�. /... ♦'. J • 1 r ? .• r - _ ••rr`• �; • a. Af "` .1• ' •4'Z'•Lr fit. ; { 3 S �...z• ',a"` `..0 j I' : t / \ • ■1•••ar�r• 1' II � � / • <.. rs' ,; \,..:.a, .�- •-+"'. � i � •. - 2."•.4N'.t: '•i � " �4 } \ �- -� '� . k ■ •. :�. T \ > tiJ. ''yr2S� . y _ye.T.� F?4 ii+ + f `hw i ._.. 1 t. _ } -♦• k �. t,s Y' w • is t 0 a•`' �,'.f:'' . t. a: A.•�.`•'�; '" . 7E -- �. C I 1 ` g • Y � 5 �� + •1 • , ' PE r yy<� �wt.a+ wy t' ✓ats .c sciT� {" stt� E• t • 91. • r • •••!!! • :* • _ • • 11 '+ r: s • �` !! Q `( (r �' „ �"• : ' . w �Qa E r - w o .., 3 off s �[ . �'� ` sF- ---��� i •' r = _.. J A V h: �✓ t•. � C :> a Yt ;i � . r� � a .. � b k . �I � - �; '� o"M r ' . / • . � •• rtl� ei ■l!i?�ir +. Ir.il 1 • ' • f < • • �• t y ♦ wi, ; r- x ;,i �R �'' '(Mr • s • •• ' - 1.� �' ` ��� I � ■ •..f� • • ry '� /�a •�•i vt .ry�.�s. �r.� S , c `Ctzy .'1 :_.... - ._.= _ ...: . � !(i�'•r•tri iJ � • •.w �Q[�QLL a i t• l a r •.. .:. y i A � �'� .: Z � l J / � 1y` / r ... • t ! r..� � - � `+.r enn • lij(■r�� J_;}�. r•� �I \ �ah� �f\✓ p r_` - 1. �� tls 41,_r_� �, '4t `rtir f';jlt } ' y`: ; f . �/ c,� ..:! ("�`. ✓ �■ r .��:' -r J J r ■••■srr, -i i n i1 y ���r . ,r••FI•i° l:�C�4] °'Z i�:..•' M11 ',� w - �a r c, , ; • , ! `.' e �,� PU6G' . \:: /'�� r r} ;i; _ t l \ • • ■ • r rr • ' \� • \ } I �' _T.'� : w� y,, • :(.... ._ { / ! r• T' e •. 1 1 •f v 1 r ! `1 / 1 '� �` i� � : ! r Q t C� T .! 1 "� �..:! \` J - alw "' \ • , i1•• r • • ll wi •f .y'C 1 a V ', ' I . t"� ../ •�V / CC ems. �,y� ♦ • tti `••• d C 1 I - ) • s •. �� • • • •: '!' i n i r fEM \� <t M� % / • I ,I 'Ve r ` ♦)� s �. • •F : --kh • •! I • r • � a + / l z -: • ■ ' - I .:..J TUN 1_, �� . � t �, • ��•1 f� li J , ,i� t.�• ;' �•..•.t• P -1 t Q ��� tlnt�l, Ha /, J �i t i/ 1. �, !/r := v r •.• • sr . y y / 1 Y •»t • ...fff _ - : -.,'.• w }ex } '' ` I '•' a ._i ll, ii ,� {7 i l ~� M .+I .i♦ .ai. *• ' ° ;•• �. • , "• ��] ' � } ,tftr■r• •r • • ♦ t It�•wr•r w 8 --$ R.r r • - �•CLr W`._�a.' _ �f -' p 1 J 6j rOunt��{ ff ,; •�.• Pf r ..• . ■ r �.. .,■ %;�.r _ - T ! , `! a1 Ct�U r w 1 t►ti' ��_�� f �El� 1 t J lt��V, �� F mE'i� �` ,; �• r : : A :� �9J ! ..i .°• ., ,l 1 - =PEM {, .,�,�/ \' t Q�•�y�C / �' P1 a �! S) Si. i �A/ � r' ' i 1� •I +jt'. °s ) �/' w ! E!!r1"� • M 3 % ;'1 /..'�:" ti "• 1 ���i• r • j: • 11� ��,r �lI•►; �11�Si1•t•.s.� r, j /� - ,�.�.wr...�.+.r'e" w. i _ } �� ~•tt°- " ---' pE ,�1 /f:1T "C' �' Ln ..P� .: 1 � �1``. • ;r • • '\ �i■ Rlv�l:.i ` : t •:ems 1\ '"` ;j ' ,•� i ! �'\..' t ` I '` ii w i r • 1 • Ii •, 1 =�*� .1 V 1 1. `' 1. t • r 51 i (t •'I t �: \. V -L" ` e fit• ,�` ..._.._._ter. ' .,;�....__ _ - .} PS •t �. •f 4" _`- •oh`•r 1 L- i , 'l l_ !t \ ` - _ �� �•��'' .�,� t `� ��•� C � • � . i C'r...r. ! /�6 BG `� .I r .a, Ys.. .! ' \• .( :r a •• •t, j •t. '1�['.i�r1 ii - PU PU SIG \ i .1 ) . t.� Pueb� FEW " ' ": I ,� t 5 .. -' ' „ :� t !�•r�) - / ASS ` +� \ �.� Mf�l -�r °. { �I `• �' �� �� .1 F F �( ; A •�. , : it •/. .` 1 �.�� �r '11 \. � �1'., •I � � f }' `�: t •.''•t f (� ° \ I I: 1" ';; .y''� Fv.� � 'l! � PF n ...: w • l� l� r.` _� :/ . r r . _rte- Project Location _� +: _ .. r ; • _ _ "� t /'. f i ' i " j•••''••�� { {! 1 f� ,. �. rr �J� {► / M : " . • ♦ ' \ f 4 i' : t . ,-' ` .. �� - - ' �►._ •i. "' fi t � " i z 1 +�tf �'` /•♦' ` t l • - i t \�V -"'-" J .ii , - -T,; —�— -- -,- - .•,-- .- ..•, -. ,_-- -- �\ a.t, iyi- �ii'cr�. :I �`� �.pEMG� ..�; p.E _ •�.- t, 1, 1 4 1 Y ( < \ - � ? _ 1 Rt� t � y /� !` f �!9 b' 4 3f • \ p �P f �1 F `•i �' ,� t � ' I �' '� ' , {'�1 a i q vE ` ( '"r q/"1j:Y - r" :�1 ., -1,'♦ I ..-1. ,u� '. _ _ 7 `�, ..� �UVV }� `; 1 " ` ?c �J_ t...�. _ .. l_... � ; �'a.�..r.'i - �� ' _, ,.� \..- ?, /(_ • `. 1 • • ';� i (� I ,I (�•^_,1 p - • •.� � (� 0. L' t /� v ��•�ty U• B a � ----� .1 S •. f 1 t Q jA ' ^a ' ` • •\ t \�. {`i' J_9Mc;. _ ���,: •4'� �„ Dt 1 Pf1F MW J IJ VV \ no r Z . am P Sri Aac.►a pp�c , �," ,_ , F' P-B� .� w . PEMt leg J7) Ire � 1 1 r.Ll ;L�;D aterOTan HG URE 1 Q. 1 �` f n, RI /'/ _�«._.__ : ' AV Lac..._. /'L _ ♦�.. �„✓ P •. Lk 0 PE W Source: National Wetlands Inventory :.�; !'�Af?� t!`..�:' a /t - t:�.r J,� •� � �.�� ' - - -..'� ��t ©,�: „ {� • �E� 55 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY September 29, 1992 Mr. Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts: Re: Maple Woods Estates Second Addition S/2 SW /4 S13, T29 R22 City of Maplewood, Ramsey County MHS Referral File Number: 92 -3547 Thank you for providing this office a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above- referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to 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. Sincerely, I&- )"t , J 64A Britta L. Bloomberg Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer BLB : dmb Attachment 14 345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST / SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 -1906 / TELEPHONE: 612- 296 -6126 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 October 13, 1992 Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 612 291 -6359 FAX 612 291 - 6550 T1Y 612 291 -0904 RE City of Maplewood Environmental Assessment Worksheet Residential Subdivision Maple Woods Estates 2nd Addition Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15717 -1 Dear Mr. Roberts: At its meeting on October 8, 1992, the Metropolitan Council considered the EAW for Maple Woods Estates 2nd Addition. This consideration was based on the following report from the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee Consent List which was adopted b the Council: p y The city of Maplewood has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a proposed single family residential development consisting of SO lots on 31.61 acres. The committee recommends: 1) that the city of Maplewood presettle stormwater runoff before discharge into area wetlands; and 2) that the city of Maplewood require at least a 20 foot 'no- impact' buffer zone around the wetlands. Sincerely, Mary E. Anderson Chair MEA :Iv cc: Gregg Downing, EQB Michael McQuire, Manager, City f Maplewood ty p Jack Menkveld, North Suburban Development, Inc. Steven Schwanke, Metropolitan Council Staff 57 Attachment 15 January 25, 1993 Ms. Dottie Rietow Metropolitan- Council Mears Park Center 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 MAPLE WOODS ESTATES SECOND ADDITION EAW -MET COUNCIL .FILE 15717 -1 I am responding to Mary Anderson's letter of October 13, 1992, about the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition project. On P P J February ? ?, 1993, the Maplewood City Council determined there was no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this ro'ect. The developer of this ' P J p project, North Suburban, Inc., has hired Loucks and Associates to help hem through the P g environmental review process. The following comments address the issues raised b y the Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee at its meeting on October 8, 1992: (The numbers correspond to the numbers m the letter.) 1. Presettlement -of storm water runoff before discharge into area wetlands: The developer has changed the grading plan for this project. The plan now shows sedimentation basins in the rear of lots 21 and 22, Block 1 and Lots 3, 4, and 13, Block 3. All storm water runoff will pass through these basins before discharging into DNR protected basin 62 -240W. Outlets from these basins will have a device to increase retention time. These outlets also will have a device to provide skimming of floatables. The sedimentation basins will require periodic maintenance in the form of sediment removal. The City Engineer will approve these plans before the developer starts construction. 58 Attachment 16 Ms. Dottie Rietow January 25, 1993 Page 2 2. Buffer around wetlands The developer is willing to place a wetland buffer around wetland 62 -240W. This buffer area will vary in width. It will be 50' feet wide around most of the wetland. The City will require a 20- foot -wide buffer area b Lot 5 Block 3 and Lot 3 Block q y , 4. Can the eastern end of Lot 13, Block 3 the City will require a 30 -foot -wide buffer area. The City also will require deed restrictions . on all lots next to the wetlands. These deed restrictions would revent mown or disturbance of the native P g vegetation within the buffer. area. The deed restrictions also would rohibit filling g in the wetland. The City also may require similar deed restrictions on the smaller non -state inventoried wetlands. However, these smaller wetlands are man -made and have mowed urban lawns on their edges on the adjacent properties, g J P P Thank you for your comments. Please call me at 770 -4566 if you have any questions. KENNETH ROBERTS - ASSOCIATE PLANNER kr\rietow2.let cc: Jack Menkveld, North Suburban Development, Inc. Chuck Plow, E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. 59 c efeb I rati �- 5 :. Minnesota Pollution Con trol Agency Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act October. 12, 1992 Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner °± City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road 8 Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts. RE: Maple Woods Estates -- 2nd Addition Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the above - mentioned project. B ased on the information contained in the EAW, the Environmental Analysis Office staff believes that significant environmental effects are not likely to occur as a result of this project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not appear to be warranted.. We do, however, have a number of comments concerning the proposed project. Wetlands 1. The proposed site layout for the residential lots and structures appear to have maximized the avoidance of wetlands. Subsequent proposals by individual home owners to fill wetlands on individual lots, however, should not be allowed if such proposals would conflict with the wetlands plan that was.incorporated into this proposal. For the lots that contain wetlands, a recorded deed restriction or other acceptable permanent restriction is required that will prohibit present and future lot owners from.filling wetlands. 2. Exhibit 8 of the EAST indicCat.es that runoff w.1.11 flow through e =:isti ng lowland fringe areas that will remain undisturbed by the project. A conservation easement or other protective method should be established for any of the fringe areas that will be located within private property in order to assure that the fringe will remain intact. 3. Replacement of lost wetland values is necessary to satisfy the federal and state rules and policies concerning the no- net -loss of wetlands. The EAW did not indicate whether any existing wetlands would be modified to accommodate the storm water runoff. Any existing wetlands that are altered by excavation or other construction to function as storm water retention basins should be considered as being adversely effected and, therefore, would require U. S. Army Corps of Engineers permits. Any unavoidable impacts will require compensatory mitigation to offset those impacts. 60 Attachment 17 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898; (612) 296 -6300; Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Kenneth Roberts Page 2 runoff from the catch basin system to 4, Direct discharge of storm. water form of retreatment basin the wetlands should not be allowed. Some f P f u land area for the attenuation o should be constructed in the P r to discharge to the storm rm water flow and sedi ment deposition prio wetlands. • c in the amount of wetland acreage on There appears to be a discrepan Y Question 10 indicates that 5* that is identified in the EAW• the site t question 26 indicates on the site; que there are 5.29 acres of wetlands he city, Please wetlands will be dedicated to t Y that 5.9 acres of clarify this issue in the response to comments. Storm Wat Permit larger than five acres in size are Residential housing projects g char a Elimination System required to obtain a National Pollutant Dis g m ore information on permit to discharge storm water from n the i a site. For more Pollution this permit, Pe contact Scott Thompson ileas Quality . Control Agency (MPCA) Water Qua y Division at 61Z /296 -724 Land. Use • n concerning the land use and The EAW does not provide information question 9. This adjacent lands, as requested under q development on add h res onse to comments. information should be provided in t P s, and your final these comment forward to receiving your responses to regarding our We look fo EIS. If you haVe any questions g decision on the need for an of m staff at 612/296 -77 comment s , please contact Paul Schmiechen Y Sincerely, Paul Hoff, Director Environmental Analysis office Administrative Services Division PH:tc cc. Larry Zd on , MPCA Water Quality Division 61 January 25, 1993 Mr. Paul Hoff, Director Environmental Analysis Office Administrative Services Division MN Pollution Control Agency g Y 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898 MAPLE WOODS ESTATES 2ND ADDITION EAW, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA I am responding to your letter October 12, 1992 about the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition. On February ?? 1 p ary 993, the Maplewood City Council determined there is no need for an Environmental Im act Imp statement (EIS) for this project. The developer of this project, North Suburban Development, Inc., has hired Loucks and Associates, Inc.. to help hem through the p F� environmental review process. The following omments address the concerns in our g Y letter: (The numbers correspond to the numbers in the letter.) 1 &2. Wetland buffer strips, restrictions on. future wetland alteration. The developer is proposing a buffer area around wetland 62 -240W. This buffer area will vary from 20 to 50 feet in width. The City also will require deed restrictions on all lots next to the wetlands. These restrictions would prevent mowing or disturbance of the native vegetation within the buffer area. The deed restrictions also would prohibit filling in the wetland. The City also may require deed restrictions on the lots next to the smaller wetlands. However, the smaller wetlands are man-made and have mowed urban lawns on their edges on the adjacent properties. 62 Attachment 18 Mr. Paul Hoff January 25, 1993 Page 2 3 &5. Wetland inventory, proposed wetland mitigation. Karen Schik, a biologist with Enviroscience, prepared a wetland inventory of the site. She identified four wetland areas with the total area of six and six tenths (6.6) acres. The National Wetland Inventory maps show these wetlands. Franklin Svoboda, an environmental consultant to Loucks and Associates, confirmed their existence and size. The proposed grading plan will not impact any of these wetland areas through filling or drainage. Putting the storm water runoff through the sedimentation basins will reduce the impacts on the wetlands. 4. Storm water pretreatment basins. The developer has changed the grading plan for this project to show two sedimentation basins for storm water runoff. The plan now shows these basins in the rear of lots 21 and 22 Block 1 and Lots 3, 4, and 13, Block 3. These sedimentation basins are outside the existing wetlands. All storm water runoff will ass through these sedimentation basins before discharging p g �g into DNR protected basin 62 -240W. Outlets from these basins will have a device to increase retention time and will rovide skimming of floatables. The sedimentation basins will require P g periodic maintenance in the form of sediment removal. The City Engineer will approve these plans before the developer starts construction. Other Concerns Storm Water Permit The developer will get all necessary storm water permits for this project. Surrounding Land Use The area to the north consists of single family homes in Maplewood and North St. Paul, Maplewood Middle School and Hillside Park. The area to the east is Sterling Street and Hill Murray High School. The area to the south is Maple Woods Estates Apartments and the Maple Wood's Townhouses. The area to the west is Maple Wood's Townhouses and McKnight Road. 63 Mr. Paul Hoff January 25, 1993 Page 3 Thank you for you comments. Please call me at 770 -4566 if you have any questions. KENNETH ROBERTS - ASSOCIATE PLANNER kr/hoff2.let 3 M , STATE OF U V DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155- 40_10___ DNR INFORMATION . (612) 296 -6157 October 12, 1992 - -- - -- OCT i Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Maple Woods 2nd Addition Residential Subdivision Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Roberts: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the Maple Woods 2nd Addition Residential Subdivision. project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. DNR analysis of the EAW items describing the project's anticipated wetland impacts indicates substantial clarification is required to provide. the City of Maplewood, as Responsible Governmental Unit, with the information needed to make an informed decision on this project. The DNR bases this conclusion on a number of points. t. a f VT The proposed project uses protected basin 62 -240w as a stormwater treatment basin, an action the DNR strongly opposes. We base this conclusion on statements presented in Item 18b, found in Exhibit 8, which indicates. 75% of the site runoff will be directed into this wetland and that runoff will be treated by the existing fringe areas. This action is prohibited by Minnesota Rules Part 6115.0231(B)(9), which requires applicants for a DNR Works in Beds in Public Waters Permit to utilize sediment basins or other devices to protect water quality to gain this necessary permit. Although not listed in Item 8, this DNR permit is required under the condition in Statement 15 ofthe Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Grading Operations permit (Exhibit S) allowing storm sewer discharge into wetland KI,-74 (62 -240w) to be extended to outlet at the normal water level of the wetland, Elevation 998.5. feet, or lower. The DNR will notgrant this permit for the project as currently designed because the project poses substantial future risk to the habitat and water quality of this wetland without appropriate stormwater treatment. However, the DNR believes a project redesign maybe feasible and we request the opportunity to review any changes made in this regard. Item 18b states that the project "will not adversel impact • ' ' �� Y a pct water levels on adjacent or downstream receiving waters. The EAW should contain information noting he in in water levels that will occur over existing conditions g crease . . g and what Impacts would occur to the wetland and ad�oining.uses associated with these changes it and Item 12 should be answered es because of the outfall structure associated with the r • • this regard project. We request information i and and that Maple p � q ormation g require a protective buffer strip vegetation, around basin 62 -240w enforced of unmown � natural orced by covenants, easements, or o actions necessary to protect the wetland from alteration b private e Y p property p rty owners. Also, if the 65 Attachment 19 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Kenneth Roberts October 9, 1992 Page 2 g project requires dewaterin in excess of 10,000 .gallons a day, or 1,000,000 gallons per year, . a DNR Division of Waters Water Appropriation permit is required. provide a confusing Furthermore, Item 10 and Exhibit 10 p g accounting of the number and Item 10 lists 5.29 acres of types 2 to 8 wetlands on the site; acreage of wetlands at this s . 2 ara a h 1 identifies four wetlands on the site, but describes five Exhibit 10, page , p � p � all of the 7.3 acres. Additionally Exhibit 10 notes in paragraph 4, page 2, that . . totallin , , hil Exhibit 6 indicates wetlan s identified are art of a DNR Protected Waters complex w , e p s of En eers. under. Section that some of the wetlands resent are regulated by the Corp 4 0 the wetland " efore" and "after" development acreage is the same in Item 10 404. Finally, . . which implies wetland replacement to mitigate the proposed wetland filling (5.29 acres), p � Sec tion 404• there is no discussion of this mitigation in the EAW. The EAW must under Sec .. r a es resent on -site and rovide proposed mitigative actions if Clarify these wetland ac e g p p _ needed, to meet the requirement of the Wetlands Conservation Act and the states no net nee q deficient . . loss wetland policy. The EAW is currently defi in this regard. incompletely addresses two other issues. Item 11a discusses impacts to fish and The EAW life resources on or near the site, and should provide measures to be taken to minimize wild • doubtabl inhabit of avoid adverse impacts. The DNR concurs that rabbits and squirrels un y p f Wildlife that turtles deer, this site, however a local landowner reports to the Section o and foxes are found in the vicinity. The DNR requests information on how Canada g eese • this develo meet will impact these, and other, wildlife resources. Also, what measures are t s p p � to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts . We also note Item 17 does not indicate the p p p r sence of steep slopes or erodible soils at the site. Do these factors exist for this project? Thank y ou for the opportunity to review this document. The DNR recommends redesign, • pp • • • wildlife imp acts and protect the rote ctive actions, and clarification to reduce associated wi d • p p .. p • look forward to receiving our Record of Decision site's valuable wetland resources. We g n your and responses to our comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, requires you Y p u to send us our Record Of Decision and comments within 5 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, a; A �W,4, 0� Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Natural Resources Planning and .Review Section Office of Planning c: Dave Leuthe Steve Colvin. Tom Lutgen Lynn M. Lewis, USFWS Gregg Downing, EQB Roger E. Lake, Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District Jack Menkveld, North Suburban Development, Inc. #930048- 01 /ER4.MAPLE2ND.D0C .. January 25, 1993 Mr. Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Natural Resources Planning and Review Section Office of Planning MN Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 -4010 MAPLE WOODS ESTATES 2ND ADDITION EAW I am responding to your letter of October 12, 1992 about the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. (EAW) for the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition. On February ? ?, 1993, the Maplewood City Council determined there was no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. The developer of this project, North Suburban Development, Inc., has hired the firm of Loucks. and Associates to help the project through the environmental review process. The following comments address the concerns in your letter: About your comments in the third paragraph, the developer has changed the grading plan for this. project. The plan now shows presettlement sedimentation basins in the rear of lots 21 and 22, Block 1 and Lots 3, 4, and 13, Block 3. All storm water runoff will pass through these basins before it discharges into DNR protected basin 62 -240W. Outlets from these basins will have a device that will increase retention time and provide skimming of floatables. The sedimentation basins will require periodic maintenance by City crews to remove sediment. The City Engineer will approve the plans for the basins before the developer starts construction. 67 Attachment 20 Mr. Thomas Balcom Page 2 January 25, 1993 In your .fourth paragraph you discuss the impact on receiving waters and water levels. All runoff that the storm sewer system collects will discharge into sedimentation basins before it discharges into the DNR wetland. The developer will install outlet control devices in the basins that will increase detention time and to provide skimming of floatables. Preliminary storm sewer calculations show that in the existing condition, the peak discharge from a 100 year, 24 hour storm into the DNR wetland is 21 CFS with a time of concentration of 27 minutes. The total runoff to the DNR wetland is about 2 acre feet. Under the proposed conditions, the project will increase the drainage ' , i J g basin to 24 acres. Thus, combined with an increase in the m ervious area results in a e ' P peak discharge of 55.7 CFS from a 100 year rainfall event. The proposed project reduces ' P P p � ces the time of concentration to 20 minutes. The project increases the total runoff from the area to 4.8 acre feet. The pretreatment basins will reduce the eak discharge of P g 55.7 CFS. The City Engineer will analyze the impact of these pretreatment basins during he review o g f the final design. The developer's engineer estimates that the increased bounce unce during a 100 year r ainfall event in the DNR wetland will be about 0.2 feet. This in ' crease will have an insi Icant impact on nesting waterfall and the plant community p unity that is .next to the wetland. Staff recognizes that man people associate a decrease ' Y P P in water quality with runoff from residential developments. This change is usually from the p esticides., ' g y herbicides and fertilizers used to maintain lawns, ardens and landscaping. The g negative effects from the runoff from this project will not be different from the runoff ' from the existing residential developments next to the wetland. The fourth paragraph also discusses project dewaterin requirements. Be ' J g q cause of silty sods, the developer expects all dewateri ng to consist of sums and p ump s installed ' P P p alled in the utility trenches. The volume of the dewaterin will be much less than 10 00 g 0 gallons per day. Therefore, the DNR does not require a P ernut. About you comments in the fifth paragraph, the developer is proposing t P P p p g o place a 50 foot buffer area around wetland 62 -240W The developer is p a p p p g wetland buffer by Lots S. Block 3 and Lot 3, Block 4 of 20 feet. The developer also is proposing p p p ing a buffer of 30 feet on the eastern end of Lot 13, Block 3. The City ill re quire the ty q developer to put deed restrictions on all the lots next to the wetland. These restrictions would revent ' p mowing or disturbance of the native vegetation within the buffer area. Deed res trictions also would note that the City prohibits filling within the wetland. The City may re ' ty y quire similar deed restrictions on the lots next to the smaller non -state inventoried wetlands. However, these wetlands are man -made and have mowed edges on the adjacent properties. g � p perties. Your ffth paragraph also discusses wetland inventory nd wetland mitigation. ry mitigation. Karen Schik, a biologist with Enviroscience, prepared a wetland inventory ° P P ry of the site. She identified four wetland areas with the total area of six and six tenths (6.6) acres. The National Wetland Inventory maps show these wetlands. Franklin Sv oboda, a consultant .: Mr. Thomas Balcom Page 3 January 25, 1993, for the developer, confirmed their existence and size. The proposed grading plan will not impact any of these wetland areas through filling or drainage. The use of the sedimentation basins for storm water runoff will lessen the impacts on the wetlands caused by surface water runoff. About. your comments in the sixth paragraph, a variety of individuals have completed their own wildlife surveys on this property. Karen Schik, a biologist from Enviroscience, did a study to identify the existence or potential existence of Blanding's turtles on the site. She noted that the project site has upland grassland, wetlands, and woods. Previous human disturbance of the site has resulted in a predominance of early successional and weedy pioneer plant species. The trees are mostly young aspen with more mature woods in some areas such as the southeast that have elm, ash and box elder. The grassland area primarily has non native species such as brome, bluegrass, spotted napweed and thistle. Ms. Schik also noted that four wetland areas are on the site. The depth of the wetland areas probably does not support any fish species due to frequent freeze out. Her report states that the combination of shallow wetlands and sandy upland may provide suitable feeding and nesting habitat for the blanding turtle. However, she did not see any of a Blanding�s turtles at the time of her survey. In addition, the DNR has no record sighting of this turtle at this site. Without intensive surveying over several weeks, the City and developer cannot conclusively determine the presence or absence of Blanding's turtles on the site. A local resident, Lucy A. Paschke, prepared a detailed inventory of the site. This list included 147 different species including birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, plants and trees. She compiled her inventory over a period of about two years. Her study shows that she might have seen a Blanding's turtle on the site. As she states however, she was unable to identify many animal species she saw on the property because of inexperience. All the other species that she identified are wildlife and plant species that are typical of and acclimated to urban areas. Franklin Svoboda, asub- consultant to Loucks and Associates, prepared a third inventory. Svoboda found that the site does appear to have Blanding's turtle nesting habitat but this habitat "will be lost in a few years if left unmanaged." He also states "a plan that contains natural openings of native grasses and fortis managed by clearing woody and brushy vegetation would be the best solution to saving this potential Blanding's turtle nesting habitat from being grown over with woody cover. As the literature indicates, and as appears to be the case at this location as well, Blanding's turtles are apparently unaffected by the presence of humans. More critical to their survival is loss of nesting habitat and destruction of nests be predators. If no nesting habitat will be lost as a result of project 3 Mr. Thomas Balcom Page 4 January 25, 1992 construction, than it is very likely that the Blanding's turtle will continue to survive and coexist with the proposed development." Your sixth paragraph also asks about steep slopes or erodible soils. There are no steep slopes . or erodible soils on this site in the undeveloped state. During construction, the contractor will remove vegetative cover. This may increase erosion. The contractor will place silt stop fence in locations necessary to protect I water resources and adjacent properties. Thank you for you comments. Please call me at 770 -4566 if you have any questions. KENNETH ROBERTS - ASSOCIATE PLANNER. kr \balcom2.let 4 70 STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155 -40--40__ DNR INFORMATION (612) 296 -6157 January 11, 1993 Engineer al Stephen M. Johnston, Princi Loucks & p gineer 14 Associates, Inc . 7101 Northland Circle Suite 105 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 a RE: M le � Woods 2 Addition • P 2nd Addition Residential Subdivision Environmental Assessment Worksheet ksheet (EAV�) Draft Responses to DNR Comments Dear Mr. Johnston: . The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the draft r concerns expressed in our comment letter o espouses to our Woods 2nd Addition • , sion , f October 12, 1992, on the EAW f Residential Subdivi or the Maple our letter project. Our review indicates the changes Y er of December 2, 1992, adequately rages proposed in with this project. We a r ade q y addresses. our concerns associated Ttecision eclate the review op ortuni rove ted Ma lewood s record of • p tY p ded as a part of the Ci of . � process for this r ..� city s forthconun Record p o�ect. We look forward to recelvin t - g of Decision. Please contact Do g he 296 82.12, if you have an u n Buckhout of my staff, at (612) y q estions regardin this let g ter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom ' Supervisor Natural Resources Planning and • ' ,. g Review Section Office or 1a�g c: Dave Leuthe Steve Colvin Tom. Lut en Lvnn M. 1Xw1s, USFWS. enneth Roberts, Associate Planner Ci Roser � ty of Maplewood Lake, Ramsey-Washington Metro • Jac Menke 1 g o Watershed District e d, North Suburban Development, Inc. x 01 /ER4.MA,PLE2N2.D0C 71 - Attachmen 21 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER f `4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION �► ,� AGENCY. REGION 5 ` 77 WEST JACKSON 1 4 BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604 -3590 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: i Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner 1830 E. Co. Rd, g ME -191 Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts: We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Wo rksheet c (EAW) regarding the proposed onstruction of 50 single family home lots in Maplewood, Minnesota. The project will encompass 3 • p 1.6 acres in the SW quarter of Section 13, Township 29, Range 22, Our comments pertaining to the project are advisory in nature. The proposal states that wetlands will not be f it concern that the . will ed, but there is ll be adversely impact ed by construction pesticides, herbicides and urban runoff increase in ' � both sediment and water load) . Information on the present types functions yp � lops and values of these wetlands should be Provided* Wetland habitat would be at a high risk for adverse effects as developing this area, a consequence of If indeed there is a change in plans and they • but to fill a wetland and a is no alternative under Section 4 04 (b) (1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act, a minimum of 1.5 acres of com be required pensatory wetlands will likely qu red for each acre of naturally- occurrin wetland that is unavoidably lost due to project ro activities. The compensatory wetlands p J t implementation should be designed to replicate, as closely as possible the types, ' , yp , functions and values of the impacted wetlands. If there are alternative rnative sites or plans that meet the purpose and need of the ro ' ect wit • the wetlands, p � without impacting and filling nds , they should be regarded as the best possible ib choice, p le Consideration for the vegetation, such as the or the t grasses and shrubs being used as mulch, trees being put into adjacent forested land to provide a habitat for animals etc, should to a � ould be a concept worth applying alleviate forest fires or the senseless use o filling a landfill with reusable items. f In accordance with the City of Maplewood s ' p Erosion Control Measures, proper grading and fences are to be ' ' utilized and maintained in order to minimize erosion. County, State and Federal regulations pertaining to erosion should also • be adhered to in order to prevent avoidable runoff of to soil ' sediment p which, In turn, causes siltation / iment overload in wetlands, rivers and lakes, Printed on Recycled Paper 72 Attachment 22 Instead of replanting de g areas with rye grass especially native vegetation Y ep root systems ati better stabilize (grasses and trees so ` the slopes- inc � h should be used to increase water storage ca ac ' contaminated runo f f, I f a p 1 tY and act as a filter for cont the process o f grading.. • nY soil is re • Whether or no g, soil samples should be taken oved in t the soil is contaminated n tO acknowled e should be declared, aced and destination of g the soil Once grading and proper fences are in area grading p p lace • c also be a human ha p the elevations in th be regarded as Potential hazard* Flooding and landslides e p ntial environmental an Ides should f study of floodplains an d human hazards study d landslides within the broad c o n ducted as to reduce the a local area should b possibility of encounte problems. The addition erin this should of 50 homes will alter g such be taken into account, the floodpla in, so Not the acreage of • amount of g Impervious surface a disturbed Vegetation s 3.5 acres and the acres, water and sediment that would removed in turn will invent runoff will definite as 26.32 , ll raise the normal water increase, which creation of impervious titer level in the wetlands, surfaces near the w nds The flood plain t 100 year o ater table will ca not be encroach further inland use the to penetrate through due to the water depletion o f the 2 6, 3 2 g the entire surface. the amours acres of wooded /forest With the t of runoff becom eV and brush /grassland en greater, With regard to he Wi the proposed pro•ectIs d brush /grassland veget � Impacts on wooded fo the existing the EAW states ested tang 26.32 acres will tes that no acreage o compensation me remain after development. g f measures for the loss of p nt. Adequate grassland vegetation should hese acres of wooded Provide wildlife ld be taken, as trees nd dlife habitats, eros' es and grassland capacity, on control,- increase drainage Y and provide sound bar r1ers. Our Ag ency l removed trees and g y generally recommends replacing saplings and seeds at grasslands with • pertaining o osal of the minimum ratio of 1; native g the dispe re 1. Once again, when ,feasible, the tree • moved trees, we recommend when o s be placed in a forest that, g r disposing them in a ed area as opposed to habitat to wildlife landfill ec . D in trees , e and essential nutr' Y g ees provide cents to the soil, One of the most important Possible p nt concerns should be habitat site for the B the destruction of a landings Turtle. If t • endangered list, all o his animal is already on the a forts to try and recover ' e implemented* Since the r its Population size should b , an ideal location as a h proposed site • abitat for the turtle to is encompasses 3 asse ssments and the site on this area would ,, essments should be mad on ly 1.6 acres ld be suitable for a wildlife or endangered a nlm e as to whether refuge, wildli 73 Lawns should be of native absor tion ative flora to aid in p of water into the so• the permeation and be sharply reduce i1 • Maintenance mowing Pollution d• which would d also - cons g coul p ti.on. Local libraries erve energy and re , nurseries or duce t provide informatio greenhouses_ may n on what types and where be able species of plants, trees an ere to obtain native homeowners landscaping grasses. With re a ive andsca in g rd to individual ,� should be p g practices, suggestions • made in order to all for native flora .problems. Native Ve et at• alleviate many water and and temp g , ion is accustomed to the runoff p ures and is usuall types of weath y quite hearty. In accordance with our • on prevention that the following llowing measures be policy, We recommend activities, which would implemented during on • ld be both environme g truction beneficial. Measure environmentally and eco ' r s such as installation of nom1cally reusable or recycled, such as bri items that are instead of new mater' cks, shelving, cabinets, gals cuts down on cos a etc.. Envronmentll - t and landfill y sound products should a ndfill space, during construction lso be considered ., such as water -based for use ingredients paints, and i g nts such as beeswax n terns made with natural in applicable, .pressed woo_. atural oils, etc., natural woo d should be substituted w hen d panels in order to c ed for ply -wood or forested areas , cut down on cost and destructio ruction o f Energy and water conservation devices should als implementation in the new housin ° be considered for energy -- efficient heating g units. Sky lights, automatic ws so g and cooling timers and u windo lar panels, ever - e nits triple __paned effective insulation gy f f ic l ight , n , a n are all means which g and thick, Water conservation meal will conserve e low - shower measures such as low - or waterless ergy• r heads, and washing automatic which to to save water, erless toilets, with the minimum machines and nimum cycles of waterfall h are all • means with The entire ray of detri mental ' mental environmental impacts could have r ri • , • t only as an individual the project (considering the adjacent ac project but also cumulatively J ent housing developments needs to be described p nts and Indus ' in the project's fort � tries documentation, , hcomi.n env g environmental Leaving. this area as ' s for habitat restorati moderately i y altering the land fo on /preservation, recreational /educational (camping) r use as nature paths or areas or p into a cemeter or o converting Y golf course are alternatives g this site ives worth considering. From the limited inform ' probable ation provided in our • that the project will Y letter, it appears impacts. Should l result in si nific additional informatio g ant adverse n n bearing on the become ava• g in adverse environmental project's potential for resulting .. ilable, however we ntal impacts ever a subsequent review, appreciate the opportunity w, pp rtunity for 74 Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment regarding this issue. Should you have any questions, please contact April. Griffo of my staff at 312 - 886 -2910. Sincerely yours, William MD.F nz, Acting Chief Planning and Assessment Branch 75 January 25, 1993 - Mr. William D. Franz, Acting Chief P1aru'ung and Assessment Branch US Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 -3590 MAPLE WOOD ESTATES 2ND ADDITION EAW, MgpLEV!/OOD, MINNESOTA I am responding to your letter of September 9, 1992 about the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition, On February ? ?, 1993, the Maplewood City Council determined there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. North Suburban Development, Inc., the developer of this project, has hired Loucks and Associates, Inc., to help them through the environmental review process. The following comments address the concerns. in your letter. Your comments in the second and third paragraphs were about wetland . types, functions, values and impacts. Specifically, these comments were about impacts on the wetlands from construction, pesticides, herbicides and urban runoff. Karen Schik, a biologist with Enviroscience, completed a wetland evaluation on the site. She identified four wetlands. In her report she states "the western most wetland is a Type 4 (PUBG) of 0.7 acres. The north end is covered with duck weed. The south end is open water. The pond is shallow with depth from about 4 to 24 inches. Very little vegetation is growing in the ponds. The west side of the pond is urban lawn and the other side is supported primarily by willow, dogwoods, and box elder." 76 Attachment 23 William Franz January 25, 1993 Page 2 Her report continues "the southwest wetland is a T vegetated with floating pond weed and some cattail R 4 (PUBG) of 0.7 acres. surround the edge. 'fie surrounding eed can It is upland gra habitat is a mix of urban grass and late goldenrod wn, shrubs, trees, and The two southeast wetlands T open water with Some cattails, � 4 (PUBG) of 0.6 and 0.3 acres. box elder and elm, s a The surro unding area is primaril a They are mostly Y mixed woods of aspen, The northeast wetland i a small area of o � 3 � 4 �PEMC /PUgG) of 5.0 acres. It is mostl pen water- and the previous which is on the DNR protected waters wetlands are Y cattail with inyento � „ part of a wetland complex The proposed grading of Lots plan not draina an ge. The revised 1 y of these wetland areas passing Plans reduce the indi�.ect impacts caused b s g or S' the storm water through sedimentation basins 'fi y mace water sedimentati on basins runoff by 21 and 22 with the project. The p r o posing developer will construct two Block 1 and Lots 3 , 4, arld 13ese basins before discha , Block pass these basins in the rear. �u8h thr ' � storm water runoff from these basins �g Ito the DNR protected basin 62.240W.� Skimnling will have a device designed to in Ou crease retention time tlets of floatables. The sedim entation basins will r �d will provide form of sediment removal. Q�'e periodic m Plans before the developer starts construction w� approve all � in the on the site. grading and storm water In Your fift through seventh install silt fence as shown p � a � a p� You discuss erosion control. wn on the gr The developer w ill c onstruction areas of the site that exceed 5 percent sloe g plan. The contractor straw mulch. The C� will revegitate the native vegetation aro�ds��e�an� the developer t k ep buffe Sm ao disk anchored P f undisturbed About your comments in not found a glancthe tenth paragr� St d � �e developer's consul any evidence tht � s des ' Cants have leave .the. y elands in inhabit this site. current state. their state. Some upland areas � o � posed plan These areas would provide sites for Westin for will site, remain i� heir S turtles that may inhabit the In your 11th, 12th and 13th included lawn species, re p��aP�, You discuss several enyiro materials �3'�ed building materials, en • ��t� matters. This , and water conservation. ��entall y sound All of the environmentally con scious alternative erna�tiv�es that u - listed are available to the future home buyers, It they use any of these measures on t will be up to them to determine t YO eu' individual properties. �e 77 Mr. William Franz January 25, 1993 Page 3 In your 15th paragraph you discussed other uses for this site.. Maplewood reviewed this site and about 60 others in the City for possible purchase for open space.. This review used a rating system that applied numerical values to various site characteristics. This site's rating was 19th out of the those the City rated. This rating gives this site only limited value for open space from a city wide perspective. You closed your letter by stating .there is a chance for significant adverse impacts with this project. Are these adverse impacts related to the site specifically or are they about the conversion of any vacant land to residential land? Staff believes that this site, given its past disturbance, (which included the installation of buried utilities and town house foundations), is suitable for residential development. Urban development surrounds the site and public utilities. are available., to serve the site. The site is environmentally less sensitive and not as valuable for preservation as areas on the outer edges of the twin cities metropolitan area. There is a continued need for additional housing in this area. The development of infill type sites like this one is preferable from a regional standpoint. This is because this type of development helps to limit continued urban sprawl. This then lessens the strain that this spread puts on the regions infrastructure systems. Thank you for your comments. Please call me at 770 -4566 if you have any questions. KENNETH ROBERTS - ASSOCIATE PLANNER kr /franz2.let ff•� I SIERRA CLUB SIERRA � 1 North Star Chapter Z- CLUB %. °cccx��� Bv Hand Mr. Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Re: Residential Subdivision -- Maple Woods Estate 2nd Addition Dear Mr. Roberts: �L. The St. Paul Group Sierra Club, Northstar Chapter ( "Sierra Club ") submits the following comments to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") prepared by the City of Maplewood ( "City ") for the "Residential Subdivision -- Maple Woods Estate 2nd Addition" ( " Proposed Pro)ect "). The Project Proposal has been made by North Suburban Development, Inc., and provides for the construction of approximately 50 single - family homes on a 31.61 . acre site located north and west of the intersections of Larpentewr Avenue and Sterling Street in Maplewood ( "Site "). The Site is currently undeveloped lands consisting of forest, grasslands and four wetlands, including afive -acre DNR- protected water. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board provided notice of the EAW for the Proposed Project in the September 14, 1992 edition of EQB Monitor. FO FOR StGNiFICANT FMTtnN►,rE,.rr,. L * M ,,...... Sierra Club requests the City require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS ") with respect to the Proposed Project because the Proposed Project has the potential for significant environmental impacts, and the information necessary for a reasoned decision about the potential and significance of such impacts was not obtained and considered in preparation of the EAW. The 1 79 At tachment 24 1313 Fifth Street SE, Suite #323 ! Minnea lis • po , MN 55414 (612) 379.3853 specific potential, significant environmental impacts which warrant further investigation include: 1. The filling of wetlands (see EAW § 8 and Euh. 8), without a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources CUNRI and in possible violation of the prohibition on the filling of wetlands in effect until July 1, 1993 under Minn. Stat. § 103G.222; 2. The destruction of more than 26 acres of forests and grasslands without an on -site survey of the Site's significant biological resources (including rare and endangered species) or consideration of the effect of the Proposed Project on biological diversity in the general area of the Site, and in spite of the finding of Enviroscience, Inc. that the proposed project will have a negative impact on suitable nesting habitat for Blanding's turtles; 3. The pollution of wetlands by untreated surface water runoff, including runoff resulting from the construction of a dike and other devices to contain the expansion of wetlands, caused b the runoff from 24 acres of the � y Proposed Project; and 4. The commencement of construction activities at a site in excess of five acres without adequate provision for stormwater runoff, and without the filing by the project proposer of a Notice of Intent for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities Under A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") Permit, as required by the Federal Water. Pollution Act and pursuant to the stormwater discharge permit program currently administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (" In addition to the specific grounds set forth above, an EIS should be required because the information provided with respect to more than a dozen of the categories of substantive matters in the EAW is incomplete and plainly deficient, as described further below. The EAW simply does not adequately identify the type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects of the Proposed Project, the impact of the Proposed Project on the environment of the Greater Maplewood community, or even the compliance of the Proposed Project with state law, including the laws intended to preserve and protect vital natural resources such as wetlands. An EIS is also necessary in view of the refusal of the project proposer to cooperate with Sierra Club to obtain vital information for the environmental review of the Proposed Project. After reviewing the EAW, Sierra Club determined that it should conduct a biological survey and general inspection of the Site. When Sierra Club requested permission to enter the Site, the project proposer refused to allow scientists retained by Sierra Club to enter onto the Site to identify and catalog plant and animal species -- despite the fact that the property is not restricted to 2 others in any way. Sierra Club informed the project proposer that the scientists' activities at the Site would be limited to observation and photography. Nevertheless, the project proposer denied permission without any explanation, except for a suggestion that the scientists' efforts would "violate" his rights. Qee Attachment 1). The EAW is deficient on many grounds, even without a biological inventory. The .project proposer, however, cannot now object to the necessity of an EIS when it has acted purposefully and selectively to frustrate the legitimate and reasonable inquiry of Sierra Club. For these reasons, as explained further below, Sierra Club requests the City require the preparation of an EIS to thoroughly and critically investigate and describe the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. EAW LACKS INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR A REASONED DECISION CONCERNING THE P T'ENTIAL FQR I NIFI A IR MENT L. IMP The comments to the following sections of the EAW further demonstrate the EAW does not adequately consider the potential for significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project: #6. Description. Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities. Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. IndicaEe the timing and duration of construction activities. Comment: The description of the Proposed Project is inadequate and insufficient. It is a cursory description of what the site will look like when complete and does not discuss the impacts, physical .manipulation or waste that will occur when the proposed project goes forward. Exhibit 4 does not discuss the construction and operation methods and fails to indicate the timing and duration of the construction activities. Therefore, Exhibit 4 fails to accurately inform the public of the substantial unp act the proposed project could present and warrants further investigation. There are inconsistencies found in the EAW and the proposed project that are not addressed or explained in the EAW. First, it is unclear from the 3 EAW whether the proposed project will take sixty (60) days to complete (as shown in Exhibit 4, a copy of which is attached hereto), or thirty (30) days (as the EAW states in item #25). Second, the number of houses which will be constructed on the proposed site is either unclear or undecided. Item #7 states that fifty (50) units will be built, while the last plat submitted to the City of Maplewood indicates less than fifty (50) units. #7.Project Magnitude Data Comment: As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the number of units to be constructed on the proposed project site is not apparent from the materials presented in the EAW. The response to #7 states that fifty (50) units will be built, while the latest plat submitted to the City of Maplewood indicates less than fifty (50) units. The latest plat said 47 units. #8. Permits and Approvals Required. ' p q List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and fundin g required, q Comment: DNR is not listed among the governmental units . which issued a permit or provided its approval for the Proposed Project. DNR does not approve the discharge of stormwater directly into the DNR protected wetland. See DNR comments submitted by letter of Thomas Balcom, October 12, 1992. The EAW also provides no indication that the City has considered whether the Proposed Project complies with state and federal laws regarding stormwater discharge and the filling or other alteration of wetlands. Under the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, permits are now required for the discharge of stormwater at construction sites in excess of five acres. The EAW provides no basis to believe the project proposer has obtained a stormwater discharge or permit, or filed a Notice of Intent for Storm Water Discharges. In addition, the EAW fails to provide any finding that the Proposed Project complies with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, including the prohibition on wetland filling in effect until July 1, 1993 under Minn. Staf. § 103G.222. The EAW reports there will be wetland filling and suggests the filling has been approved by the U.S. Army .Corps of Engineers. (See EAW § 8.) The EAW makes no finding, however, that the wetland filling is allowed under state law, and in view of the incomplete information that 4 M the City and project proposer apparently provided to the regulatory agencies, it is unreasonable to rely on any vague assurances provided by the regulatory agencies that no permits were required. #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 l p adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identi fy an potential environmental y hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. Comment: 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 of adjacent wetlands which may be impacted both by the quantity and quality of runoff. The EAW does not identify any potential environmental hazard, but instead includes only a brief description of what the land had been used for in previous years. There is also a comment that the existing building foundation and utility lines should present no soil contamination. This comment has no further discussion or detail regarding os� Bible ramifications of soil contamination or the potential environmental hazard due to past land uses. #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 equal). Comment: The estimated Wooded /Forest cover type of 3 acres is clearly inaccurate. In addition to the many trees in the wetland areas, there are approximately 10 -15 acres of trees. The trees should be preserved. Cottonwood trees and oak trees are important to wetland maintenance. All tree cover is important to keep soil erosion minimal, hold water in the soil, and as a wildlife habitat. Another indication of the EAW's inaccuracy is the conflicting information on the size of the wetlands. The proposer's own consultant identified 7.3 acres of types 2 -8 wetlands; the EAW identifies only 5.29. #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. 5 E'� .J Comment: First, in describing the fish and wildlife resources, the EAW lists only it animals (rabbits, squirrels etc)." There is no descript of what "etc." could be. The description given is deficient and tragically insufficient to educate and inform the reader as to fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive � y resources. In addition, the EAW does not describe the measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts. No description is g iven p p g as to any curative measures. The superficial response to this question is an indication of the lack of seriousness with which the p p re arer treated the EAW and the information necessary to complete it. A wide variety of plants and animals thrive on the Site. Lucy Paschke, a nearby resident, has over the last two and half years compiled a list of animal and plant life on the Site. See Attachment 2). As this list demonstrates, there are more than "rabbits and squirrels" living on the Site. In addition to a variety of mammals, some of the abundant species of birds which frequent the Site use it for nesting purposes. 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. There is substantial evidence that threatened species may inhabit within the Site. The EAW states that there is a possibility that Blanding's Turtle, a threatened species, inhabits the Site. It appears that the proposer's consultant spent only a short period of time on the site and conducted only a limited investigation into the existence of Blanding's turtle. In light of the findings made by the proposer's own consultant, further investigation as to the presence of Blanding's turtle within the proposed project site is warranted. This property is also important because it is one of the last two forests in Ramsey County, containing both valuable wetlands and an oak forest. As set forth above, the impact to wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources such as Blanding's turtle could not be fully addressed because the proposer selectively excluded the scientists working with the Siena Club from conducting a biological inventory of the property. The species list compiled by Ms. Paschke over many years demonstrates the serious inadequacies of the EAW both in identifying the plant and animal resources on the proposed site and in describing the impact of the development on such resources. R1 [son Further study is required in an EIS. 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. 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 taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Comment: As set forth above, both the DNR's Natural Heritage database) and the proposer's consultant, Enviroscience, recognize that the proposed site is suitable habitat for Blanding's turtle and that turtle is found in close proximity. A site survey was not conducted by the proposer; nor would the proposer permit the Sierra Club to conduct a site survey. As set forth in the Statement of Rachel Budelsky, a graduate student in the Ecology Department at the University of Minnesota, a site survey for the turtle should be conducted in the spring or early summer. See Attachment 4). The proposer admits that the Proposed Project would destroy the nesting habitat for Blanding's turtle. No measures are described to minimize the impacts of construction on the turtle's nesting habitat. The EAW also suggest that the wetlands habitat for the turtle would not be affected. No support is given for this conclusion. In light of the fact that stormwater runoff (from lawns and streets) will be channelled directly into the DNR protected wetland and other wetlands on the site, this conclusion is clearly baseless. An EIS is necessary to fully investigate the effects of the construction on all habitat for Blanding's turtle within the Site. Further study in an EIS is also warranted because of the total absence of information in the EAW as to existence of other rare, threatened, endangered, or otherwise significant species on the Site. In addition to Blanding's turtle, 1/ The DNR's Natural Heritage database was not included with the EAW. The Sierra Club obtained a copy of the database from DNR, and attaches a copy hereto as Attachment 3. In deference to the request of DNR, the database should not be published or disseminated in a way that might endanger the species listed. 7 E'er the Natural Heritage database notes that two other rare species and "wet prairie," identified as "endangered" under state law, may be found within clear proximity. There is no indication in the EAW that an investigation was made into the existence of any of the other species or areas on the Natural Heritage database. Further the "Explanation" for database states: '"rhe information in the database is drawn from many parts of Minnesota, and is constantly being updated, but it is not based on a com prehensive su�rvev,of the state. Therefore, there are currently many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the database. (emphasis added) Because no site survey was performed by the proposer, there is insufficient information from which a reasoned decision could be made about the .impacts of the Proposed Project on rare, threatened of endangered species. This information could be (and could have been) reasonably obtained by allowing the Sierra Club or other qualified personnel to perform a site survey. Further study in an EIS is required. See Attachment 4. #12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outf all structure,. diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? 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; tuning and extent. of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to maize impacts. Comment: The "No" box was marked for this question, yet the Proposed Project includes the construction of a dike and the impoundment of stormwater runoff in existing wetland areas. See Attachment 5). There is no discussion included in the EAW as to what effects the dike will have on the water resource. There is no discussion of how the water resource is likely to be affected by the addition of the proposed new construction. Finally, there is no discussion of proposed mitigation measures suggested by the developer or the City of Maplewood to minimize the environmental impacts the Proposed Project will have on the water resource. The EAW states that although the acreage drained into the wetlands will increase by 8 acres (which runoff will also undoubtedly be multiplied by the existence of streets and E:� storm sewers), the "increased runoff will have no significant effect on pond level." The EAW includes no discussion or description detailing the reasons why the increased runoff will have no significant effect on pond level or how the proposer determined that fact. The EAW does not include an explanation or discussion as to the basis for the statement that the "increased run off will have no significant affect on pond level." In light of the statement (in Exhibit 8 of the EAW) that "approximately 75% of the runoff from the site will be directed to the existing tDNR-protected wetland]" and that the reminder will be directed to other wetlands, the Proposed Project clearly includes hydrologic alteration which may have a profound affect on water levels and the areas inundated. The EAW is also inconsistent with the Maplewood City Council "Public Hearing Notice" date March 11, 1992. The Notice states that "Proposed Outlot A on the plat covers most of the large pond that runs from Sterling Street on the east to North St. Paul on the north. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protects this pond. The developer needs to increase the capacity of this pond so it will follow the City's dike on the Sterling Street right -of- way." At the March 2, 1992 City Planning Commission Hearing, the City stated that there would be a two (2) foot rise in the pond's water level This will cause substantial problems including flooding, poor road conditions, destruction of plant life, and destruction of the habitat of animal wildlife. The physical impact of the development on the water resources on the proposed site and surrounding areas must be the subject of inquiry in an EIS. As set forth in the Statement of Prof. Terrence Cooper See Attachment 6), a soils . scientist at the University of Minnesota, the information provided in the EAW is clearly inadequate. #16. Soils Comment: 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. See Memorandum of Lucy Paschke, submitted with Ms. Paschke's individual comments to the City. M #18. Water Qualitym Surface Water Runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. Comment: The EAW does not address the quality of the site runoff before and after the Proposed Project. Also, it appears that the EAW's comment on the quantity of the runoff is not accurate. There should be a detailed comparison of the quantity and quality of site runoff. before and after the project. The EAW is defective in that it fails to describe methods to be used to manage and /or treat runoff. The EAW does not indicate how much of these wetland areas will be encroached by the Proposed Project. Any close encroachment will destroy all wetland areas. The effects of the runoff of fertilizers, chemicals, etc. on the wetlands should be investigated. A complete soil survey is needed to describe, explain and discuss the impacts that will be produced by the proposed project. There is no discussion in the EAW as to the effects on the wetland flora and fauna of the increased quantity of runoff, or of the dramatic change in the quality of the lawn and street runoff which is to be directed directly into the wetlands. As set forth in the Statement of Prof. Terrence Cooper, the information in the EAW is clearly inadequate. tx Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. Comment: Again, the EAW does not discuss the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters, as required by #18. The draining of lawn fertilizers and chemicals, and street runoff directly into the wetlands will obviously have a severe impact on the wetlands. According to Exhibit of the EAW, all of the runoff will from lawns and streets will be directed into the wetlands, with 75% of it going directly into the DNR- protected wetland. The EAW also maintains, in a rnnclusory fashion, that the "runoff will not adversely impact water levels on adjacent or downstream receiving waters based of reviews by the Watershed District engineers." 10 T 0011861 A complete survey of the hydrologic and biologic impact on the waters affected must be conducted in an EIS. The proposer prevented the Sierra Club from performing such a survey. #20. Ground Water - - Potential for Contamination. Comment: The EAW does not discuss or describe any measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts due to the Proposed Project. #22. Comment: The EAW does not discuss or describe in detail the estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated by the proposed project. There are two schools adjacent to the proposed project which will be directly affected by the increased traffic.. A survey or investigation should be done to determine the potential problems, the impact, and any alternatives to the ultimate congestion which will occur from the development of the Proposed Project. #23. Vehicle- related air emissions. Comment: A conclusory statement is made in the EAW that "[d]ue to small amount of traffic generated, the project will not cause any significant decrease in air quality." The EAW does not discuss or describe how it determined that there would only be a small amount of traffic g #260 Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? h prime or unique farmlands? ce designate parks, recreation areas, or trails? d. scenic views and vistas? e. other unique resources? 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. Comment: The EAW only answered yes to one of the above questions. The EAW indicated that certain acres were being set aside for park land, wetland, and a 11 trail system. The EAW failed to designate this area as a scenic view or vista, yet it is one of the few remaining wetland areas contained within an urban- environment. The Site is a scenic view and vista. In addition, it is a unique resource in that it is one of the last open sites in the area. The balance of developed and undeveloped land will be disturbed and permanently altered by the proposed project. There is also a great probability that the many scenic views and vistas on this property will be destroyed by the proposed project. The ponds, swamps, wildflowers and wildlife which make up the scenic view and vista will be destroyed. The wetlands, forests, prairie, and wildlife is a unique resource which will be destroyed by this project and a companion project which is being developed across Larpenteur. #27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? Comment: The EAW maintains that the Proposed Project will not create adverse visual impacts. This statement does not take into consideration the fact that the Proposed Project will destroy a scenic view and vista. The project is an "adverse visual impact" in a sense because it destroys the natural wetlands and forests present on the Site. The natural beauty will be destroyed. #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 require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Comment: The EAW purports that there are no impacts or issues that require further investigation, yet the EAW is full of incomplete, insufficient, and inadequate information and data. The EAW does not discuss, as required, any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been, may be or should be considered due to the environmental impacts and environmental issues that arise due to the proposed project. The EAW should identify any alternatives and mitigative measures to be taken to ensure the least amount of environmental impact on the proposed project site. The EAW proposed no solution or measures to the problems this project proposes. 12 ERMINE JUE AN EIS IS NECESSARY TO D ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROTE�C'T The EAW shows the project proposer and the City did not complete a meaningful environmental review. With respect to major issues, the EAW often contains incomplete and inaccurate information. In addition, the City has been remiss in its responsibilities, as evidenced by the fact that the Assistant Planner signed the EAW and certified it as complete and accurate to the best of his knowledge on June 25, 1992 -- two months before the investigation into the existence of Blanding's turtle - by the, proposer's own consultant was even performed. The Associate Planner thus certified the EAW as complete before it was even finished: This action, like the refusal of the project proposer to allow the Sierra Club access to the Site, seriously undermines the credibility of the EAW, and provides _ further reason for the City to require an EIS. To summarize, an EIS should be required to investigate, among other things, the filling p p roject of wetlands; the i of the ro'ect on the water quality of the wetlands on the site; the effects on Blanding's turtle the existence of other rare or ecologically si n ficant p Y plant or wildlife; the hydrological 'cal impact on wetlands; and compliance g with . required g uired ermits Mitigation measures and alternatives, discussion of which is absent from the EAW, must be considered. Under the Minnesota Rules, the City must maintain a record, including specific findings of fact, supporting its decision regarding the need for an EIS. The record must include specific responses to all substantive and timely comments on the EAW. Sierra Club looks forward to the City's responses to the comments set forth in this letter. Sincerely, ST. PAUL GROUP SIERRA CLUB, NORTHSTAR CHAPTER � ~7 BY � 13 91 3so Pia Ass mm roa. err► you 00" (242 ) 413 -900 ,330 CoxxscrICUT ATV VS. !t. w. W ANZ MM. & C. soots (2w) ss7.0700 a astvcsc it ST sz LONDON scar► OAT, ss+aLIL" mss• ri- �• 333•a 36. sys TSOWZss woos PA212, FRAM 33- !•�Y•ds•SS•N 35 SQVAss Ds i®sIIO D•lOf4 !0lL. DNW= 30- a•SO+� -N•LL DoiRsEy WHITNEY A bl=V� la MWAL 220 SOUTH SLXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -1498 (612) 340 - 2600 TZL= 29 -0605 Tau (612) 3~o - SOW AKT Q lQI'OI , (SIX 34040= 201 asst ATMUS, S. V. SUIT 340 ioczssrs:. Ynsam 530" (507) mss- 3156 1200 P IM I1f CZW= DLt.Jro6, KONT"A ssNs tom) •38ft 507 nrviZWM aw osut razLa. NC"N rA 5940 (oos) 727.3 127 RANT Tact BTSSST m . XONT "A seem (SOS 1 7�t -�0 601 GRAND. 901 3900 DJ16 YO =!!s, IOWA $0800 (S1S) � • 11000 September 30, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Jack Menkveld North Suburban Development, Inc. 8741 Central Avenue NE Blaine, MN 55434 Re: Residential Subdivision -Maple Woods Estates Second Addition - Biological Inventory of Plant and Animal Life on Proposed Construction Site Dear Jack: I write to follow up on our telephone conversation this afternoon, Wednesday, September 30, 1992, regarding the proposed Maple Woods Estates Second Addition project. I requested on behalf of the St. Paul Sierra Club that you allow our representatives to do a biological inventory of the plant and animal species. on the proposed construction site for the Maple Woods Estates. Second Addition project in connection with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") process. You granted my request on Monday, September 28, 1992 The Sierra Club would like to perform this inventory in order to submit its comments to the City of Maplewood during the comment period for the EAW your company prepared. As I mentioned in our conversation and in previous correspondence, this inventory would be non - destructive and non - invasive to the proposed site except for allowing those responsible for conducting the inventory to enter onto the site. The persons performing the inventory will simply be preparing a list of the species present at the site and possibly taking photographs. 92 ATTACHMENT 1 jack Menkveld D013SEY WHITNEY September 30 1992 Page 2 This afternoon you informed me that after discussing this with your partner, you withdraw the permission given by you on Monday allowing the Siena Club access to the site. In your conversation with me, you said that this was a violation of your rights, but did not specify what rights you think would be violated by performing a species inventory. It is my understanding that the proposed site is not posted or fenced or restricted in any way, so it appears that the Sierra Club is being selectively prohibited from entering the site simply . because it wants to investigate the statements made on the EAW. I want to stress that the Sierra Club is willing to cooperate in any reasonable manner set forth by North Suburban Development, Inc. Please contact me immediately if .there is any way . we can resolve this situation. Because the close to the comment period for the EAW is October 14, 1992, it is important that we complete an inventory on the proposed site as soon as possible. Please contact me at (612) 340 -8833, if you have any further comments regarding this matter. Very truly yours, C. my Mitchell acM/af CC: Ronald Williams Kenneth Roberts, City of Maplewood 93 D oizsEy & WHITNEY A P,zrsssszr 1=xVD=0 Psorsssso&L Cos�os�ztoxs 330 peas sysN 1 NNW road. maw ion[ tooss 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET 20 FIR Avmmx, s. w.., svrra 340 (212) -9 200 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. 55402 -1498 BocBasTSR, YrN rEeoTA 55908 ( 1330 CONNICTICUT AvaNVa. N. W. ( 612) 340-2600 WA8RINQ1'OA, D. C. 90086 1200 FIRST INTER3TA= CRNTTEB ( 202) $5 7 -0700 TELEX 29 -0605 HILLIN06 , YONTUA 59108 FAR ( 612) 340- 2868 (406) 3 08ACECHV$CB STBBET LONDON RC8V OAT, ENGLAND -- 507 DAVIDSON HVILDING 4.4- 71- 929 -3334 OBSAT rALLB , KONTANA 52401 (406) 727- 36= 36, BTJE 1'SWC88T �Y C. �r� 75009 PAEIE, FR"C11 127 ZAST FaeowT sT$aET 33.1- 42 - 66 - s9- 49 (614 3404W= XWOULA. KONUNA 39809 ----- (406) 33 sO IIAR$ DE XBa IIs ---- 8-1040 BRUBSELS, BALGIUM 801 GRAND. sVI ?E 3900 32- 2-504 -46 -11 Dab KOUMS, IOWA 50809 ( 315) 283 -1000 September 28, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Jack Menkveld North Suburban Development, Inc. 8741 Central Avenue NE Blaine, MN 55434 Re: Residential Subdivision - Maple Woods Estates Second Addition n- Biological Inventory of Plant and Animal Life on Proposed Construction Site Dear Jack: I write to follow up on our telephone conversation this afternoon, Monday, September 28, 1992, regarding the proposed Maple Woods Estates Second Addition project. I requested that the St. Paul Chapter Sierra Club be allowed to do a biological inventory of the plant and animal species on the proposed construction site for the Maple_ Woods Estates Second Addition project in connection with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") process. The inventory will. be taken to allow the St. Paul Chapter Sierra Club to submit its comments to the City of Maplewood during the comment period for the EAW your company prepared. As I discussed with you earlier, this inventory will be non - destructive and non - invasive to the proposed site except for allowing those responsible for conducting the inventory to enter onto the site. At your request, I will send you any reports and any photographs that the St. Paul Chapter Sierra Club submits with it comments on the EAW to the City of Maplewood. 94 D013SEY & WHITNEY jack Menkveld September 28, 1992 Page 2 I would like to thank you for your prompt response to my request and your cooperation in this .matter. Please call me if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Amy .Mitchell ACM /df CC: Ronald Williams Kenneth Roberts, City of Maplewood 95 SOME SPECIES FOUND ON "LE WOODS ESTATES SECOND ADDMON SPECIES BIRDS American Crow American Goldfinch American Redstart 'American Robin American Tree Sparrow Belted Kin Black and White Warbler Black- capped Chickadee Blue :Jay Brewer's Blackbird Broad - winged Hawk Brown Creeper Brown - headed Cowbird Canada Goose Cedar Waxwing Chipping Sparrow Cliff Swallow Common Grackle Common yellow -fit Dickcissel Downy Woodpecker Eastern Phoebe European Starling Gray Catbird Great Blue Heron Great Egret Great Horned Owl Green Heron House Finch House Sparrow House Wren Least Flycatcher Mallard Mourning Dove Northern Cardinal HABITAT C Woodlands Open woods, edges Deciduous woods, saplings Forests Willow thickets, marshes Streams, banks Woods Willow thickets, groves Oak woods, groves Fields, prairies Woods, groves Woodlands, groves Wood edges Ponds, marshes Open woodlands Open woods Lakes, semiopen land Groves Swamps, marshes, met thickets Prairies Forests, woodlots, willows Streamsides Open. groves Undergrowth, brush Marshes, swamps Marshes, ponds Forests, woodlands Ponds, marshes Suburbs Cities Open woods, thickets Open woods, aspen groves Wooded swamps, ponds, marshes Open woods, grassland Woodland edges -1- ATTACHMENT 2 SPECIES HABITAT Northern ]derhes Northern Oriole Open woods Oregon Junco Brush, feeders Pine Siskin Mixed woods, alders Purple Finch Woods, groves Redpoll Birches Red - tailed Hawk Woodlands Red - winged Blackbird Marshes, brush, swamps Ring - necked Pheasant Marsh edges Rough-legged Hawk Marshes Ruby - crowned Kinglet Ruby- ttumted Hummingbird Wood edges S tined Hawk Woods, thickets Slate - colored Junco Mixed woods, open woods Song Sparrow Marshes White - breasted Nuthatch Forests, woodlots White - throated Sparrow Mixed woodlands Winter Wren Woodland, underbrush Wood Duck Wooded swamps, ponds Wood ash Deciduous woodlands Yellow- rumped Warbler Mixed forests, woods, brush Yellow - shafted Flicker Forests, groves ( 57 species NLANIlVIAIS/REPTILFS/INSECTS Ants (unidentified) Baltimore Butterfly Bats Beds (unidentified) Beetles (unidentified) Blanding's Turtle C ?) Box Turtle Bumble Bees Butterflies (unidentified) Caroline Satyr butterlfy C? Cloudless Sulpher butterfly Wet meadows Marshes, ponds Ponds Forests, meadows Woods or woods margins Wild Senna -2- 97 SPECIES Comptom Tortoise Shell Butterfly ( 1 .0) Cotten Rabbit Dragonflies Fireflies Frogs (unidentified) Gophers Grasshoppers Gray Squirrel Gray Tree Frog Great Spangled Fritillary butterfly Ground hog Ground squirrel Honey Bees Hornets (unidentified) Insects (unidentified) Jefferson Salamander Mice (prey for raptors) Monarch butterfly Moths (unidentified) Painted Lady butterfly Painted Turtle Racoon Red Fox Red Squirrel Regal Fritillary butterfly ( Salamanders (unidentified) Silver Fox Snakes (unidentified) Snapping turtle Toads (unidentified) Wasps (unidentified) Weasel White - tailed Deer Woodchuck (44+ species) HABITAT Open woodlands Forests Forests, water Ponds, swamps, marshes Forests, meadows Forests Marshes and damp meadows Forests Forests Woods along swamps Woods, fields Thistle In Ponds, swamps Forests Forests Forests Wet meadows (diminishing alarmin81Y) Forests Forests Ponds Ponds, swamps, marshes Forests Forests N M SPECIES F9:AN1'S Bachelor's Button Birdfoot Trefoil Birdfoot Violet Blackberries (edible) Blue Vervain Canada Thistle -Caroline Rose Common Cattail Common Sow - Thistle Common Sunflower Daisy Fleabane Dame's Rocket Dandelion (edible) Duck Weed Gray - headed Coneflower Gumweed Hard-leaved Goldenrod Indian Cucumber -root Larger Blue Flag Lyre - leaved Rock Cress Milkweed Night flowering Catchfly Ou -eye. Daisy Purple- flowering Raspberry Purple Loosestrife Queen Anne's Lace (wild carrot) 0 Red Clover (med1cmai Rough - fruited Cinquefoil St. John's Wort (medicinal) Smaller Hop Clover Spotted Touch- me-Not Swamp Thistle Tansey (medicinal) Thin - leaved Coneflower Yarrow (medicinal) HABITAT Garden escape Wood edges Sloaps Thickets Pastures, fields Open woods Fresh marshes, shallows. Prairies, bottoms Wood edges Ponds Woods Marshes, wet meadows Rocks or sandy soil Rocky woods, ravines, thickets Swamps, wet meadows Wood edges Wet, shady places Swamps, wetlands Open woods, thickets -4- *1 SPECIES HABITAT Yellow Sweet Clover Wild Geranium (Cranesbill) (medicinal) Woods (3 species) Apple Boxelder Stream banks and valleys with wet or moist soils Dogwood Eastern Cottonwood Wet soils, often in pure stands or with willows Northern Red Oak Moist and Loamy areas to rocky soils, often in pure stands Puss willow Wet meadows Pussy Aspen Gravely slopes, moist soils, often in pure stands Red Maple Swamps and other areas with moist soils Slippe ry Elm Lower slopes with moist soils Sumac (10 species) (147+ species) 522211�eciea —5— 100 October 13, 1992 To Whom It May Concern: All birds listed in the species list were sees by me personally. I have been watching and identifying buds since 2975 in various parts of the United States; since 1978 in the metropolitan Twin Cities Area; and since December 1989 at the Maple Woods Second Addition site For bird identification Y consult Peterson, Roger Tory, A Field Guide to the Birds of Extern and Central North Amtrtca (4th ed.) (Boston; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980). I have basil identifying wildflowers since 1971, in Minnesota since 197$ and on the Maple Woods Second Addition prap�erty since December 19$9. For wildflower identification I consort Peteman, Roger Tory, and Margaret McKer►ny A FYeld Guide to Wil#Towrrs of Northeastern and North-Central North America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968), and Castleman, Michael, Tire Healing Herbs (Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Press, 1941)4 All trees identified on the Maple Woods Second Addition site were identified with the help of The Audubon Society Pocket Guides, Familiar Tres of North America, Fasrern Region (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986). The apple tree was identified by a neighbor, Marilyn Taylor, who grew up on an apple orchard. Butterflies and moths were identified using Mitchell, Robert T., and Herbert S. lam, Bwrer�`iie,c and Moths: A Guide to the More Common American Sp (New - York: Golden Press, 1987)_ I was unable to identify many species of butterflies and moths I saw on the property as a result of inexperience and the lack of a more detailed identification guide. Reptiles and amphibians were identified using Zim, Herbert S., and Hobart M. Smith Reptiles and Amphibians (New York: Golden Press,, 1987). The Jefferson Salamander was idenaficd by Marilyn Taylor using this identification guide. I was unable to identify many species of reptiles and amphibians I saw on the property as a result of inexperience and the lack of a more detailed identification guide. Some of species that I identified personally were also reported to me by other neighbors of this property. These sightings added additional certainty to my own identifications Many species on the list- are known by everyone on sight. ?here are few people who cannot identify a deer, a racoon, a snapping turtle, a woodchuck, or a mouse. Although these and squirnels and rabbits are common animals known to everyone, I have personally identified each and every species listed to the best of my abilities. The silver foz was reported by many neighbors. Some reported it as an albino red fox, but thou who saw it at class range identified it as a silver fox. I called the DNR to ask if Over fox were found in this area. I was informed that silver fox were not common in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, but they are found hes+e. She told me that the fox would more than likely he 101 T gad : 1 .0 C�5550t�c 90 :; t - ±� C I a silver fox and not an albino red fox. If the city council holds a hearing on this property, I am sun there will be several citizens in attendance who can attest to the sighting of s silver fox on t proparty his , Sincerely, Lucy A. Paschke 7U" 102 N3. POO STATE OF - O DEPARTMENT - OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETT'E ROAD • ST, pqV • ONR INFORMATION � MINNESOTA 5� 07 5515 (612) 296-6157 - September 22, 1992 AMY Mitchell - Dorsey and Whi RKI y S EP 2 � 22 0 0 Fi 1992 Fi r st 8ank.Place East eepolis, MN 55402 Re: print -out f T29H rOm Natural Heritage d R22f� 8 atabase for one male radius of sec Dear Ms. Mhell. itc • 13 Attached is a co py of the Olson, Maplewood print -out our explanation ity Planner in A r programs provide i On °f the format Aril, 1992. L h d to Geoff turtle Em d °f the aw print -out a also enclosed an band' • • If � and a fact sheet to cull You have furt ions, on Blandin t her quest S s please feel free Ee Sinc erely. , Bonita Elias ,End °n angered Species Enviro Natural Herta a n�aental Review Coor 612/297- g and Nongame �ildl ' dinator 2276 ife Programs ATTACHMENT 3 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 103 Hinneaota Natural $arita El ement Occurrence Rec ge ES � Database RARE NATURAL T$IN ONE M,,, OF Ste 13 10 T29N R22W T029N R22V NUNW11 . R�Mg � , Natural Heritage El nts Et COUNW ge sad Nongame Wildlife p stilts $ �DOIDEA B rograse t.. stilts DINGI I (B,t,AUft EO Size s THUATEM S TURTLE) 1313 Sites EO Ra �'LBiR�D 11 k Current S Ownerships Private tatua: Intended Status Managed Ownershi s Area(e)s not S ource: 1C0 managed or ao record TURD NRAD9 J• (DNR EI�FORCMENT. RBWVBD FROPI PET STORE. 198E TUR�g SURVEY) T SAD BEE OXLIKC7'XD FRW ADJACENT pE'T'I.AND MArw 17 Thursday, APRIL 16 1992 Last Observed Dates 03 Se p t ember 1988 DNR Region: 6 Quad Maps ' �11'E BEAR Wildlife Latitudes 45 1• 4" LAKE WEST (R1 7D Areas 601 I'Ong= 93 1' 14" Forestry Districts 552 Precisions within 0.25 mile, coaf irme d Vouchers • ' 10.75 INC$ES. Verifications sight rec T029p E R22W W3E24 RMIM le�ent OXYPOLIS RIGIDIC�OVI�'�' M!( S tat Status, No R ( Co"Aft) 029 EO Size: gal Stat Sites JIM'S PRAIRIE F.0 Ranks B Carr Last Ownerships eIIt Statu 1 Observed Dates Mana P City (Other Land,) Int 08 ended Statues 6 September 1985 ed PRAIRIE g (Other JIM93 Q uad Map: LAKE D UR Regio 6 Sources Sl�� E ELMO 1S188) Wildlife Area: ��1 R•(11297) Latitude: 44 59' 2" Forest 601 JIM'S PRAIRIE IN M&PLE1i00D Lo 92 59' " ry District Precision= within 0.25 mil e co 37 s 552 EpTI�A CRINITA, SOLIDAGO � 1/2 MILE S OF LARp , n /4 ; T29N R22W. RD. OCCASIONAL firmed RI�DELLII, pWl /4 pWl /4 SE AvE ApD 1/2 KILE E OF MC�IG$T voueher: SEC 24 MIN verifications 1 IN WET PRAIRIE verified CDUXTY T029N R2211 St�iN824 WITH ASTER UpgELLATU S, I Stat• Status: No Le NTEGERRIMA (YELLOW PIMP EO Size: Le gal Status ERNEL) #10 Sites not s EO Ranks Last Sit s s named or no record Current Statue: Observed Dates 02 J Private Ownership Intended Statues my 1985 Managed Area(e)s not rasa Quad DNR Regions 6 Sources SMITg.W Sea or no record Latit ps ELMO (S18B) Wildlife Area: IN THE CITY OF •R•(10652) udes 4y 5g� 8" Fore.: 601 T29N I�IAPLE�OD CA Prec isions Within 0 Long* 92 591 42" st d' District: 552 2W • ' 1/2 MUZ E OF R�CRNIGBT • 25 mile, confi rmed 1/2 MILE S OF LARPMMUR A Vouchers MIN VE. OCCASIONAL, IN SANDY verification; verified SOIL IN OAR WOODS. SWi T029* 1*2N O�E24 X41 21M /4 SW1 14 NE1 Element WET pRAIR13 (EY NOUN'!?, /4 SEC 2y; State INC Sterna: EpDAp ) #2 EO Sizes ERBD Sites JIM'S PRAIRIE EO Ranks AB Curren La 4 wnershi s t Statues 1 st Observed Dates 09 Au p City (Other L+uada Intended Statues 1 gnat 1990 managed Area(s) s JIM98 p ) CBS Site DNR Regi Sources CITY O �IRI1( # s 3 Quad Maps LAKE Wildlife 6 11AP ELF �S 18B) Areas 601 EJCCRx.LENT EXAMPLE 01, i JAMRg !l�,Eg � Latitude: 44 59 � 0" Fo �RAMIIIOID. WBT PRAIRIE IN SINGER (CO BI Precisions approx. b Longs 92 5g' 38" F orestry try Districts 5S2 AUMILIS). XVMU •J.C. SUR oundar DIVERSE, M0S1'LT g�I�ER DOM. BT SpARTI1IA PATCHY (DER OF S VEY 1990) ies have been determi pECT. WITH GOOp 8RUB3.`Sq►� CORPUS S vouchers RE IIed AGO (; SP•)q LI�1'RIS pY COVER OF IL. A LEVE 1 990 V C., 2IZIA AURgA• PYCN ANDROppGpN G$R•� gORG �POPULUS TREM,� BUT MOSTLY verified.. VIRG,. AND Y MANY TRUI'1 NUTANS, POA pALUSTRIS' & SOME P. WILLOW (S' BEBB1�jA, S. G �. SOILS ORYGEpA D RACILIS, S. TO 30 PRAT. FORS C CM. SITE REGULIRLY BURNED. TBI� AND URNED. ct O Natural Heritage Database Print. '• Outs* Explanation of Selected Fields Th e Natural Herita a database Program, units wit g tabase is maintained •� ° within the Sect -ion of � by the Natural Herr source of data on Minnes ildlife, DepBrtme tags program and the Nongame Wildlife ota's commu rare, endangered rat °f Natural Resourc nities, and other n 8 or othe es. It i natural features otherwise significant l Is the most complete these rare features. , and. is used Plant and The information in in fostering a nimal species l constantly being updated is not based o the databa8 is 8 better understand � plant currently. man significant but it drawn fro many art 8 and protection of Y ignificant natural n a COmPrehensive survey P s °f Minnesota, an We are in the process features present of the state* d is of addressing in the state which a te. .Therefore, there are county inventory of rare n g this Problem via the re not represented natural features, w Minnesota Count g P rated by the database which is now underwa Y iologiC81 Surve • The Natural Heritage y• Y� a county_bq_ records contain ge database maintains re man fields which Ca b cords of rare features " printout (compressed version) organi2ed into � or elements" i relevant (c m rsion) is designed t variously formatted in Minnesota, The u sers, , lnc lude fields from the Printouts . The fu cord l 1 re database that are likely full-record to be most -� legal °rd printouts that are organized geOgra 0 8 description of the loc hica � and section numb ation, and. the count P lly, the first line o contains err. Records have v y• The legal description f each record or sections, others are l • varying degrees of rec ption field contains th the fisted to the nearest Precision; some are listed a township. range 32). "0" is used as a 40 acres d oral to 8 place holder whe a 1 2 i s SWNw32 t section means the Y the neares When a community overlaps / .section i 511 /4 of the NW1 /4 Ps section boundarie s specified of section punctuation (sty NE19NW _ st both section p iste n t rth 1 2 0 20 NE /4 of sec s will be lists � / f section 3 , flora 19 and NWl 4 of d in the sction fie ) / section 20), e field with -out The second line shows the element name ( "eras common occurrence number. Other f me ), the fields are defined below, name for plants and animals, and n the Last Observed Date: Th date of the most recent information about. thi DNR Region: Reference s record. s the 6 DNR regions in the state. State Status: Minnesota law. Status cafe le g a l status of plant a gorier include Endan a and animal species under the state endangered listed in the state 8 red., Threatened, S e red spe ). This field is blank pedal Concern and No 8 cies which have no legal status for natural comm Legal Status r 8 atus in Minnesota, but unities and colonial w are but not are tracked by the databas aterbird nesting sites , Federal S tatus: This . field appears only f or or plant or animal species P s that have legal statu . s under the Natural Heritage database rinto P uts (continued) 2 federal Endangered Species abundant P Law - Endangered, Threatened, Cate o • t than previously thought), gory z (a candidate species), Category 3 g y more State NC Statues Natural community status; although natural comet status in Minnesota, the Natural Her unities or habitats have itage program has evaluated and rank ve no legal rarity and endangerment in the at there is i ed them acco nsufficien state. ( "Undetermined" indicates th according to their relative a community type at this time to allow an inform assessment of its status.) ation about Wildlife Area; The Section of Wildlife administrative number. EO Size: The size in acres o ( ften estimated) of natural communi ties. E0 Rank: An evaluation of the u (lowest). Q ality and condition of natural communities from A (highest) to D Current Status: Present protection status of a site from 0 own (dedication as . a Scientific-and Area), ( owner is not awa Natural re of record) to 9 Intended Status: Desired protection ° P ion status. If a complete list r- of protection • s _age Program. P n status c please contact the Natural Heritage i needed, Quad Map: The U.S. Geolo is topographic g maps maintained b the H eritage ritage Program . Forestry District: The Division of Forestry's district number. Site: The sitename allows the d atabase to group occurrences that this name refers to a county biological sui -vey site; in of are located near each other. Usuall sometime it is a more generic name her instances it is the Y that encompasses several mama name of a managed area, sitename Felton Prairie calls to managed ,areas and • P together occurrences on Felton p n Private land (e. an a Prairie SNA, Felton e (Katnanta Bog)* often it i gMA and private lands) occasionally ft is a colloquial name a township name and section number. CBS Site #s A number assi ne system beg -ins with g d to each county biolo ical survey the number 1. g site. In each count t y , he number Latitude /longitude: The lat - long references the do which are lac f precision in the on in81 placed mama�. on There are various levels o q uad ma files, g information, but this is not re the Q P Iles. fleeted in the lat. Natural Heritage database printouts (continued) . 3 Long data. For some of the .data., particularly historical re cords, it was not where the original observation was mad Possible to determine exactly e. Examples of this type of to i Snelling", or "the south shore of P rational infor Lake Owasso " observations, the dot is placed in the the manual oration would be "Fort mapping process fo r the least precise e center of the 7.5 minute quad ma p* and the lat- long coordinates are determined for the center of the dot, q In cases where the occurrence i la* -long reflects the nearly exact to s known within a . cation of the record.. quarter mile, the Ownership: Indicates whether the site to is privately owned; for management respons publicly owned ibility is listed here. Y d land the agency w' g y ith Precision: This field indicates how r ' p ecise the locational information is. Th precision: 1) occurrence is known within 1 ere are si /4 mile radius x levels of usually within a sec (most precise level), 2) occurrent • section), 3) occurrence is known within a is known within 1/2 mile radius ( known to exist within the quad tree or one mile radius 4 • p general region, 5) occurrence is unma ) occurrence is ppable (often known only at former location. Y to the county level), b) occurrence no longer exists 0 -i Managed Area(s): These are lands owned or managed by either a public r' co organization such as The Nature Conservancy. or a private y. agent P reservation Source: The collector or observer of the feature, Voucher** The museum or herbarium where specimens pecimens are maintained and the accession number the repository. In the case of bald ea 1 r ass' g es, this is the breeding area number, lgned by Verification: This, in general, reflects the e reliability of information. In the case nt collections, the date of the collection Bete of old la rmines whether the record is verified o P ec before 1970 are unverified. The hi h r unverified • g est level of reliability is "verified" whir collections collection was made or, as in the case of bird - h usually indicates a rd records, nesting was observed. Remarks at end of records: The last 1 -3 lines of each record .contain more detailed occurrence, such as the number of individuals, descri t notes - about the etc, p ive information about habitat, as etc d species, Natural Heritage database printouts continued). Data Security 4 The locations of so ®e rare features must knowledge,of these to be treated as sensitive information beca cations could result in harm to the rare fe use widespread the locations of species of wi dflowers atures. The most sensitive information including orchids, endangered s ecies such is and economically valuable plants such as P h as the Dwarf trout Ginseng, because these are vulnerable to illy, collectors. Bald eagles are sensitive t exploitation b o disturbance during the breeding season from y For this reason, information from the g oar curious on -looke Natural Heritage database should not be re rs. without permission from the Natural produced or ublishe Heritage Program. We are concerned that a P d distribution not identify the recis ny publication for ' P e locations of the vulnerable lant s ec public to handle this would be to list only P ies referred to above. 0 y th e sections in which the sensitive species occ not way acceptable for your purposes, please call and P occur. If this is not a and Non discuss this issue with the Environment ' g game Wildlife Programs at 612/296 - 8324. al Review Coordinator for the Heritage Another issue is the disturbance or era dication of a rare feature b to any of the features develo m j on your printout comes to your attenti y P ent pro ects . If a threat ame on, please call the Environmental Rev' g Wildlife Programs, Review Coordinator for the Heritage and Non 00 0 BLAN DINGsT . uRnE 332 E m' Yd videa blandingii (Holbrook) 1 •� 4 / t i 7 . *\ c 1 I ` • V •� •' j7 • - OFFICIAL STATUS: Threatened BASIS FOR STATUS: Although form ing's turtle is now restricted to , erly more wid espread, the Bland- the U mall numb of state and rovin pper Midwest. stretching from Nebraska e P ces in tario, and Quebec. A smaller remnant astward t° Mcchigan, On- few New England states, as well as P spanning Portions of a throughout the Northeast testify umber of scattered earlier times. M; y to the turtles more ex an Population,; nnesota lies on the northwest p eriphery f t d range in range. An extensive area of sand dunes and ntar phery ohe species' River, south of the town of Kello marshes along the Mississippi area for the turtle and rrta 99. is recognized as a Major concrntrati Y � one of the largest breed °n • the Blandi its entire range. Elsewhere in the state g Populations in spotty distribution, followin the ng's turtle has" a more ward into eas - central Minneso 8 Mississippi and St. Croix rivers nort h the south- central the Minnesota River westw Porti of the state. Two recent and into County also confirm the SpeC1 resent from Pipestone of extreme southwestern Minn P e records in the Missouri River drains As a marsh inhabitant s g the recent detruction. of wetland e habits age and/or inundation for agricultural pu is by drain - water impoundment has greatly r1P°ses. river channelilatio and Like other turtles, the gla ' Y • reaSed available habitat for the s ; a desirable �tn8 s turtle is also vulnerable to collec� pet species {S43 fora l S to 20 centimeter turtle • • � ling as lected in areas where it is abundant, es �• it as easily col - The species' life history also makes especially during the nesting season. human disturbances, as evide this turtle particularly susceptible to the nced by a long term and- Wensive stud o population inhabiting. the Kellogg Dunes (Pa y f ration). Some features contributing to this s ppas. WSO CO mmuni - tton, g usceptibilitt are fate matura low reproductive potential (one clutch/ and high mortality of eggs and juveniles. Po Season) long lived adults, namics suggest viable pulation and reproductive dy. large numbers of animals of Blanding's turtles are dependent mats and adequate areas of undisturbed habitat. ent on tat. PREFERRED HABITAT: The Preferr includes calm. shallow water, rich habitat of the HlandiAg's turtle for nesting. Studies b C , aquatic vegetation and sandy u la y ongdon et al. (1983) in Michigan and p nds {personal communication) in Massachusett s g by Linck males may travel considerable distant its have shown that nesting fe- area, passing enroute what a es ( to 400 meters) to a nestin ately adjacent to the marsh in to be suitable nesting habitat i mmed - n which they reside. AID TO IDEI'YTIFICATION B - � idndtng s turtle is medium- sited. aver. tng 15 to 25 centimeters in length. The species* ag acteristics are its smooth, domed u r most diagnostic field char- yellow. neck, throat, and chin. The ppe hell' or carapace, and its bright w carapace usually with numerous specks of vet! appears bluish black ower•sheii o o throughout. The l, r plastron. is bright. yellow with black patches on t P n• adult male can be distinguished he out Plastron and longer tail margin, in general, the ,. from the female by its slight! rode . The most distinct Y indented hinge, which allows the turtle to rai ttnct feature of the plastron is the more protection to the soft extremities the plastron upward and provide For this reason the s m'ties that it has pulled inside the shell. pecies ,s often referred to as a ~semibo " x turtle. RECONI"iENDATiONS: Elfio (erred habitats of this s �.1zs ts to identtty, protect, and preserve re_ Pe should be continued, particuiarl w'h Populations are locally 1d also be collected to abundant. Additio Y ere iotal distribution and' show na! tntormat�on on the species' curate assessment of its current allow an ac status and to a id to protection efforts. SELECTED REFERENCES: gre • . ,don et a1. 19$3; Ewers 1982 • Breck enridge ! 9�; Conant 1 975; Con Vogt 1981. •Graham and Doy le 1977. ,svicCov 1973 6landin , *s Turtle: adult i��e��•J I'r��n� 01988, State of eic:�i sh �n ,ilh��u�•tte:. e� (10 P) and hc�l�►ee ���ttl�lttl: side Minnesota, Vera Ming Wong 109 i 3x92 16:18 X61 2 625 4490 U OF M ECOLOGY ''♦ rAX 9 October, 1992 This statement is On presented to the City that a thorough survey of the wetlands an t}+ of Maple�,�, recommendation o�d ith the the proposed SIB Of the Ma lew d adjacent upland within P cods Estates Second Addition be conducted to determine if endangered, threatened or rare s Wetlands are the most rapidly vanish* ecos of plant or animal occur there. agricultural development have resulted in a dra wetlands and the surrounding ys�� in Minnesota, Urban and 8 uPiands due to 1 ndcapin � acti vities, within nutrient rich runoff and the introdumo of non -naH suffer from the loss of habitat, threatened or car g hes, the addition of to human d• ve species, While all species I.sturban,�e be ca use of their already 1o�,�es are particularly vulnerable turtle (Er�r(�ydo�� blandinglr) is one example. p p The Blandings Minnesota ppPartrnent of Natural Resources (D std as a threatened s ve g et ation for nesting that are adjacent to ca the Blandin ��� b y the g (Adinnesota-v Endangered Flora 6 Faun _ gs turtle requires The availability of adequate nesting h c a l m , water rich in aquatic success of the Bian Coffin dr Pfannmuller, 1988). g habitat is one of the most impor�nt factors in the Pimpernel (Taenidia rite errirrw dings turtle. Rare plant s endangered lant s g �� COWbane (px P�`!es such as the Yellow . _ p species (The Clncomrriorr es: s well as nineteen oth Minnesota's Endan er ypo is rigidior) a er Non Wildlife p rogram'. habitats, and may �' • pNR) also occur in wet pra and w etland y occur in the proposed development area, d It is certain that development will result in the loss the upland building sites. endaIt is therefore important ngered plant -and animal s to determine �f rare risms °n that efforts to mitt ate the ��es are present before site deveio ment threatened or g potential impacts on these species may im 1 �gl� S° The necessity for such A bras a mented. Th upon the following nformation: I. �,.� - -- - y is based g 2. 3. ---�• �u� Vey conducted for the environmental assessment worksheet by Enviroscience, Inc. on August 25, 1992 established the suitability of �e A) habitats within the site for both the feedin BIanding'S turtle. g and nesting requirements of the The Minnesota Natural Heritage Pr ram identified the Blandin ° g Within the DNR has Proposed site for the 1Ha 1 eWe approximately 1.5 miles north Estates Second Addition. s Sof he �jnpernel and Cowbane have The Yellow radius of Section 13 where development isd in Proposed. Section 24, within a one mile a g'S turtle has An unconfirmed sighting of Blandin proposed building site. been made on the 4 • T'he survey conducted b construction would alte � r hn�ienCe, Inc. for th e EWA stated that g habitat of the Blanding'S Turtle. ATTACHMENT, 4 110 0 3/'92 16:20 x'612 625 4490 U OF M ECOLOGY FAX-A501 To ensure the most accurate study, the survey should. be conducted in the spring when there is the greatest opportunity for observing species of plants and animals. Female Blanding's turtles become active and leave the water to May and June. It is highly unlikely that the turtles would be observed I nest d n ung they bury themselves in the sediments in early to mid September. n the fall as survey will require observation on multiple days because the location an roUgh movements of the animals are unpredictable from day to day. Most plants are more easily identified when in bloom. While a majority of plantspecies bloom • e In the spring, certain species flower in the late summer and early fall. A list of p special concern should be referenced to the time of year each is known t bloom of . Rachel A. Budelsk y Graduate Student Conservation Biology Program University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 00 111 Resume of Rachel A. Budelsky (Updated March, 1992) Born: October 2, 1965; Tucson, Arizona Address: Dept. of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior University of Minnesota Social Security #: 343 -56 -7045 31.8 Church St. SE . Minneapolis, MN 55455 Marital Status: Single Phone: (612) 625 -0611 Office (612) 673 -0842 Home EDUCATION B.A. May, 1986 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Major: Zoology Completed four year program in three years M.S. May, 1992 University of Minnesota Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior Thesis title The underwater behavior & vocalizations of the Pacific bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) off Pt. Barrow, Alaska Ph.D. 1997 University of Minnesota (anticipated) Conservation Biology Program coursework in progress Dissertation topic Wetland ecology & restoration EMPLOYMENT September 1989 - present Teaching Assistant at the University of Minnesota: General Biology (3x), General Zoology (2x), Ornithology (2x), Mechanisms of Animal Behavior (2x), Comparitive Physiology, College Biology Teaching. April 1987 - present Lectu (Community & academic): marine mammal biology, behavior , research techniques. May 1987 - September Naturalist for New England Whale Watch, Newburyport, MA & New 1988 Hampshire Seacoast Cruises, Rye, NH. Provided pre - cruise lectures & on -board narration, collected photographic data, and assisted in seasonal fiscal planning of marketing and advertising. Feburary - March, 1988 Naturalial for. Seafarers Expeditions, Bangor, Maine. Wildlife guide for whale watch and coral reef tours in Tortola, BVI. December 1983 - May 1986 Laboratory Assistant Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University. Prepared biology laboratory exercises and reagents, maintained lab equipment,& performed clerical work. August 1984 - Feburary Mammalogv Collection Curator Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois 1985 University. Organized files, tagged speciments and mounted manatee skeleton. 112 REaEA EMERI N June 15- August 1, 1991 �eSec3W A CC;.,t - Response of • differential herbivory b the S clone rhizomes to Dr. Patrice Y ol�dago beetle.. _ Research dir Morrow, Dept. of Ecology U ni v ersity eCtor: gy versity of Minnesota. Mark go clones to marked and excavated Solida measure rhizome le ngth exp eriencing &biomass for a comparison among p enc�ng different herbivo May 15 - July 29, 1989 rY regimes. g mes. . l . r i h • i : The potential for anthr the Pacific walrus, opomorphic disturbance of Research director; Dan , in Bristol Bay lask Mam • • . a Seagars, U.S. Fish & Wildlife a ' mal Dw�s�on, Anchorage, Alaska. a Service, Marine ambient sound re a• Measured in -air & undervyat Pressure near traditional wal er ssure levels made observations of air rvshaul -out sees c and walrus beh ' & water traffi statistical anal of data for draft avior. Conducted report to the U.S. F.& W .S. April 15- May 25, 1988 Saa e A ' i Spring Census of the B n!n mystical , s off Pt. Barrow •whead whale, director: Dr. Chri � Alaska -1988 Season. Rase d Christopher W. Clark, Bioacoustic R arch nwers�ty. Facilitated deploy Re search Facility, Cornell _ Y t of hydrophone arrays under co nditions, maintained acoust- harsh environmental monitored data collection. c equipment and January 1 - April 15 _ . p , 1987 flUe aMLA= * tanf Distribution &Cow /C North Atlantic Right What alt Behavior Studies of the U.S. Research . e ' ' off the SE coast of the New England Aquarium Bos Edgerton Research Laborato data from aer I ton. Assisted in the collection rY' rial & shipboard platforms ho of behavioral analyzed photograph for identification ' p #O9raphed individuals & p of cow /calf air August 1 - October 1 1986 pair 86 - R -- e s h . R; n : Distribution & Mating Behavior ght Whale, I I i li of the North Atlantic Nova Scotia. Res m the Bay of Fundy & Browns B Research Direct Scott D. Kraus E ank, Laboratory, New England A • d9erton Research behavior g Aquarium Boston. Assisted in a 10 l data from shipboard Platform collection of ho p m, boat handling, data compilation p photographs for identification of ind iv id uals. and analysis of August 1 May 1- Au g 984 Research As sistant: _The costs &benefits of cl' r , colonialit near the ff swallow Hi y e Cedar Point Biological Statio Research director: Dr. Charle • r i 09alalla, Nebraska. Collected observational s Brow Yale Un,vers data of feeding and n netted & banded swallows 9 est�ng behavior, mist AWARD Sept -Jan 1989 University f . Y Minnesota Dept.. of Ecolo • on & Behavior Gradua Scholarship 9Y, Evolution • • 1983 - .1984 Illinois Tur#ion - State Scholarship Award 1 98 3 1984 Southern Illino ' ersity Academic Scholar 198.3.1984 Unw ' Southern Illinois Universit A ship . y A l umni Scholarship 113 RESEARCH GRAN Sept. 1990. Alaska (North Slop Boroug De partment , • p g of Wildlife Management Grant for the continuation of research conducted on the vocalizations dens' & ' bearded .seals off Pt. Barrow � �Y distribution of o , Alaska (Amount: $3,587) June 1990 James W. Wilkie: - Fund for Natural History Fellows • March - 1990 Sig ma. Xi Scientific � ry p (Amount. $520} 9 Research Society Grant -in -Aid of Research (Amount: $4 a Borou h Sept. 1989 Alaska North Slop g Department of Wildlife Management Grant to sup port research on the underwater vocalizations of beard ppo bearded seals off Pt. Barrow, Alaska (Amount: $2,473) April 1989 James W. Wilkie Fund for Natural • History Fellowship (Amount: $500) 114 UNIVERSIT NIIN Steve Wells ooss.y i Whitney Fax: 340 -2868 Dear Mr. Wollsf �v :v JL 1 1 1 '!.j i �. 4v Ag N �6 sect►. Her 19 , XwV 1,5jO,# Cftk St. ! 61I •di? ?•12�+i - Thy followinq*comments pertain to the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition. 1) The LZS does not address fully the changes that will occur to the wetland because of increased surface runoff and the increased nutrient load to the wetland because of changinq vegetation type . 2) The need for a buffer strip around the wetland of something other than bluegrass typo turt needs to be addressed to additionally protect the wetland, 3) The soils that are poorly drained near the wetland are not conducive to building, and should not be disturbed to additionally protect the wetland during construction. 4) Silt fences should be visually inspected during' construction to insures that they are keeping sediments from entering the wetland. Sin eraly, Terence H. Coop r Assoc* Professor of foil Science A TTACHMENT 6 115 January 25, 1993 Mr. Ronald G. Williams North Star Chapter, Sierra Club 1313 Sth Street SE, Suite 323 Minneapolis, MN 55414 MAPLE WOODS ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA I am replying to your October 15, 1993 letter about the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition. On February ? ?, 1993, the Maplewood City Council determined there was 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. There will be no fill placed within DNR inventoried Wetland 62 -244W as part of this J ro'ect. There will be no fill placed in other non -state inventoried wetlands as P part of this project. 2. In previous correspondence, the project proposer authorized you to proceed with an on -site survey of the site's biological resources. The Enviroscience study showed there will be some negative impact on suitable nesting habitat for Blanding's turtles. It went on to note there were no Blanding's turtles found on the project site. The project will preserve some upland areas as park land that could be viable nesting /habitat if the City so chooses. Please also see the attached report from Franklin Svoboda and Associates for further information about this. 3. Clifton Aichinger, Administrator of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has now told us that the construction of the dike is not necessary. Thus, 116 Attachment 25 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 2 January 25, 1993 the City and the Watershed District will not require the dike as part of this project. Also, the developers engineer has changed the preliminary grading plan for this project. This plan now has two sedimentation basins. They are proposed for the rear of lots 21 and 22, Block 1 and Lots 3, 4, and 13, Block 3. All storm water runoff will pass through these basins before discharging into DNR protected basin 62 -240W. Outlets from these basins will have a device that increases retention time and will provide skimming of floatables. The sedimentation basins will require periodic maintenance in the form of sediment removal. The City Engineer will have to approve these plans before the developer may start construction. 4. The developer usually does not apply for this permit until they are ready to start construction. To satisfy your concern, the proposer's consulting engineer prepared the NOI form and submitted it to the MPCA. Your review also discusses items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 32 of the EAw form. Bold text is the EAW text, regular text is your comment and italicized text is our response. #6 Description. Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary faciHUM Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the and duration of construction activities. Comment: The descri ption of the Proposed Project is inadequate and insufficient. It is a cursory description of what the site will look like when complete and does not discuss the impacts, physical manipulation or waste that will occur when the proposed project goes forward. Exhibit 4 does not discuss the construction and operation methods and fails to indicate the timing and duration of the construction activities. Therefore, Exhibit 4 fails to accurately inform the public of the substantial impact the P project could J ro proposed ' resent and warrants further P P investigation. There are inconsistencies found in the EAW and the proposed project that are not addressed or explained in the EAW. First, it is unclear form the EAW whether the proposed project will take sixty (60) days to complete (as shown in Exhibit 4, a copy of which is attached hereto ), or thirty (30) days (as the EAW states in item #25). Second, the number of houses which will be constructed on the proposed site is either unclear or undecided. Item #7 states that fifty (50) units will be built, while the last plat submitted to the City of Maplewood indicates less than fifty (50) units. 117 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 3 January 25, 1992 Response: We disagree with your comments The description of the proposed project is both adequate and sufficient for an EAW. The discrepancy between u 30 day or 60 day construction period and a 47 or SO lot plat is insignificant about the environmental effects For the record construction of the infrastructure will take about 60 calendar days of which about 30 days of actual work will be necessary. The proposed project as now drawn and submitted to the City, shows SO lots for single dwellings on a site of 31.6 acres #7 Project Magnitude Data Comment: As mentioned in the preceding .paragraph, the. number of units to be constructed on the proposed project site is not apparent from the materials presented in the EAW. The response to #7 states that fifty (50) units will be built, while the latest plat submitted to the City of Maplewood indicates less than fifty (50) units. The latest plat said 47 units. Your concerns are insignificant as they relate to the environmental aspects of the project. #8 Permits and Approvals Required. List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required. Comment: DNR is not listed among the governmental units which issued a permit or provided its approval for the Proposed Project. DNR does not approve the discharge of stormwater directly into the DNR protected wetland. See DNR comments submitted by letter of Thomas Balcom, October 12, 19920 The EAW also provides no indication that the City has considered whether the Proposed Project complies with state and federal laws regardin g stormwater discharge and the filling or other alteration of wetlands. Under the requirements of the Federal Water or Control Act, permits are now required for the discharge of stormwater at construction sites in excess of five acres. The EAW 118 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 4 January 25, 1993 provides no basis to believe the project proposer has obtained a stormwater discharge or permit, or filed a Notice of Intent for Storm Water Discharges. In addition, the EAW fails to provide any finding that the Proposed Project complies with the Minnesota Weiland Conservation Act, including the prohibition on wetland filling in effect until July 1, 1993 under Minn. Stat. S 103G.222. The EAW reports there will be wetland filling and suggests the filling has been approved by the U.S. Army Corps of engineers. (See EAW S 8.) The EAW makes no finding, however, that the wetland filling is allowed under state law, and in view of the incomplete information that the City and project proposer apparently provided to the regulatory agencies, it is unreasonable to rely on any vague assurances provided by the regulatory agencies that no permits were required. ' Staff believes that your response is not correct. A DNR permit is only required for discharge of storm water if the outlet pipe is below the ordinary high water level As noted earlier, it will be necessary for the proposer to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) form with the MPCA. It also will be necessary for the proposer to receive 401 certification from the MPCA. It will not be necessary for the Local Government Unit (LGU) to review this permit for this project. This is because the project will not fill or drain the wetlands. This follows the interim regulations of the 1991 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The MPCA and Health Department also will require permits for the extension of sanitary sewer and water main to serve the project. Please also see the letter from Mr. Thomas Balcom of the DNR dated January 11, 1993 about the changes to the project. This letter states "the changes proposed ...adequately addresses our concerns associated with this project." #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 sod contamination or abandoned storage tanks. Comment: 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 of adjacent wetlands which may be impacted both by the quantity and quality of runoff. The EAW does not identify any potential environmental hazard, but instead includes only a brief description of what the land had been used for in previous years. There is also a comment that the existing 119 Mr. Ronald Williams Page S January 25, 1993 building foundation and utility lines should present no soil contamination. This comment has no further discussion or detail regarding 12os sible ramifications of soil contamination or the potential environmental hazard due to past land uses. ':•• �•i We believe that the EA W is adequate in its description of the project site. One also should note that the area to the north of the site is single family homes in. Maplewood and North St. Paul Also north of the site is Maplewood Middle School and Hillside Park To the east of the project site is Sterling Street and Hill- Murray High School. To the south is Maple Woods Estates Apartments and the Maple Woods Townhouses To the west is the Maple Woods. Townhouses and McKnight Road. Staff believes that the project is compatible with the adjacent land uses #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 equal). Comment: The estimated Wooded/Forest cover type of 3 acres is clearly inaccurate. In addition to the many trees in the wetland areas, there are approximately 10 -15 acres of trees. The trees should be preserved. Cottonwood trees and oak trees are important to wetland maintenance. All tree cover is important to keep soil erosion minimal, hold water in the soil, and as a wildlife habitat. Another indication of the EAW s inaccuracy is the conflicting information on the size of the wetlands. The proposer's own consultant identified 73 acres of types 2- 8 wetlands; the EAW identifies only 5.290 U= 0"LO) I �:f 2 Below are the corrected before and after acreages of the various types of cover. Types 2 to 8 Wetlands 7_.3 7_3 Urban/Suburban Lawn Wooded /Forest 3.0 2.6 Landscaping = 14.2 BrushlGrassland 21.3 3.0 Impervious Surface = 3.5 Cropland - - Other (describe) - Pretreatment Pond 0 - 1.0 120 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 6 January 25, 1993 #11 Fisb, 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. Comment: First, in describing the fish and wildlife resources, the EAW lists only "small animals (rabbits, squirrels, etc)." There is no description of what "etc." could be. The description given is deficient and tragically insufficient to educate and inform the reader as to fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources. In addition, the EAW does not describe the measures to be taken to minimi or avoid adverse environmental impacts. No description is given as to an y curative measures. The superficial response to this question is an indication of the lack of seriousness With which the preparer treated the EAW and the information necessary to complete it. A wide variety of plants and animals thrive on the Site. Lucy Paschke, a nearby resident, has over the last two and half years I compiled a list of animal and plant life on the Site See Attachment 2). As this list demonstrates, there are more than "rabbits and squirrels" living on the Site. In addition to a variety of mammals, some of the abundant species of birds which frequent the Site use it for nesting purposes. 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. There is substantial evidence that threatened species may inhabit within the Site. The EAW states that there is a possibility that Blanding's Turtle, a threatened species, inhabits the Site. It appears that the proposers consultant spent only a short period of time on the site and conducted only a limited investigation into the existence of Blanding's Turtle. In light of the findings made by the proper's own consultant, further investigation as to the presence of Blanding's Turtle within the proposed project site is warranted. This property is also important because it is one of the last two forests in Ramsey County, containing both valuable wetlands and an oak forest. As set forth above, the impact to wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources such as Blanding's turtle could not be fully addressed because the proposer selectively excluded the scientists working with the Sierra Club from conducting a biological 121 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 7 January 25, 1993 inventory of the property. The species list compiled by Ms. Paschke over many years demonstrates the serious inadequacies of the EAW both in identifying the plant and animal resources on the proposed site and in describing the impact of the development on such resources. Further study is required in an EIS. b. Are there any state - listed end d, �tened, 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. If yes, describe the resources and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures taken to minimis or avoid adverse impacts. Comment: As set forth above, both the DNR's Natural Heritage database /and the proposer's consultant, Enviroscience, recognize that the proposed site is suitable habitat for Blanding's turtle and that turtle is found in close proximity. A site survey was not conducted by the proposer; nor would the proposer permit the Sierra Club to conduct a site survey. As set forth in the Statement of Rachel Budelsky, a graduate student in the Ecology Department at the University of Minnesota, a site survey for the turtle should be conducted in the spring or early summer. See Attachment 4). The proposer admits that the Proposed project would destroy the nesting habitat for Blanding's Turtle. No measures are described to minimize the impacts of construction on the turtle's nesting habitat. The EAW also suggests that the wetlands habitat for the turtle would not be affected. No support is given for this conclusion. In light of the fact that stormwater runoff (from lawns and streets) will be channelled directly into .the DNR- protected wetland and other wetlands on the site, this conclusion is clearly baseless. An EIS is necessary to fully investigate the effects of the construction on all habitat for Blanding's Turtle within the site. Further study in an EIS is also warranted because of the total absence of information in the EAW as to existence of other rare, threatened, endangered, or 1 The DNR's Natural Heritage database was not included with the EAW. The Sierra Club obtained a copy of the database from DNR, and attaches a copy hereto as Attachment 3. In deference to the request of DNR, the database should not be published or disseminated in a way that might endanger the species listed. 122 Mr. Ronald Williams Page. 8 January 25, 1993 otherwise significant species on the Site. In addition to Blandin s turtle S the ! Natural Heritage database notes that two other rare species and 'Wet rairie " P ! identified as " endangered " under state law, may be found within clear proximity. There is no indication in the EAW that an investigation was made into the existence of any of the other species or areas on the Natural Heritage database. Further the "Explanation' for database states: "The information in the database is drawn from any parts of Minnesota, and is constantly being updates, but it is not based on a vey comprehensive sur of the state Therefore there are currentl manv siolificant natural features mesent in the. state which are not represented by the database (emphasis added ) Because no site survey was performed by the proposer, there is insufficient information from which a reasoned decision could be made about the impacts of the Proposed Project on rare, threatened of endangered species. This information could be (and could have been) reasonably obtained by allowing the Sierra Club or other qualified personnel to perform a site survey. Further study in an EIS is required. See Attachment 4. L=;o, i i� it The developer had Franklin Svoboda and Associates do a site survey for Blanding's turtles and habitat suitability. Please see the attached report dated January 14, 1993 by Franklin Svoboda and Associates #12 Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, fillinz. stream diversion, outfall structure, • 15 impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wedand stye drama ditch? If yes, ideatify the water resources to be affected and describe: the alteration, inclu ' the construction vol=es umes of � P s dredged or fill material; area affected; 1eng.L. of stream diversion; water s��rface area affected; timintr and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and ro mit tion measures to 0 P Po' miri imi� e ga • Comment: The "No" box was marked for this question, yet the Proposed Project includes the construction of a dike and the impoundment of stormwater runoff in existing wetland areas. See Attachment 5). There is no discussion included in the EAW as to what effects the dike will have on the water resource. 123 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 9 January 25, 1993 There is no discussion of how the water resource is likely to be affected by the addition of the proposed new .construction. Finally, there is no discussion of proposed mitigation measures suggested by the. developer or the City of Maplewood to minimize the environmental impacts the Proposed Project will have on the water resource. The EAW states that although the acreage drained into the wetlands will increase by 8 acres (which runoff will also undoubtedly be multiplied by the existence of streets and storm sewers), the "increased runoff will have no significant effect on pond level." The EAW includes no discussion or description detailing the reasons why the increased runoff will have no significant effect on pond level or how the proposer determined that fact. The EAW does not include an explanation or discussion as to the basis for the statement that the "increased run off will have no significant affect on pond level." In light of the statement (in Exhibit 8 of the EAW) that "approximately 75% of the runoff from the site will be directed to the existing [DNR- protected wetland]' and that the reminder will be directed to other wetlands, the Proposed Project clearly includes hydrologic alteration which may have a profound affect on water levels and the areas inundated. The EAW is also inconsistent with the Maplewood City Council "Public Hearing Notice" date March 11, 1992. The Notice states that "Proposed outlot A on the plat covers most of the large pond that runs from Sterling Street on the east to North St.- pawl on the north. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protects this pond. The developer needs to increase the capacity of this pond so it will follow the City's dike on the Sterling Street right -of- way." At the March 2, 1992 City Planning Commission Hearing, the City stated that there would be a two (2) foot rise in the pond's water level. This will cause substantial problems including . P g floo ding, poor road conditions, destruction of plant life, and destruction of the habitat of animal wildlife. The physical impact of the development on the water resources on the proposed site and surrounding areas must be the subject of inquiry in an EIS. A set forth in the Statement of Prof. Terrence Cooper See Attachment 6), a soils scientist at the University of Minnesota, the information provided in the EAW is clearly inadequate. 124 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 10 January 25, 1993 The Watershed District has told us that the construction of the dike is not necessary for this project In addition, the proposer will provide sedimentation basins for all storm water, runoff. Impacts on the water resources will be significantly less with the proposed single family use compared to the attached housing development that the City had approved before. Please also see our response to #18b. #16 Sons Comment: 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. See Memorandum of Lucy Paschke, submitted with Ms. Paschke's individual comments to the City. ' : i • 1 The description included in the EAW is very adequate. In fact, the EQB's publication "EAW Guidelines" (June 1990) states that one should use the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classifications to describe the soils It also states that soil borings are not necessary and that the proposer does not need to provide further interpretation of the SCS soil classifications #18 Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff a Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. Comment: The EAW does not address the quality of the site runoff before and after the Proposed Project. Also, it appears that the EAW s comment on the quantity of the runoff is not accurate. There should be a detailed comparison of the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. The EAW is defective in that it fails to describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff. 125 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 11 January 25, 1993 The EAW does not indicate how much of these wetland areas will be encroached by the Proposed Project. Any close encroachment will destroy all wetland areas. The effects of the runoff of fertilizers., chemicals, etc. on the wetlands should be investigated. A complete soil survey is needed to describe, explain and discuss the impacts that will be produced by the proposed project. There is no discussion in the EAW as to the effects on the wetland flora and fauna of the increased quantity of runoff, or of the dramatic change in the quality of the lawn and street runoff which is to be directed directly into the wetlands. As set forth in the Statement of Prof. Terrence Cooper, the information in the EAW is clearly inadequate. 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. Comment: Again, the EAW does not discuss the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters, as required by #18. The drainin g of lawn fertilizers and chemicals, and street runoff directly into the wetlands will obviously have a severe impact on the wetlands. According to Exhibit of the EAW, all of the runoff will from lawns and streets will be directed into the wetlands with 75% of it going directly into the DNR-protected wetland. The EAW also maintains, in a conclusory fashion, that the "runoff will not adversely impact water levels on ad'acent or downstream receivm waters J g based of reviews by the Watershed District engineers." A complete survey of the hydrologic and biologic impact on the waters affected must be conducted in an EIS. The ser ro prevented the Sierra P P Club from performing such a survey. All runoff that the storm sewer system will collect will go into sedimentation basins before going into the DNR wetland The developer will install outlet control devices within the basins that increase detention time and to provide skimming of floatables The developer's engineer has prepared preliminary storm sewer calculations for the site. These calculations show that in the existing condition, the peak discharge into the DNR wetland is 21 CFS with a time of 126 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 12 January 25, 1993 concentration of 27 minutes The total runoff to the DNR wetland is about 2 acre feet. Under the proposed conditions, the project will increase the drainage basin to 24 acres This, when combined with an increase in the impervious area, results in a peak discharge of 55.7 CFS from a 100 year rainfall event. This also reduces the time of concentration to 20 minutes and increases the total runoff to 4.8 acre feet.. The sedimentation basins will reduce the peak discharge of 55.7 CFS. During the final design, the proposers and City engineers will fully analyze the impact of these sedimentation basins The developer's engineer estimates that the project will cause the DNR wetland to bounce about an additional 0.2 feet during a 100 year storm. This increase will have an insignificant impact on nesting waterfowl and the plant community that is next to the wetland. The City and the developer recognize that runoff from residential developments may cause a decrease in water quality.. This change in water quality is usually from the pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers the property owners use to maintain lawns, gardens and landscaping. The negative effects from the runoff from this project should be no different from the runoff quality from the existing residential developments that are next to the wetland. #20 Ground Water - Potential for Contamination Comment: The EAW does not discuss or describe any measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts due to the Proposed Project. ' r• The City does not know of any environmental hazards that would result from the use of this site for residential development. This is why the EAW does not discuss or describe any measures to avoid or minimise environmental impacts with the proposed project. Whatever potential groundwater hazards result from the proposed residential development also exist with the surrounding land uses. 127 Mr Ronald Williams Page 13 January 25, 1993 #22 Traffic Comment: The EAW does not discuss or describe in detail the estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated by the proposed project. There are two schools adjacent to the proposed project which will be directly affected by the increased traffic. A survey or investigation should be done to determine the potential problems, the impact, and any alternatives to the ultimate congestion which will occur from the development of the Proposed Project. The .response is adequate. The total trips per day for the SO single dwellings would be significantly less than the traffic that an attached housing project on this site would generate. The City and the County have designed and built the streets in the area while knowing about the attached housing project that earlier developers had proposed for this site. Therefore, the existing streets will be adequate for the single family detached housing project. #23 Vehicle- related air envisions. Comment: A conclusory statement is made in the EAW that "due to small amount of traffic generated, the project will not cause any significant decrease in air � quality." The EAW does not discuss or describe how it determined that there would only be a small amount of traffic g enerated. Response given is adequate. #26 Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a, archeological, historical, or architectural resources? boo prime or unique farmlands? C, designate parks, recreation areas, or trays? d. scenic views and vistas? e. other unique resources? 128 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 14 January 25, 1993 If any items are answered Yes, de<saibe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Descn'be any m to be taken to 0 m 0 e or avoid adverse impacts. Comment: The EAW only answered yes to one of the above questions. The EAW indicated that certain acres were being set aside for park land, wetland, and a trail system. The EAW failed to designate this area as a scenic view or vista, yet it is one of the few remaining wetland areas contained within an urban environment. The Site is a .scenic view and vista. In addition, it is a unique resource in that it is one of the last open sites in the area. The balance of developed and undeveloped land will be disturbed and permanently altered by the proposed project. There is also a great probability that the many scenic views and vistas on this property will be destroyed by the proposed project. The ponds, swamps, wildflowers and wildlife which make up the scenic view and vista Will be destroyed. The Wetlands, forests, prairie, and wildlife is a unique resource which will be destroyed by this project and a companion project which is being developed across Larpenteur. The EQB's, "EAW Guidelines" defines scenic views and vistas as "Spectacular viewing points along lakes, rivers or bluffs, virgin timber tracks, prairie remnants, geologic features, waterfalls, specimen trees, plots of wildflowers, etc." Ae City does not consider this vacant parcel of land that has pipelines, other underground utilities and town house foundations as "a scenic view or vista." The site is undoubtedly important to the adjacent residents. The City recently completed an inventory and review of open spaces within Maplewood. This study was to determine the parcels that the City should consider buying for open space. This study rated this open space at 19th amongst 60 vacant tracts of land in Maplewood. This gives this site only limited value for open space from a city wide perspective. 129 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 15 January 25, 1993 #27 Will the project create adverse visual impacts? Comment: The EAW maintains that the Proposed Project will not create adverse visual impacts. This statement does not take into consideration the fact that the Proposed Project will destroy a scenic view and vista. The project is an "adverse visual impact" in a sense because it destroys the natural wetland and forests present on the Site. The natural beauty will be destroyed. ' We The proposed project will not destroy the wetlands or forests on the site. The developer will preserve all the wetlands In addition, the City will require the developer to provide buffer strips around all the wetlands The proposal will not .change the largest wood lots with trees more than eight inches in diameter. The project will remove some scrub trees and brush that has grown on the site in the past 20 years This scrub vegetation has grown since the earlier developer installed the foundations and underground utilities There will be a visual impact for the adjacent residents created by having additional residential units next to their property as opposed to open space. As mentioned under item 26, Sensitive Resources, the City does not consider this site a scenic view or vista. Further, the EQB's "EAW Guidelines" states that the Purpose for item 27 in the FA is to "Describe any non routine impacts which may be due to the emission of light from the project or due to a visual nuisance caused by the project... Examples of visual nuisances would be lights on a tall communication tower intruding on the visual integrity of the scenic vista or a very large water vapor plum from an exhaust stack or cooling tower." A development of single dwellings will have routine and typical visual impacts on nearby existing residential housing. #32 Summary of Issues section need not be completed if the EAW is done for EIS scopin; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Sc Deci document which must ggqgMRW the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require fin investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. 130 Mr. Ronald Williams Page 16 ,January 25 1993 Comment: The EAW purports that there are no impacts or issues that require further investigation, yet the EAW is full of incomplete, insufficient, and inadequate information and data. The EAW does not discuss, as required, any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been, may be or should be considered due to the environmental impacts and environmental issues that arise due to the proposed project. The EAW should identify any alternatives and mitigative measures to be taken to ensure the least amount of environmental impact on the proposed project site. The EAW proposed no solution or measures to the problems this project proposes. �� Me �� Staff believes this letter and similar letters to other EAW reviewers will answer your concerns about the information in the EAW. The proposed changes to the development plans also will address several of the concerns about the proposed development of this site. Please call me at 770 -4566 if you have. any questions. KENNETH ROBERTS - ASSOCIATE PLANNER Attachment - Franklin Svoboda and Associates Report (1- 14 -93) kr /william2.let cc: Jack Menkfeld, North Suburban Development, Inc. Amy Mitchell, Dorsey and Whitney 131 JANg Maple Woods Estates 2nd AddWto ion North Suburban Development Co. Maplewood' Minnesota Habitat Suitability for Blanding's Turtle & Overall Habitat Study Blandi*np's Turtle (Emydioidea blandingti) Habitat Requirements Project No. 92 -072 January 14, 1993 FPJLNRLIN J. SVOBODA ASSOCIATES Wetland Services Wildlife/ Vegetation Studies 132 Attachment 26 ' Maple Woods Estates 2nd Addition North Suburban Development Co. Maplewood, Minnesota Habitat S- uitability for B landing's Turtle & Overall. Habitat Study Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Habitat Requirements Project No. 92 -072 January 14, 1993 A g 133 Habitat Suitability for Blanding's Turtle &Overall Habitat Study Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Habitat Requirements Maple Woods Estates 2nd Addition Maplewood, Minnesota Project No. 92 -072 INTRODUCTION The Maple Woods Estates 2nd Addition is proposed to be constructed in the SY2 SWY4 of Section 13, T29N, R22W. This development is for single family esidential use. The p roject did not require Y ro P� q the preparation of a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet, but it was requested by order of the Maplewood City Council. As part of the research for the preparation of this document, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program staff was contacted to obtain information about the possible presence of rare, threatened, endangered and unique species on or in the vicinity of the site. In searching their records database., the DNR recovered four records of rep Bland turtle P� g (Emydoidea. blandingii) observations within several miles of the project area. Blanding's turtles are designated as "threatened species in Minnesota. LITERATURE REVIEW According to the literature (Ross and Anderson, 1990; DeGraaf and Rudis, 1981; DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986; Coffin and Pfannmuller, 1988 ) Blanding's turtles occupy ponds, marshes, ditches and streams as their primary habitat. Seasonally, during late May through earl Jul Y � Y July ( Emrich, 1991; Congdon et. al., 1983), the females will travel up to 4000 feet from the home wetland to excavate a nest and lay eggs. Emrich (1991), in summarizing the nesting habitats of these turtles, listed gravel, sand and sandy loam soils as the nearly universal choice for nesting sites. In only one instance was the use of silt loam reported and that was in the area being studied by Emrich. This 1 134 study area was presumed to be a historic nesting area now developed into residential - housing but still used by the turtles for nesting. Although the preferred soil types in nesting areas are similar, land uses are highly variable. In the same table, Emrich reported the use of residential yard, sandy beach, bulldozed area, railroad bed, cornfield, grassland, plowed field, dry prairie and other land use categories as nesting sites research studies. In a study by Ross and Anderson of nesting turtle habitat in Wisconsin (1990), they reported. that 100 percent of the sites had a 50 percent cover of grasses and sedges. Only 11 percent of the sites had any woody cover and this was present at only trace levels. Although the use of agricultural fields is reported as nesting habitat, reports of nest success under such circumstances was not reported in the reviewed literature. Blanding's turtle nests are four to seven inches from the surface to the bottom of the nest. It is possible that routine e cro .tills p g practices, such as the cultivation of corn and soybeans, could destroy the nest. Nesting success in hayfields and small grain fields, such as oats and wheat, may also be limited. Emrich (1991) reported 50 percent cover in the natural nesting sites she studied. Percent of cover is much greater in cultivated hayfields and small grain fields. Another aspect of turtle nesting appears to be the preferential use of historic nesting areas. In the Emrich study, turtles returned to nest in the same area even after it had been developed into a reside ur p � ntial housing area. The turtles nested within a short distance of several houses. The se of the Emrich research was to develop a new alternative nesting area; however, the attempt was unsuccessful. 2 135 In summary, it appears that the following conclusions might be made about the nesting requirements of the Blanding's turtle: Essential Elements - Home pond or wetland within 4000' of the nesting area A "nesting wetland" within 300 -500' of the nest site Sandy, gravelly, or sandy loam soil used for nesting Openings in the vegetation of .1 to .6 acre Exposure to sunlight Absence of nest predators - Less Important Elements - Proximity to humans and human activities Disturbance of historic nesting areas unless destroyed Tree and shrub cover combined (w /in 32' radius) < 20% Herb cover w /in 32' radius < 65% Average cover - 50% Previous history of nesting use RESULTS A reference area of known Blanding's turtle habitat and the project site were visited on January 11, 1993 to determine habitat characteristics, and the character of the ' ro p J ect site. Reference Wetland Habitat Conditions On January 6, 1992 Franklin J. Svoboda and Associates submitted a report on Blanding's turtle � g habitat requirements of the SCIMED Life Systems Medical Facili ty p in Maple Grove, Minnesota (approximately 24 miles west northwest of Maple Woods Estates). In searchin g their records database, the MN DNR recovered a record of a reported Blanding's turtle near the project area. ro' p° g P J A pond located at the corner of W. Fish Lake Road and Ranchview Lane in Maple Grove, k] 136 Minnesota was visited. This was the location of a reported observation in June 1986. This area was used as a basis for comparison for the following reasons: First, familiarity with the Maple Grove site regarding Blanding's turtle habitat; and the assurance that Blanding's turtle habitat is indeed being examined. Although the pond was snow covered, it was possible to determine that most of the pond consisted of open water with a small bog island of cattail (Typha spp.) and sedge (Carex spp.) near the northwest end. Some cattail was also present along the edge of the pond. The western edge of the pond abutted a steep wooded hillside of ash, maple, red oak, basswood and trembling aspen. A wooded Swale was present to the south of W. Fish Lake Road that extended southward. Two residences were present on the east side of the pond, and two additional residences were present on the east side of the Swale. Farther east and south, typical suburban residential subdivision developments were present. An open rolling field was located north of the pond. This Type 5/8 wetland (POWG/EMIB) consists of mostly open water with a floating bog (approximately 5% of the wetland area) in the center of the wetland. Approximately one -half of the wetland shoreline is a steep wooded bank with trees overhanging the water and numerous fallen trees with their trunks partially submerged. Approximately one -third of the shoreline is single family residential and the remainder is roadside bank. Emergent vegetation along the perimeter of the wetland was minimal. Adjacent upland area percentages follow the wetland shoreline ratio. Adjacent to the wetland is a hay field, steeply rolling in terrain. This field has non - tilled areas of steep slopes that were left with natural vegetation and have a westerly and southwesterly exposure. The plant species composition is natural grasses and forbs. Woody plant species were not observed in these areas. According to the Blanding's turtle nesting requirements of non -woody and < 657o vegetative cover, this area would be good nesting habitat. Also, if this is suitable Blanding's turtle nesting habitat, it can be surmised that other turtles would have good nesting success with the same habitat criteria. During a conversation with an adjacent landowner while on the site visit, this turtle nesting habitat hypothesis was found likely to be true. The landowner said that there is an abundance. in numbers and variety in species of turtles in the wetland. She also noted that turtles were commonly seen 4 137 basking on fallen tree trunks, the bog edge and along the shoreline from a week after ice -out in April through fall. This landowner also observed turtles digging nests through the sod of their back yard twice since they moved there five years ago. One specific location was at the crest of the hill risin g from the wetland on a southwest facing slope. This turtle was identified as similar to a painted turtle, but not as tall as a box turtle; it was approximately 7 inches long. Project Site Habitat Conditions According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) Natural Heritage and Nongame Wildlife Database, the Blanding's turtle has been documented at four sites within several miles of the Maple Woods Estates 2nd Addition. One sighting was at Beaver Lake a roldmatel ( pp Y two miles southwest of the project Y site). This lake was observed to have mostly undisturbed hillsides leading down to the lake. On the east side of the lake, an undisturbed exposed grassy hillside point rises from the lake. This may provide suitable nesting for Blandin g 's turtles at this location. There are heavily traveled roads as well as residential housing developments between this location and the proposed project site. Migration between is not likely. The Maple Woods Estate 2nd Addition location consists of 31.6 acres of uplands and wetland basins. A DNR protected cattail marsh exists in the eastern portion of the property. Several other wetland basins exist in or adjacent to the property. The uplands are dominated by aspen and cottonwood saplings and mature trees. These saplings (primarily aspen) are encroaching into both grassy meadows and remnant stands of oaks. On the eastern portion of the property, a network of abandoned foundations has been overgrown with five to 10 -year old aspen and other woody brush. Without management, any grassy meadow areas on the site will likely be displaced with pioneering aspen saplings. Most of the upland vegetation is dominated by trembling aspen and eastern cottonwood, with elm, box elder, white birch, bur oak, and smooth sumac. There are two pockets of oak woods, each less than an acre in size and both are being encroached by aspen saplings. The oak woods consist of northern red oak and bur oak with some pin oak and hazel. The open meadows have a variety of grasses and forbs dominated by either brome grass or raspberries. 138 Also observed on site was evidence of disturbance to the natural integr of the o g t o riginal landscape, soils and vegetation. Dump truck -sized spoil iles, bulldozer alterations and hills installed ed water utilities (visible fire hydrants) and accumulations of concrete curb and i e were o p p bserved throughout much of the site. only small portions of the site appeared undisturbed. This disturbance could partially explain the dominance ands read of aspen saplings. p l� P l . Another sign of disturbance is the presence of two erosional ravines leading to Basins 1 and 3 (Figure 1). The erosional ravine leading to Basin 1 comes from the northwest and is three to four feet deep. This wetland is a DNR protected water and the soil erosion deposition will degrade the wetland quality over time if not corrected. - - - The other erosional ravine leads to Basin 3 from the northeast. This ravine is two to three feet in depth. Horsetail (Equisetum spp.) was observed on the depositional delta. This vegetation type is characteristic of sandy - gravelly soils. Without correction, this erosional deposition can choke out the normal aquatic wetland vegetation (which rely on organic soils) enough to degrade the wetland habitat and lower the carrying capacity of wildlife species in this wetland. Of the wetland basins located on or adjacent to the property, only three (Basins 2, 3 and 4) have the habitat criteria found where other Blanding's turtles were observed. This criteria includes: so mostly open water areas primarily submergent rather than emergent vegetation open water /upland shoreline interfaces fallen trees with partially submerged trunks for basking overhanging trees Of the three basins, Basin 1 has the best likelihood :for Blanding's turtle usage. As mentioned above, the habitat in Basin 3 would be degraded if no correction is made to the sedimentation P roblem. The Ramsey County Soil Survey reports that the upland areas of the site consist of sandy loam which would be suitable for nesting. Wildlife usage observed included rabbit tracks and sign, squirrel tracks and nests, deer tracks, a ground den (possibly for fox), and muskrat houses in Basin 1. G 139 This site appears to be on the western hinge of undeveloped open space. The area to the north of the site consists primarily of single family residential homes with a school and a park. The area to the west and south is developed into multi - family townhouse and apartment buildings. There is open space to the southeast which is likely where most of the wildlife comes from. RECOMMENDATIONS As mentioned previously, Blanding's turtles' nesting sting requirements include sandy soils with < 65% vegetation cover, none of which can be wood Because • dy se of this intolerance to woody cover, Blanding's turtle nesting areas must be free -of wood vegetation - -- - y getation such as as saplings. If Blanding's turtle nesting potential is to exist on • • • the Maple Woods Estate 2nd Addition, it is recommended that there be areas of natural a • gr sses and fortis maintained by clearing woody and brushy herbaceous vegetation. The petroleum i eline corridor P p or easement would be an ideal location for this. .purpose. Bluegrass sod, as observed b a y property owner, can also provide potential turtle nesting habitat. Leaving a buffer area of natural vegetation adjacent to the wet • land areas will help the overall habitat in several ways. First, Westin for reptiles . g p and waterfowl can occur here, second, wildlife can utilize the upland side of the u land/wetland margin • • P gin for travel, feeding and as living space; third, this zone can help dissipate_ any which takes Y place in upland areas (as noted in Basins 1 and 3 )• and finally, the buffer can offer an aestheticl pleasing margin Y P g gi to the wetland areas. CONCLUSIONS Based on the review of the available literature and an examination urination of the site, the presence of suitable Blanding's turtle nesting habitat does appear to pp be present. However, because of the spread P of woody vegetation (aspen saplings and brush herbaceous vegetation ) y getation th habit at for nesting Blanding's turtles will be lost within a few ears if left unmanaged. nmanaged. As suggested previously, a plan that contains "natural openings" of native rasses and fo • g rbs managed by clearing woody and brushy vegetation would be the best solution to saving his to • potential Blanding's turtle nesting habitat from being grown over with wood cover. As the literature ' Y re indicates, and as appears to be the case at this location as well, Blanding's turtles les are, apparently unaffected by the P resence of humans. 7 140 More critical to their survival is loss of nesting abitat and des g r ction of nests by predators.. If no nesting habitat will be lost as a result of project construction, than it is very likely that t ' ry y he Blanding s turtles will continue to survive and coexist with the ro sed deve p po loprnent. CERTIFICATION Prepared by Robert J.F. Merila, Aquatic Ecologist. Reviewed and submitted b Franklin J. Svobo y da, Certified Wildlife Biologist on this da Janua 12 1993. y� Jan , -:,.. 41 0 . 1) .1 Signed Date 141 DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory map. 1991. Osseo quadrangle. Scale - 1 :24,000. Date of aerial photos, May 1980. City of Maple Grove. 1991. SCIMED Life Systems -Maple Grove Facility Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 22 pp. plus figures. Coffin, B. and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 473 pp. Congdon, J.D., D.W. Tinkle, G.L. Breitenbach, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1983, Nesting Ecology and Hatching Success in the Turtle Emydoidea blandingii. Herpetologica 39(4):417 -429. DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1981. Forest Habitat for Reptiles and Amphibians of the Northeast. USDA Forest Serv. NE for. Exp. Sta. 239 pp. DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1986. New England wildlife: Habitat, Natural History and Distribution. USDA Forest Serv. NE For Exp. Sta. Genl. Tech. Rept. NE- 108.491 pp. Emrich, M.E. 1991. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Nesting Behavior and Response to Artificial Nest Habitat. M.S. Thesis, Bard College, Annandale -On- Hudson, New York. 66 FO Ross, D.A. and R.K. Anderson. 1990. Habitat Use, Movements, and Nesting of Emydoidea blandingii in Central Wisconsin. Joum. Herpetology 24(1):6 -12, USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1974. soil Survey, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 159 pp + figures. 0 142 F I g u r e I 1h ,<,�.��. ,�,� s =. _ �.. .�,< � „�, HOLLOWAY AVENUE E _ _ ,y r:;.,...• Lt lt�j/' r' 1 r ' � � � `� ''�' ' � Rj ' �; • rG �.• • A+!' t k • t.�, ) c c• ' r�)s!� � � �.L► 1 � �r Lr �• 1 �IK � �S (� �..�r W at�r • i �� 1 "' �� • 1 . f 1 1 1 (•ry 1 � ' .a 1.1 Ij tll Id � � T 1 .'• +...w_ Fj •r• (•) fm t2.L 9 L uj a •�,. � 1 � �-�- T � •• s . vJ • r a. 17 � <•w taxi � �' N ORTH � � ° � too) Ow • I7 l.r�. a.s. � v• STo'PAUL 00 m4a; .- 64 HILLSIDE «.(s.� :a-� < '•' - I gap RK t� ,� MAPLEWOOD oil s { 4 pA v ME S CHOOL. ... (J* s M A L w 00 D sit 40 1 Iff 831 : i� 1825 t�� P , R.o« el X820 18 a Q 1818 ' j :�_� *.� t: 1�C a• �� Ift } 1814 1 0.- `L',7 1815 1817 aIPL J a� as LL g 1806 1807 �g09 - -._. p •• 2448 �•-� M rum ..� •�.� 05 s .. � .�rr;,� �*� �`' a • 2488 • , .. M M .� .. i R� P s. L Y AVEN et. :. ..;. . cv •N . . ...... ......... .i • •r 'i f f • ::• •.. •• • '':•1: •M : . I ' .:. .:. . X . * x . 1 ..• R 3 i • T 3 .... ... .....:::::..:.::::.. .::..::::::.................... ....:....................... ....... .. ::.::::.. .. ... �.� .. .�• .. i 4 HILL—MURRAY ul , r .4 .. i • • a• • J ....... . . .... :�. ........ ........ ... H SC .... ..... ...... ... OL H 1 L .. ... "'`. O lbftb r PUD •. — t HILLSIDE f Z Basin 2 m* w I - CENTER '• v� PL Vy •; ti.f MAPLEWOOD APARTMENTS •...... R 3 P ' ,,,,� A � i t" i t f • SITE 143 Appendix A 144 BLANDINGS IN OR NEAR MAPLEWOOD -P to Minnesota Natural Heritage Database 13:04 Monday, JANUARY 11, 1993 Element Occurrence Records MnDNR, Natural Heritage and Nongame Wildlife Programs Copyright 1993 State of Minnesota DNR Element: EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDINGIS TURTLE) #38 Location: RAMSEY. COUNTY, MN DNR Region: 6 State Status: THREATENED Federal Status: CANDIDATE, CATEGORY 2 Legal : T0294 R22W OS25 Wildlife Area: 601 EO Size: EO Rank:. Current Status: Intended Status: Quad Map: LAKE ELMO (S1813) Forestry District: 552 Site: MAPLEWOOD NATURE CENTER Latitude: 44 58' 3" Long: 92 59. 40" Last Obs.: August 1982 Ownership: City Park Precision: within 0.25 mile, confirmed Managed Area(s): MAPLEWOOD NATURE CENTER Source: SOUTTER,C. (DNR GREEN SLIP) Voucher: Verification: sight rec. BLANDING'S TURTLE. ONE ON CAUSEWAY BETWEEN 2 MARSHES AT MAPLEWOOD NATURE CENTER. Element: EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) #226 State Status: THREATENED Federal Status: CANDIDATE, CATEGORY 2 EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Intended Status: Site: MAPLEWOOD 4 Ownership: Owner unknown Managed Area(s): not. managed or no record Source: DNR JOHNSON,V. 1 TURTLE 10 INCHES LONG. Element: EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) #313 State Status: THREATENED 'Federal Status: CANDIDATE, CATEGORY 2 EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Intended Status: Site: MAPLEWOOD 11 ownership: owner unknown Managed Area(s): not managed or no record Source: KONRAD,J.(DNR ENFORCEMENT, 1988 TURTLE SURVEY) 1 TURTLE REMOVED FROM PET STORE. IT HAD BEEN COLLECTED FROM ADJACENT WETLAND. MALE, Location: RAMSEY COUNTY, MN DNR Region: 6 Legal T029N R22W 04 - Wildlife Area: 601 Quad Map: WHITE BEAR LAKE WEST (R17D) Forestry District: 552 Latitude: 45 1' 46" Long: 93 3. 20" Last Obs.: 1984 Precision: within 0.50 mile Voucher: Verification: sight rec. Location: RAMSEY COUNTY, MN DNR Region: 6 Legal : T029N R22W NWNW11 Wildlife Area: 601 Quad Map: WHITE BEAR LAKE WEST (R17D) Forestry District: 552 Latitude: 45 V 4 11 Long: 93 1' 14" Last Obs.: 03 September 198 Precision: within 0.25 mile, confirmed Voucher: Verification: sight rec. 10.75 INCHES. Element: EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (BLANDING'S TURTLE) #508 Location: RAMSEY COUNTY, MN DNR Region: 6 State Status: THREATENED Federal Status: CANDIDATE, CATEGORY 2 Legal T029N R22W NE26 Wildlife Area: 601 EO Size: EO Rank: Current Status: Intended Status: Quad Map: ST. PAUL EAST (S17A) Forestry District: 552 Site: BEAVER LAKE COUNTY PARK CBS Site #: 13 Latitude: 44 58 15" Long: 93 0. 32" Last Obs.: 01 July 1990 Ownership: County Park Precision: within 0.25 mile, confirmed Managed Area(s): BEAVER LAKE COUNTY PARK Source: DIKE,E. Voucher: Verification: sight rec. ONE TURTLE OBSERVED ON THE WEST- SOUTHWEST SHORE OF BEAVER LAKE. MAY HAVE BEEN A CAPTIVE TURTLE IN PAST, AS IT HAD RED PAINT ON IT. L. kAA LA-tLao-ml f Natural Heritage Database Print- outs: An Explanation of Selected Fields The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the Nongame Wildlife Program, units within the Section of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in fostering better understanding and protection of these rare features. The information in the database is drawn from many parts . of Minnesota, and is constantly being updated, but it is not based on a comprehensive survey of the state. Therefore, there are currently many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the database. We are in the process of addressing this problem via the Minnesota County Biological Survey, a county -by- county inventory of rare natural features, which is now underway. Index The Natural Heritage database maintains records of rare features, or "elements" in Minnesota. The records contain many fields which can be organized into variously formatted printouts. Each line in an abbreviated print -out, or index, represents one occurrence of a rare natural feature such as an endangered plant or animal, a rare plant community, or a significant geological feature. Your index is organized b g Y township, range and section and includes the following fields: TWP, RNG, SECTION: Township, range and section numbers. Records have varying degrees of precision; some are listed only to the nearest section or sections, others are listed to the nearest 40 acres (e.g,, SWNW32 means the SW1 /4 of the NW1 /4 of-section 32). "0" is used as a place holder when a 1/2 section is specified (e.g., ONO3 =north 1/2 of section 3).. When a community overlaps section boundaries, both sections will be listed in the section field without punctuation (e.g., NE19NW20 =NE1 /4 of section 19 and NW1 /4 of section 20). FED STATUS: Status of species under the Federal Endangered Species Law. Codes are LE= endangered, LT= threatened, C2 =species which are candidates for listing, but about which there is not enough data to support listing proposals at this time, 3C =species that were once considered for listing, but which have proven more abundant than previously believed and are not subject to any identifiable threat at this time. MN STATUS: Minnesota legal status of plant and animal species under the state endangered species law. Codes for status are as follows: END =endangered, THR= threatened, SPC =special concern. Additional species are tracked that have no legal status, but are rare, and may become listed if they decline further; codes for these are PEN = proposed endangered, PTH= proposed threatened, PSC =proposed special concern, and NON =rare, but no legal status. This field is blank for natural communities and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no legal status in Minnesota, but are tracked by the database. Natural Heritage database printouts (continued) 2 NC STATUS: Although natural communities or habitats have no legal status in Minnesota, the Natural Heritage program has evaluated and ranked .them according to their relative rarity and endangerment in the state. Codes are the same as for MN STATUS, with the addition of UND= undetermined; this indicates that there is insufficient information about a community type at this time to allow an assessment of its status. ELEMENT AND OCCURRENCE NUMBER: For plant and animal species this is the scientific name with the common name in parentheses; for all other features it is the feature name. The occurrence number, in combination with the element name, uniquely identifies.each record and may be used to retrieve additional information from the full- record printout. MANAGED AREA: If the element occurs within the boundaries of an area managed by a public agency or a conservation organization such as The Nature Conservancy, the name of the area is recorded. If this field is blank, the element probably occurs on private land. Full Record Printout (compressed version) Some users of Natural Heritage database information are interested in more detailed information about the individual occurrences of rare features than is provided by the index. The full record printout (compressed version) is designed to include additional fields from the database that are likely to be most relevant to users. In the full record printout, the first line of each record contains the element name ( "ename "), the common name for plants and animals, and the occurrence number. The records are arranged by class (geologic processes; natural communities; other elements such as waterbird colonies, bat hibernacula, prairie chicken booming grounds; animals; plants), then alphabetically by element name, and finally by occurrence number. Again, the ename and the occurrence number are the cross reference with the index. other fields are defined below. Region: References the 6 DNR regions in the state. State Status: Minnesota legal status of plant and animal species under the state endangered species law. Status categories include Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern and No Legal Status (rare but not listed in the state). This field is blank for natural communities and colonial waterbird nesting sites, which have no legal status in Minnesota, but are tracked by the database. . _ n.. � 'y � �•3'"� ` �' 'USX ; .:, �wi F�'f` � 3 cst - `R,, � "'A -; 1 Natural Heritage database printouts (continued) 3 Federal Status: This field appears only for plant or animal species that have legal status. under the federal Endangered Species Law - Endangered, Threatened, Category 2 (a candidate species), Category 3 (more abundant than previously thought). State NC Status: Natural community status; although natural communities or habitats have no legal status in Minnesota, the Natural Heritage program has evaluated and ranked them according to their relative rarity and- endangerment in the state. ( "Undetermined" indicates that there is insufficient information about a community type at this time to allow an assessment of its status.) Legal: This field contains the township, range and section numbers. Records have varying degrees of precision; some are listed only to the nearest section or sections, others are listed to the nearest 40 acres (e.g., SWNW32 means the SW1 /4 of the NW1 /4 of section 32). "0" is used as a place holder when a 1/2 section is specified (e.g., ONO3 =north 1/2 of section 3). When a community overlaps section boundaries, both sections will be listed in the section field without punctuation (e.g., NE19NW20 =NE1 /4 of section 19 and NW1 /4 of section 20) . CO Wildlife Area: The Section of Wildlife administrative number. EO Size: The size in acres (often estimated) of natural communities. EO Rank: An evaluation of the quality and condition of natural communities from A (highest) to D (lowest). Current Status: Present protection status of a site from 0 (owner is not aware of record) to 9 (dedication as a Scientific and Natural Area). Intended Status: Desired protection status. If a complete list of protection status codes is needed, please contact the Natural Heritage Program. Quad Map: The U.S. Geologic topographic maps maintained by the Heritage Program. Forestry District. The Division of Forestry's district number. Site: The sitename allows the database to group occurrences that are located near each other. Usually this name refers to a county biological survey site, in other instances it is the name of a managed area, Natural Heritage database printouts (continued) sometimes it is a more generic name that encompasses several managed areas and /or private land (e.g., sitename Felton Prairie pulls together occurrences on Felton Prairie SNA, Felton WMA and private lands), occasionally it is a colloquial name (Katinanta Bog); often it is a township name and section number. CBS Site #.* A number assigned to each county biological survey site. In each county, the numbering system begins with the number 1. Latitude /longitude: The lat -long references the dots which are placed manually on the quad map files. There are various levels of precision in the original information, but this -is not reflected in the lat- long data. For some of the data, particularly historical records, it was not possible to determine exactly where the original observation was made. Examples of this type of locational information would be "Fort Snelling ", or "the south shore of Lake Owasso ". During the manual mapping process for the least . precise observations, the dot is placed in the center of the 7.5 minute quad map, and the lat -long coordinates are determined for the center ofithe dot. In cases where the occurrence is known within a quarter mile, the lat -long reflects the nearly exact location of the record. .p Last Observation: The date of the most recent information about this record. Ownership: Indicates whether the site is privately owned; for publicly owned land the agency with management responsibility isi listed here. 4 Precision: This field indicates how precise the locational information is. There are six levels of precisions 1) occurrence is known within 1/4 mile radius (most precise level), 2) occurrence is kriown'within 1/2 mile radius (usually within a section), 3) occurrence is known within one mile radius, 4) occurrence is known to exist within the quad map or general region, 5) occurrence is unmappable (often known only to the county level), 6) occurrence no longer exists at former location. Managed Area(s): These are lands owned or managed by either a public agency or a private conservation organization such as The Nature Conservancy. Source: The collector or observer of the feature. Voucher: The museum or herbarium where specimens are maintained and the accession number assigned by the repository. In the case of bald eagles, this is the breeding area number. Verification: This, in general, reflects the reliability of information. In the case of old plant Natural Heritage database printouts (continued) 5 collections, the date of the collection determines whether the record is verified or unverified; collections before 1970 are unverified. The highest level of reliability is "verified" which usually indicates a collection was made or, as in the case of bird records, nesting was observed. Remarks at end of records: The last 1 -3 lines of each record contain more detailed notes about the occurrence, such as the number of individuals, descriptive information about habitat, associated species, etc. Data Security The locations of some rare features must be treated as sensitive information because widespread knowledge of these locations could result in harm to the rare features. The most sensitive information s i the locations of species of wildflowers, including orchids, endangered species such as the Dwarf trout lily, and economically valuable plants such as Ginseng, because these are vulnerable to exploitation by cn collectors. Bald eagle nesting sites are also considered to be sensitive to disturbance by curious on- o lookers. For this reason, information from the Natural Heritage database should not be reproduced or published without permission -from the Natural Heritage Program. We are concerned that any publication for public distribution not identify the precise locations of the vulnerable plant species referred to above. one way to handle this would be to list only the sections in which the sensitive species occur. If this is not acceptable for your purposes, please call and discuss this issue with the Environmental Review Specialist for the Heritage and Nongame Wildlife Programs at 612/296 - 8324. Another issue is the disturbance or eradication of a rare feature by development projects. If a threat to any of the features on your printout comes to your attention, please call the Environmental Review Specialist for the Heritage and Nongame Wildlife Programs: Data Recrueste.. The Heritage Database is updated continuously. Of particular significance is the body of new records being generated by the County Biological Survey. For this reason, it is important to forward data requests to the Natural Heritage or Nongame Wildlife Programs. In addition, printouts can be organized by the Heritage staff to meet the particular needs of requesters. Requests for Heritage data should be forwarded to Mary Miller at 612/296 -8319 or Bonita Eliason at 612/296- 8324. Appendix B 151 Franklin J. Svoboda, CWB Wildlife Biologist/Wetlands Ecologist Responsibilities Mr. Svoboda is a Certified Wildlife Biologist and resident of Franklin J. Svoboda da and Associates. He serves as a special consultant to municipalities, indus private organiz . P � ��y, p public agencies and consulting firms providing ex ertise in wetlands vegetation, wildlife P g dlife and environmental review processes. Education Master of Science, Forest Resources and Recreation, University f Minnesota 1987. tY , Bachelor of Science, Wildlife Management, University of Minnesota 1966. Certifications Certified Wildlife Biologist, The Wildlife Society U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Evaluation Procedures U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Evaluation Techni u . q es Professional Affiliations The Wildlife Society Society of Wetland Scientists Association of Wetland Managers Society for Ecological Restoration Natural Areas Association Experience Mr. Svoboda has 25 years experience as a wildlife biologist. Throughout his r gi g professional career, he has personally conducted field investigations relatin g to wildlife , wildlife habitat and vegetation. Over the past twelve years, he has spent much of his career in work related to wetlands, conducting field evaluations, preparing permit applications and designing mitigation .. P p g P� aPP fining mitigation i plans and supervising others who assisted n preparation of repo and plan design. Po P He also has extensive experience with state and federal environmental review P rocesses. He was responsible for the management and/or preparation of seven state EISs . and eleven state EAWs. Mr. Svoboda provided technical expertise rtainin to ve etation wildlife Pe g g wetlands, agriculture, history, archaeology and recreation for the Federal Department of Transportation. He has prepared Section 4F, Section 6F and Section 106 technical reports and wetlands findings. g 1 152 For five years, he supervised a stud team of n . . - _ sts who were y natural resources, archeological, traffic. engineering and air and nose quality specialists r g g preparing an Environmental Impact Statement EIS for four alternative landfill sites in � Hennepin county, Minnesota. In managing 'the preparation P epar'ation of environmental documents for ho rseracing tracks in Eagan and Blaine, he also worked with experts in the field of waste . com ostin P g Mr. Svoboda has broad experience in recre ation ' Pe eation planning and holds a Master's Degree in . Forest Management. �' o est Resources and Recreation Mans g . As a State Park Planner for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, he co- authored mans p ent management plans for five state parks. He also served as the planning team's wildlife technical expert. As a consultant, he prepared several management : plans for pnvate landowners and also for g a county park in Wyoming. His Master's thesis _.research involved a statewide serve of Minn - y Min private landowners and then attitudes toward wildlife habitat management. _ In addition to Minnesota Mr. . Svoboda has work experience in Iowa Michigan, • ' gan, Illnois, Wisconsin, Colorado, Wyoming, and Ariz g ona. ounded Marsh Memos, a . He had a leadership role in the or moton of the Twin Cities Wetlands Forum and f g corporate newsletter de�alin with wetland issues. g Relevant project experience includes: P Wetlands Delineation, Restoration and Mitigation MacMillan- Bloedel PSL 300 Plant Wetland ' Mitigation Development of a large wood fiber rocessin tan • P g plant near Deerwood, Minnesota resulted in the encroachment of approximately 8 acres of shrub and sedge meadow wetlands. To com ensate for wetland loss, a mitigation plan was developed a we a P eloped that created 13 acres of sedge tland from upland. adjacent to the plant site. An additional g P . . additional 10 acre wetland area for wildlife habits created at an offsite location b in t was y stalling a permanent water control structure at the site of a former beaver dam • Frank Svoboda completed an on -site wetland evaluation wetlands and aloe. on of impacted g with project engineers, developed a concept plan for ' wetlands. eP P replacing the impacted City of Superior, Wisconsin Airport Runway Ex ' �°� y pansion The City of Superior is pla�anin to add a runway • • g y to provide an additional safe factor to its existln crosswind runway. � g y. The existing airport is located within a large .acts to wet) g wetland complex and impacts ands are unavoidable. The runway expansion will y xp directly and indirectly. impact over. loo acres of wetlands. Replacement wetlands are e being created from upland abandoned farm fields at a location approximatel 5 mi es south from the airport site. Created wetlands will be a combination of open water ponds and alder wetlands. ds • F J. Svoboda and Associates was responsible for delineating the extensive wetland complexes pexec at both the airport site and at the mitigation site. They also provided technical ex • • peruse toward muumizing the impacts to wetlands and to developing replacement wetlands at the mitigation site. 2 153 Wisconsin Department of Transportation; sP ortation • TH 77 Wisconsin DOT is proposing to improve approximate) 25 miles of TH 77 b widening and y Y g some minor curvature realignments. These improvements Will result in impacting a number of P g wetlands. Franklin J. Svoboda and Associates completed delineating the wetlands within the alignment and is participating in the wetland replacement process with the highway design engineers. Northwest Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission; Parkland Wetland Identification and Delineation The Northwest Regional Planning Commission is proposing the construction of a railroad P P g sp yard south of the City of Superior, Wisconsin. Franklin J. Svoboda and Associates was hired to examine the site for the presence of wetlands and to delineate any wetland which might be present. The site. is over 600 acres in size and consists primarily of agricultural meadowland. Minnesota TH 610 Borrow Area The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in constructing rive crossing of the Mississippi g g PP River in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, required several million yards of borrow material. Working with project design engineers, Frank Svoboda assisted in creatin g a design or the borrow area � which would - provide - - for -- wetland wildlife habitat enhancement after removal _ - of - the - borrow was completed. The project provided both deepwater and shallow areas for aquatic wildlife use up on completion. Minnesota I -35 /TH 73 Interchange In 1974, the Minnesota Department of Transportation proposed the construction of a freeway interchange. The project involved construction of freeway ramps in an area of organic soil and the use of borrow material for the ramps. In what was then an innovative approach Frank Svoboda, worming with a soils engineer from MnDOT, pioneered the concept of using organic wetland soils to line borrow area to provide a "starter" organic substrate to accelerate wetland rehabilitation. Today, this concept is in nationwide use by wetland I restorationists and is a proven method in quickly creating wetlands on sterile substrates. Regulatory Experience Lumber Mill, Macmillan- Bloedel PSL 300 Plant, Deerwood, Minnesota, U. S. EPA, 1990. Prepared a wetland restoration plan to mitigate for the P lacement of fill in a wetland. Also prepared a mitigation plan for permitted filling related to the construction of the lumber mill and related facilities. Residential Development, Pioneer Point, Forest Lake, Minnesota. Prepared Section 404 permit application and designed a wetland mitigation lan converting a mixed T 2/3 marsh complex F g Type P along with upland nesting and feeding cover. Area has been used by regulatory agency personnel as an example of successful mitigation. 3 154 Municipal Roadway Improvements, City of Coon Rapids, Coon Rapids, Minnesota. Prepared a Section 404 permit application for a new roadway. As part of the process, a mitigation bank for future City projects was established. This project improved wetland habitat on five acres of a 27 -acre mitigation bang area to be set aside by the City. Midwest Station 2 Fill Violation, Private Client. The owner ..of an internationally known horse training and boarding stable had deposited a substantial quantity of sawdust and animal waste into a wetland. The wetland edge had been completely obscured by the waste which had accumulated in depths of over five feet in places. Using erial slides and an image capture software program g g P P �am ' y called WetMAPP, we were able to re- establish the wetland edge graphicall y and then locate the edge of wetland in the field for restoration purposes. The technique was accepted by - the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the wetland was satisfactorily restored. Surface Water Resources Storm Water Management Plan, Tamarack Swamp, City of Woodbury, Woodbury, Minnesota, 1988 -1989. Completed a literature survey and site review of a remnant tamarack swamp to determine possible adverse impacts related to road encroachment and periodic inundation by storm water. Surface Water Management Plan, City of Maple Grove. Managed the inventory, investigation and evaluation of the wetlands element of the Surface Water Management Plan update for the City of Maple Grove. The investigation consisted of the identification, classification and evaluation of over 30 wetlands and waterbodies. The classification process was developed jointly by the consultant team and a task force of local representatives. Surface Water Management Plan, City of Chanhassen. The City of Chanhassen is completing a municipal wide inventory of all waterbodies and wetlands as part of its Surface Water Management Plan. Trained City Staff in the identification and classification of wetlands and in field techniques for wetland classification. Project includes mapping of all wetlands in the City, identification of a protective buffer around wetlands and the drafting of an ordinance to protect wetlands from encroachment and destructive influences. Wetlands Classifications /Delineations, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado and Utah. Completed numerous wetlands classifications, boundary delineations and inventories for highway projects, pipeline corridors, state park plans, and residential and commercial developments. Many of the projects resulted in the preparation of state and /or federal permit applications. For federal highway projects, wetland findings were prepared. Analysis of results were aided by the use of aerial and ground view color photography using both s till and video cameras. Vegetation /Wildlife n 155 Transportation Corridor - TH -169 Cross Range Expressway, Grand Rapids to Pengill Y , Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1984 -1988. Managed the preparation of a comprehensive vegetation, wetlands and wildlife study for an 18 -mile highway corridor. SPECLIST, A Wildlife Species /Habitat Utilization Matrix. Prepared a wildlife species /habitat type matrix for wildlife species resident to the state of Minnesota; useful for planning purposes and for predicting the potential changes in wildlife species composition as a result of changes in habitat type or land use. Wildlife Habitat Management Guidelines, Reclamation Guidelines for Management of Wildlife on Minelands, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Participated in the preparation of a- guidelines manual to be used by mineland operators for reclaiming minelands for fish and wildlife. The manual provided new and innovative ideas for . management and reclamation. Recreation Planning Wildlife Habitat Management on Private Lands; A Questionnaire Survey of Minnesota Landowners and Landowner Groups. Organized and managed committee that developed content of questionnaire and raised funding to cover costs of questionnaire distribution, data coding and analysis. The survey was mailed to 1950 landowners and provided new insights into attitudes of landowners toward wildlife habitat on private lands. Caribbean North Management Plan. Management plan prepared for an 840 -acre tract of land located in Pine County, Minnesota. Primary purpose of the plan was to develop a timber management program for enhancing ruffed grouse habitat. Trail access for timber harvesting and recreational use was part of the plan. Hilger Property Management Plan. A private landowner desired to integrate agricultural land uses with recreational considerations. The plan provided recommendations for combining a residential site with a small livestock operation, recreation, natural history area, and a Christmas tree farm. The plan included soils, vegetation, and wildlife inventories. State Park Management Plans . As an employee of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, co- authored management plans for five state parks located in northwestern Minnesota and the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Plans were prepared m compliance with the requirements of the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1975 and required soils, vegetation, wildlife fisheries and park facilities inventories. Plans differentiated between "natural" and "recreational" state parks providing for different recreational opportunity experiences. Plans also provided recommendations for additional land acquisition and for 10- year capital expenditure requirements. EAW /EIS S 156 • - Minnesota Taconite Open Pit. Mine, Gilbert, Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, 1990. P the Managed preparation of the EIS fo • r a new 1,200-acre open pit mining and waste rock g d EIS completed b the DNR in more than disposal project. This was the first consultant - prepare p Y P P � ten years . • ' ' erne in County Department of Environment and Energy, Henn e In County Landfill Siting EIS, H p ty P P ration of natural resources and engineering in Minnesota. Hennepin County, Mita. Managed the preps P ' ' Management tasks included vegetation, ta sks for the Hennepin County Landfill slung EIS. g . � noise, visual impacts and project wetlands agricultural lands, traffic, air quality, no P wildlife, � � schedulin and budgeting. g • Minnesota. • r Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Prior Lake, Prior Lake Sanitary Trunk Sewer, on of a EIS ex • ' the potential impacts of the constructi Managed the preparation--of an g the • shore rani trunk sewer lute around the north of Prior Lake. The project Included tc�y s ite for sensitive plant and animal species. evaluation of en P eval engineering design and evaluation of the s g Expert Witness Testimony • esota Po ham -Haile Schnobrich Kaufman, Ltd., Watson Shoppi Center wetland, Duluth, Minn , p . P in potential impacts of shopping center Provided testimony in state district court regarding po P 1990.. Y construction on a wetland. . .. Evaluated a proposed k' Pond Subdivision, Bloomington, Minnesota. P Po d residential lot split acts of lot subdivision on vegetation and the Clark's e local neighborhood. impacts g for the .potential p ' Completed a detailed examination of the plant Res identi al Subdivision, Minnetonka, Nun�aesota. Comp t the tental changes resulting from use of the area comm uni and made a determination about po for residential housing. Previous Employers 1991 to Present. Presid ent , Franklin J. Svoboda and Associates 1990 to 1991. Braun Intertec Enviro nmental Inc., Senior Scient Supervisor. Engineering Company, Certified Wildlife Biologist. 1989 to 1990. Barr Eng g ' 1 Jarvis &Gardner, Inc . , Associate. 197 8 to 19.89. Bennett, Itingrose, wolsfe d, • f Natural Resources, Park Planner. 1975 to 1978. Minnesota Department o • Department of Transportation, 1974 to 1975. Minnesota Dep wildlife Biologist. • Cloquet 19bb to 1973. University of Minnesota, Research Center, Junior Scientist. on 157 Scientific Articles "The Wetlands Forum - Bringing Regulators, Developers Together," Minnesota Real Estate Journal, 1990. "Minnesota Landowner Attitudes Toward Wildlife Habitat Management," Transactions 49th North American Wildlife and Nat. Res. Conference, 1984. "Wildlife Habitat Management on Private Lands: A Questionnaire Survey of Minnesota Private Landowners, " subitted to University of Minnesota, M.S. Thesis 1987 "A Look at Incentives for Wildlife Management on Private Lands, " submitted to Wildlife Management on Private Lands Symposium, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1981. "A Wildlife Planning Process for Private Landowners," submitted to Wildlife Society Bulletin, 8(2): 98- 104,1980. "Professionalism and Wildlife Management on Private Lands, " submitted to Wildlife Societ Bulletin, 8(2): 96 -97, 1980. "A User's Guide to Ecological Community Classification System and the Wildlife Habitat Preference List/Diversity Index," submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1977. "Big Game - Highway Safety Conflicts and Suggested Solutions," presented to AASHT4 Guide for. Wildlife Protection and Preservation, 1975. "Evaluation of Deer Crossing Areas on Trunk Highways," submitted to Maintenance Newsletter, Minnesota Department of Highways, 15(75 -2) : 1, 1975. "Monitoring Techniques for Ruffed Grouse Food Resources," submitted to Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2(4) : 195 -197 1972. Co- author: Gallon, G. W. "The Basic Habitat Resource for Ruffed Grouse.." proceedings of the Aspen Symposium, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, U. S . D . A. Forest Service Technical Report NC -1: 113 -119, 1972. Co- author: Gullion, G. W. "Preferential Use of Aspen by Ruffed Grouse in Northern Minnesota, " submitted to Journal of Wildlife Management, 36(4) : 1166 -1180, 1972. Co- author: Gullion, G.W. "Survey of Ruffed Grouse Winter Food Production, " submitted to Minnesota Division Game and Fish, Game Res. Proj . , Quart. Proj . Rep., 31(4) : 231 -236, 1972. EIS Technical Reports /Planning Reports 7 158 I -94 Location /Design Study. Activity II. Vegetation and Wildlife Anal ysis C Prepare d for I -94 Management Committee. Y SOP.. 4680 -42; Proposed construction of detached frontage road northeast of Welcome in Martin County, Township 103 North, Range 31 West, Sections 30 and 31 and mitigation of related environmental damages. S.P. 2781 -09 (I -94); Upgrading of existing I -94 Brooklyn Center; 4(f) Statement Data. TH -10 Motley Bypass, S.P. 7702 -30; TH -169 southwest of Shakopee to TH -7 in northern Chanhassen: Scott and Carver Counties. Environmental Impact Statement Data. Co- author: Halverson, A. Wildlife habitat inventory and impact assessment of Cedar Avenue - TH -36 Alternate C (S.P. 1925 and 2758). S.P. 0980 (Interstate 35) from Jct. TH -23 to Jct. TH -33 in Pine and Carlton Counties; Moose Lake Interchange. Effects of borrow, pit construction and suggested methods for rehabilitation. Wetlands Assessment. TH- 610 /TH -252 Route Location Study. Prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the North Crosstown/TH -252 Management Committee. Enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in the reclamation of hard rock mined areas in the upper mdwest. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wild life Service by BRW and Barr Engineering. Biological Services Program Dept. No. FWS /OBS- 80/64. Upper Mississippi Wild and Scenic River Management Plan - Leech Lake Reservation. Prepared for the Leech bake Reservation by BRW. Wetlands Assessment. Crosstown 62 Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. Cross Range Expressway, TH -169 Grand Rapids to Pengilly. Following technical reports prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation: Vegetation/Wildlife/Fisheries Technical Report - co- authored; Wetlands Technical Report - co- authored, Wetlands Finding - sole author; Agricultural Lands Technical Report - sole author. Comments on the DOE Nuclear Waste Repository Siting Process private client; co- author of technical review report. Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport Parking Expansion Program. Soils /Vegetation/Wildlife EIS Technical Studies. M 159 Cass County Road 71. Wetlands and Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Identification and Evaluation. FHWA Environmental Assessment Technical Report. Semi- Technical Articles "Ruffed Grouse, Your Recreational Land and You," submitted to Newsletter, Minnesota Chapter Ruffed Grouse Society, 2(2) : 6 -8, 1979. "New Tools to Manage our Parks," submitted to The Minnesota Volunteer, 42(244) : 58 -62, 1979. "Landowner or Land Manager? You Need a Plan!" submitted to The Drummer, 5(4): 9, 1979. "Personal Wildlfe Areas - Planning for the Future," submitted to Minnesota Out -of- Doors, 28(4) : 20 -21, 29, 1981. "Private Land Wildlife Management," submitted Minnesota Out -of- Doors, 28(4): 20 -21, 29, 1981. Series of articles in the Minnesota Association of Townships Newspaper on the Minnesota Environmental Review Process, 1985 -6. State Park Management Plans Fort Snelling State Park Management Plan,. submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, St. Paul, 1978, Co- author: Dustrude, J. R. Maplewood State Park Management Plan, submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parrs and Recreation, St. Paul, 1979, Co- author: Dustrude, J. R: Afton State Park Management Plan, submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, St. Paul, 1979, Co- author: Dustrude, J. R. Hayes Lake State Park Management Plan, submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, St. Paul, 1979, Co- author: Dustrude, J. R. Lake Bronson State Park Management Plan, submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, St. Paul, 1979, Co- author: Dustrude, J. R. Habitat Management Consultant Reports Management plan for Vanose Farms, prepared for private client, 16 pp., 1978. Management plan for Highview Acres, prepared for private client, 27 pp., 1978. z 160 ti= Management plan for C ' , g p Caribbean North, prepared for private client, 73 pp., 1979. . Management plan for Hilger Environmental Resources, BRW, Inc., 74 pp. + app., 1979. Planning procedures and management potentials for ruffed grouse, prepared for The White Pine Copper Division of the Copper Range Company, BRW, 26 1981 Inc.. PP . State Environmental Impact Statements Laurentian Mine, Inland Steel Mining Company Laukka -Beck Minnesota Jockey Club Site Development Plan Prior Lake Sanitary Trunk Sewer Elm Creek PUD _ Hedberg Development Riverdale Commercial Development Hennepin County Landfill Siting (Managed Preparation) Burnsville Landfill Expansion (Scoping EAW Only) Koch Refinery Plant Modifications (Scoping EAW Only) State Environmental Assessment Worksheets Sanitary Trunk Sewer 9E Westwood North Lake Gervais Interceptor Anderson bakes Parkway Valley View Road MEPC Parkdale Plaza Vantage Corporation - Wholesale Club Lake M innetonka Regional Park Environmental, Social and Economic Study Crooked Lake Area Nova Natural Resources Kaolin Mine Halsted Bay Channel Maintenance Excavation, Lake Minnetonka Flagship Inn Breakwater EAW, Lake Mille Lacs Flying Cloud Airport Runway Extension - Natural Resources Impacts State /Federal 'Wetland Evaluations, Permits and Mitigation Plans Purgatory Creek Bridge Crossing, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Pleasure Creek, Shoreview, Minnesota Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota Golden Triangle Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Jordan River Parkway, Salt Lake City, Utah CSAH 18 Realignment, Coon Rapids, Minnesota 14 161 Crooked. Lake Boulevard, Coon Rapids, Minnesota McCullough Park, Shoreview, Minnesota Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Elm Creek Development - Wetland 248W, Champlin, Minnesota Prudential Insurance Company, Plymouth, Minnesota Pioneer Point, Forest Lake, Minnesota Paper Mill Landfill, Cloquet, Minnesota Briarcliff Residential /Commercial Redevelopment, Mahtomedi, Minnesota Wedgewood Commerce Center, Maple Grove, Minnesota Savage Fen - City of Savage Tamarack Swamp - City of Woodbury Mac- Millan Bloedel Restoration and Mitigation Plant, Deerwood, Minnesota Cooley Wetland, Coon Rapids, Minnesota General Mills Wetland, Golden Valley, Minnesota Lower Valley Nine Mile Creek Harstad Commercial /Residential Development, Plymouth, Minnesota Price. Property Evaluation, St. Cloud, Minnesota Steel Plant Site Cleanup, Duluth, Minnesota County Road J, Ramsey County, Minnesota County Road 46, Cass County, Minnesota Braemar Golf Course Expansion, Edina, Minnesota Mi . eAspen 'Wetland, Maple Grove, Minnesota Faber Warehouse Site, St. Cloud, Minnesota Maplewood Crossing, White Bear Lake, Minnesota Moundsview Wetlands, City of Moundsview, Minnesota Butterfield Landfill, Phoenix, Arizona Lundgren Brothers Ortenblad/Ersbo Addition, Chanhassen, Minnesota Warren and Roumaine Herman Property, White Bear Township, Minnesota Surface Water Evaluation, Hintz Road Property, Wheeling, Illinois Aim County CR 17 Wetland Identification, Aitkin County, Minnesota Highway 55 Rental Wetland Evaluation, Hamel, Minnesota Chemolite Road Wetland Delineation, Cottage Grove, Minnesota DNR Wetland 27-461W Wildlife Functions Evaluation, Plymouth, Minnesota Harbor Woods Wetland Survey, Plymouth, Minnesota Kings Point Road Wetland Survey, Minnetrista, Minnesota K -Mart Plaza Wetland Delineation and Permit, Forest Lake, Minnesota Rolling Hills of Lake Elmo Wetland Survey, Lake Elmo, Minnesota Residential Development Wetland Survey, Fergus Falls Township, Minnesota Landfill Site Wetland Delineation, Minnesota Commercial Site Wetland Survey, Blaine, Minnesota Stillwater High School Site Wetland Survey, Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Creek Crossing Townhomes Wetland Survey, Coon Rapids, Minnesota 11 162 Ed Vaughn Wetland Delineation, Lino Lakes, Minnesota Tandem Properties Wetland Survey, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Scherber Property Wetland Survey, Plymouth, Minnesota Venturian Corporation Wetland Survey, Minnetonka, Minnesota Vicksburg Lane Wetland Survey, Plymouth, Minnesota Coldwell- Banker Wetland Survey, New Brighton, Minnesota Teal Lake Estates Wetland Survey, Maple Grove, Minnesota C.0 of Savage Wetland Delineation and Classification, Savage, Minnesota Highpointe Hill Wetland Classification and Delineation Hollydale (Soo Line) Wetland Survey and Classification Hazeltine Bluff Wetland Survey and Classification Houston. County CR 7 Wetland Survey City of Superior Airport Runway Extension Mitigation Plan; Superior, Wisconsin Sauk Rapids MSL 102 DNR permit appeal City of Savage DNR, COE Permit Applications Holly Creek Wetland Survey and Classification Rogers. Estates EAW and Wetland Services Karpinske Site Inspection Bloomington Ice Garden Environmental Scan and Wetlands Review Sci -Med Site Wetland Evaluation Mega -Farms Wetland Delineation Luthens Wetland Mitigation Plan Bermo Industries Wetland Delineation Olson Property Wetland Delineation Graham Land Co. Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Plan Eden Lake Townhomes Wetland Delineation Town and Country Wetland Survey, Davenport, Iowa TH 77 Wetland Classification and Delineation; Minong, Wisconsin Mihelich Wetland Evaluation; St. Cloud, Minnesota Heather Ridge Wetland Delineation; Oakdale, Minnesota Bridgewater Wetland Delineation; Coon Rapids, Minnesota Forest Lake Housing Project Wetlands Delineation; Forest Fake, Minnesota Plymouth Shopping Center Ditch Evaluation; Plymouth, Minnesota Heather Ridge 3rd Addition Evaluation; Oakdale, Minnesota Bush Lake Beach Improvement; Bloomington, Minnesota Chanhassen Lake Improvement Feasibility Study; Chanhassen, Minnesota Andover /Coon Creek Wetland Evaluation; Andover, Minnesota Coldwell- Banker Wetland Evaluation; New Brighton, Minnesota Big Dipper Landfill Wetland Evaluation; North Dakota Parkland Wetland Survey; Superior, Wisconsin Evergreen Industrial Park Special Area Management Plan; Coon Rapids, Minnesota �' P Eagan Municipal Wetland Survey; Eagan, Minnesota Fernbrook Woods Wetland Delineation; Plymouth, Minnesota 12 163 SCS Agricultural Wetland Reclassifications Schwanke Farm SCS Appeal Seppelt SCS Wetland Determination Betow Farm SCS Appeal Reeck Farm SCS Appeal Schaefer Farm SCS Appeal Nygard Farm SCS Appeal Luthens Farm SCS Appeal Municipal Stormwater and Wetlands Plans Maple Grove Comprehensive Stormwater Management and Wetlands Plan Maple Grove, Minnesota Chanhassen Comprehensive Stormwater Management and Wetlands Plan Chanhassen, Minnesota May Township Comprehensive Plan; Wetlands Element May Township, Washington County, Minnesota May Township Wetlands Inventory and Wetlands Plan May Township, Washington County, Minnesota State Technical Reports Hennepin County Landfill Siting EIS Vegetation/Wildlife Technical Report (co-authored) Agricultural Lands Technical Report Cultural Resources Technical Report (reviewed) Other Reports Desert Ridge Residential Development, Phoeix, bona; Vegetation/Wildlife Site Review Report. Butterfield Landfill, Phoenix, Arizona; Vegetation Site Review Report and Mitigation Recommendations. SciMed Medical Research Campus, Maple Grove, Minnesota; Site Review Report for Vegetation and Wildlife and Management Recommendations. Selected Presentations /Meetings 13 164 Midwest Wildlife Conference. Attitudes toward wildlife habitat management on private lands. Private Lands Worm and Upland Wildlife, Session IB. 198210 North American Natural Resources Conference. Minnesota landowner attitudes toward wildlife habitat management. 1984. Managing Natural Resources in the Metro Region - Much to Gain; Much to Lose. Wetlands panel presentation. 1987. Protection - Enhancement- Management -Uses of Metropolitan Area Wetlands. Presented to a select group of agency administrators, municipal officials and developers. 1988. Series of three presentations to -4 -H Gun Safety Training classes about ruffed grouse habitat and ecology. 1989. Engineering and permit concerns for land development and road projects. Seminar presentation: Wetlands - " What you can and cannot do." 1990. Sensible Land Use Coalition. Site Development and Finance. The 90s: What's in Store. Seminars Faculty Members. Topic: Wetland .Issues of the 90s. 1990. Critical :Land Use and Real Estate Development Issues. CLE International Seminar Faculty Member. Topic: Introduction to Wetlands and Wetland Issues. Establishing a Wetlands Trust in the Twin Cities and the Relationship to the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. Testimony presented to the Minnesota House ' of Representatives Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Willard Munger, Chair. October 29, 1991. Wetlands Forum Panel Member. Minnesota House of Representatives Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Willard Munger, Chair. January 29, 1992. Other Editor of Marsh Memos, 1989. A wetlands- oriented newsletter published three times a year. Organizer of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Wetlands Forum Organizer of the Twin Cities Wetlands Trust Committee Updated: December 24, 1992 14 165 Robert J. F. Merila Aquatic Ecologist Responsibilities Mr. Mera's duties include site visits for wetlands delineation, inventory site assessments for wetlands and ecological studies, restoration input, and wetlands classification and delineation. He also works with fisheries, invertebrates and aquatic plant communities as they relate to various projects. Education Bachelor of Science, Aquatic Biology (Major), Journalism (Minor), University of Wisconsin - Superior, 1986. Associate in Arts, Vermilion Community College, Ely, Minnesota, 1983. Professional Affiliation American Fisheries Society North American Lake Management Society Minnesota Lake Management Federation Experience During his varied job experience, Mr. Merila has worked extensively with resource managers, researchers, and regulatory agencies across North America. This has allowed him to understand the permit application process as well as development of mitigation procedures and habitat improvement plans . As an Environmental Inspector,. Mr. Merila was responsible for on -site environmental inspection during construction of a 35 -inch natural gas pipeline in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. While serving in this capacity he: Inspected, supervised, and offered technical guidance regarding inflation of erosion control measures such as silt fence and berms using the FERC Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. . Provided technical guidance to implement federal, state and local permits, primarily dealing with streams and wetlands. This included restoration of these areas. Identified, delineated, described, and classified wetlands according to federal guidelines. . Flagged -off and monitored cultural resource sensitive areas 1 166 µ Documented every recommendation and construction activi in a to book, hoto a hed tY g P �' P construction activities, and wrote weekly reports. As. an Environmental Specialist in a housing development, he racticed selective hand clearn P g with chain saw and axe to minimize disturbance to protected wetland areas. He applied cellulose fabric to each bank of a 900 -foot long drainage swale and insured ro er water flow b cleanin P P Y g bottleneck areas. Silt fence was installed where needed to provide erosion control. As the Eurasian Watermilfoil {EWM) harvesting Project Su ervisor on Lake Minnetonka, Mr. P Merila developed and supervised daily operations of the program in 1990. That season, more than 1300 acres of EWM was harvested with an annual operating budget of nearl $ 200, 000. Y As Project Supervisor, he: • designed one of the continent's largest EWM harvesting operations after contacting the most smoothly -run programs and visiting the best (Chautauqua Lake Association in western New York). . assisted hiring operators, developed operating manual, and trained operators . • supervised daily operation of four lake weed .harvester operators, two shore conveyor operators, and two truckers . . repaired, operated, and worked bugs out of specially- designed machines which have the widest cutting swath of any weed harvesters in existence. Established a spare parts inventory. secured DNR permits, helped plan harvesting areas, surveyed lake plants, and placed buoys for harvesting. participated in multi- agency EWM Task Force meetings and worked with MNDNR, Hennepin County, Hennepin Parks, concerned citizens, and cities on the lake. . fielded questions and concerns about EWM, and explained current information to those who asked. While at The Hunting & Fishing Library, Mr. Merila was the primary researcher and assisted with photos for books: ishin ate No_,1 secrets of the Fishini Pros and Trou . Most notable of these was the book, which won the prestigious "Best Book of the Year" award for 1988 from the outdoor Writers Association of America. Information for these books was gathered through his network of Fish and Game contacts in each state and province of North America. During this research he became familiar with lake and stream management techniques for every major freshwater gamef sh habitat type from key researchers, biologists, and resource managers. Information was summarized and stored using computer. 2 167 In the Tro book, Mr. Merila researched life cycles, habitat needs and management strategies for each trout and salmon sp ecies existing in North America. He also compiled, mapped, and classified the continent's best streams (including species present) . while doing this extensive research he P ioneered and applied a trout, and salmon stream classification system to these streams. Working as a survey crew member for Merila & Associates, he assisted in field surveying of housing developments, lot surveys, and land topography. Among the equipment used was: theodolite, transit, automatic level, and electronic distance meter. Communication and P ublic relations skills were honed while Mr. Merila worked ,as a sales consultant at Burger Brothers Sporting Goods. He listened to customer needs, then g • recommended equipment alternatives for fishing, hunting, camping, and apparel. - - Relevant project experience includes: 1Vlunicipal Wetland Inventories City of Chanhasse n , P P Minnesota. Developed and implemented city-wide wetland inventory plan. A Meld form was developed to record pertinent information about each wetland area including a unique wetland identification number, vegetation species present (with relative abundance), watershed characteristics, land use characteristics, hydrology, soil classification, and other Info P P a information. Also helped develop unique system that categorizes wetlands according to quality. q Y wetlands were visited classified (according Q ver 20o w to Circular 39, Cowardin, and the Chanhassen uali classification system), documented, mapped, and photographed. q � Photographic slides of each wetland were labeled and filed. May Township, � County Washington Coun Minnesota. Implemented Phase 1 of the township -wide wetland invento . Refined field form to better fit rural character of township. Inventoried over 250 wetlands using same methods as were developed for Chanhassen. Wetland Site Assessments and Delineations Wetland delineations were rformed according to the current .federal and state criteria which Pe includes identification of veg etation species on the wetland and upland side of each wetland edge point. Coon Rapids, Minnesota. Mary Anderson Homes Andover, Minnesota. Ron Bastyr Plymouth, Minnesota. Peony Lane (two sites) Plymouth, Minnesota. (Soo Line) Medina, Minnesota. Plymouth, Minnesota. Holly Creek Plymouth, Minnesota. Fernbrook Woods 3 Rogers, Minnesota. Savage, Minnesota. Boone Ave. realignment New Brighton, Minnesota. Coldwell- Banker Site Wetland site assessments were performed to provide preliminary information to land use planners. Sites were visited to locate, classify and map likely wetland basins. Plymouth, Minnesota. The Pond's Andover, Minnesota. Hanson Boulevard/CR 20 Permit and EAw Preparation Permits for work in protected waters or wetlands were prepared for Corps of Engineers, DNR, and LGU such as the following: Coon Rapids, Minnesota. Mary Anderson Homes Utility crossing and Highway 13 widening at Eagle Creek, Savage, M.N. Worked on projects related to EAWs Vegetation/Wildlife Assessment for Flying Cloud Airport Runway 9R/27L Extension Flagship Breakwater Previous Employers 1992 to Present. Aquatic Ecologist, Franklin J. Svoboda and Associates. 1991 to 1992. Braun Intertec Environmental, Inc., Environmental Inspector. 1990 to 1991. Merila & Associates, Environmental Specialist. r . 1989 to 1990. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Eurasian Watermilfoil Project Supervisor. 1987 to 1989. The Hunting & Fishing Library, Researcher. 1985 to 1988. Burger Brothers Sporting Goods, Sales Consultant. 1980 to 1985. Merila & Associates, Survey Crew Member. Updated: December 12, 1992 4 0 169 t, t� f . 1 ,�. 30 fA • 1 i � .I Phil. and Shirley Klitzke 1812 Sterling Street N. Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 December 26, 1991 Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner �' Y it of Maplewood 18 30 E. County Road B 1Yiapl -wood, Minnesota 5510 ..De(ar Mr. Roberts; S ! + f ., r ; - t� -} j a p r esc our strop` apposition to the �-�r-opose 1r'i i trlr rttl� t� � . 1 we believ the 10 !� Estates Second Addition In short, 1 I�� ��'� e��aad of wildlif e trees, - don danger to wetl ands and destrq� tion ,. of rr�at ur e g vrl and the • � - � increased traffic, poor roa habitat., along �,rlth d conditi urr } I residential lots in the area male th e �. t numb. r o f un r poor plan • choice for the future of Maplewood, t� W e s pr oposed �° �:. stand again thy. pr p lat because of the following p p concerns: . fists of a mature wooded area with a I��ature Trees, the area cons the trees • din some hardwood trees. All of �ar�et � of spec�e�� , in�.lu g . r t hreatened urban forest. The current Cit ar pert of the e ve r thre Don't to protect trees from development . Council has atterr�pted p allow this woods to be lost. . wetlands. Fifty -throe fertilized lawns Wetlands; the area includes . will drain- directly Into the interconnected wetlands in the neighborhood . . and en fox, deer, geese, ducks, Wildlife; we have observed . . ' variety of birds living in the area to be phesant and a great var y graded and developed. 3 � Traf the incr t wou ld not only greatly affect the lives - . � � � v` � on Myrtle and Lakewood) but so too of friends and nee }hbar� l� �r g y those of us who IZVe on Sterling i Sterling s the only north /south street connection between McKnight and century and many at the n ew residents would u , se it in addition to those planned for 170 Attachment 27 addresses on Sterling. Sterling. is already a residential street carrying an inordinate number of cars , often traveling too fast, to and from the nearby Hill - Murray High School. At current traffic levels it is very difficult and often dangerous to attempt to turn left from Holloway onto McKnight and from Holloway onto century, The planned development would seriously increase the traffic at those intersections. Poor Road conditions; The wetlands and subsoils under Sterling have made it too expensive for the city to upgrade. Will the developer be required to bring the street up to the city's requirements (those made to other developments in the city) and ..1a,at will an improved road do to the already excesive speeds at which many drive through "short -cut" Sterling? Will the street be maintained / . At the developer's expense? Unsold Lots; at the time that the preliminary plat for this development comes before the city there are many, many unsold residential lots with signs urging peopiir to build their new home on then. M< of the unsold lets are wooded and near wetlands and in the same general neighborhood, Why cut the trees, grade the land, destroy habitats and eliminate wildlife inorder to hang more For kale and "build your next home here" signs? It is our hope that you and your staff take our concerns into consideration while looking at this plat, You were hired by the city, by the taxpayer, to consider what is best for the long term for thy- city. Please do what is best, not what is easiest. Sincerely, Phil and S irl¢y Klitzke 171 Mr. Kenneth Roberts Office of Community Development City of Maplewood Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Charles Quistad 1823 Mary Joe Lane Na St. Paul, MN 55109 Mr, Roberts, December 23, 1991 I am saddened and grieve to see our community is about to lose another area of natural open space. At the same time, I have a sense of relief to see the area of Maplewood "s Estates Second Addition is proposed to be developed as single family homes. I would briefly ike to outline m y y objections to the proposed development by North Suburban Development, Inc. My main objection is what a development like this will do to the wetlands. The proposed homes surrounding the ponding area ( Outlot A) will add more pollutants; fertilizers, etc; to the pond. I recognize that we, m the Gudinu Kressin Park neighborhood, may already be affecting the ponds. With the pond on Outlot A connected to the larger wetland east of Sterling, it. would only be a matter of time before it would accelerate the desolation of the natural ecosystem. Somehow the pond should be protected or buffered from the development, My second objection is the disturbance and loss of habitat. There are many forms of wildlife in this area of the community that are seen and enjoyed. The include deer, red fox pheasants y � fox, owls, and snapping turtles; to name a few. Best Possible Use In my opinion the best possible use for this tract of land is to leave it virtually undeveloped, This area, if developed, would make an outstanding community park. It has the terrain and features for nature trails and walking paths. The sloping terrain would encourage fitness, while the wooded areas around the ponds would provide enjoyment of wetlands. Alternative If Maplewood's Estates must be developed by North Suburban, a Wider buffer has to be made between the ponds and the development. I have included an attachment of the preliminary plat plan with an area marked which I feel would make an acceptable buffer. The area would keep lawns closer to the top of the current grade running down to the pond. The lots effected are: elimination of lots 2 -22, 3 -3 and 3-4. • redistribution of land affecting lots 2 -8 through 2 -20. Thank you for your careful consideration of these or any other alternatives which can be found to protect the natural wetland area. Sincerely, � Charles Quistad 172 Attachment 28 27 December 1991 Kennet Roberts Office of Community. Development Maplewood, Minnesota Dear Mr, Roberts; As resident and owner of a Maplewoods Townhouse directly south of the proposed Maplewood Estates development I would like to express my L concerns. We had hoped that the Hillside Park area might eventually been extended south to preserve the habitat of the animals, birds and plants in this area.. Many of use bought here because of the proximity of countless animals birds and plants. We do, however realize that taxable housing in this area is a viable alternative. However, we would like.to be assured that there would be no additional traffic r through our property, which we maintain. We would like to require that an easement with fencing and berm be placed at the south side of the proposed development. Our outdoor pool is located just beyond this area and even now we have a problem with trespass and vandalism, mainly from the Maplewoods Aprtments on our east. May we have your consideration? Sincerely Georgene S. Karpiej 1694 McKnight Lane Maplewood, Mn. 55109 777 -0942 173 Attachment 29 December 20, 1991 Mr. Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 R e Attached Neighborhood Survey Dear Mr. Roberts: I would like to elaborate on my objection to the proposed Maplewood's Estates Second Addition illustrated in your December 13, 1991, mailing. My first and most important objection to this proposed project is the destruction of forest and wetland habitats. The property in question is home to thousands of warblers, finches, hawks, ducks, geese, woodpeckers, egrets, and great blue herons to name a few. This property is also home to deer, red foxes, and numerous other mammals, insects, wildflowers, medicinal plants, wild herbs, grasses, trees, and fruit. There are two ponds on or near the property that not only provide a refuge and feeding ground for waterfowl but also support large populations of frogs and turtles. Ina country that is increasingly destructive to its wetlands and forests, Minnesota has been a leader in the preservation of its natural resources. It was my impression that the city of Maplewood was even more committed to the protection of the last remaining "wild" places within its boundaries in the face of the encroachment of the Twin Cities and its urban troubles. I would be very disappointed if Maplewood reneged on this commitment by allowing the destruction of this beautiful property for the short- sighted, short -term purpose of creating revenue for itself and corporations. It is more important, in my view, that Maplewood continue to be a leader in the conservation of its wildlife habitats. My second objection is that the destruction of this property would lessen the quality of life of the many residents who enjoy its serenity, wildlife, and beauty. I rented apartments in the city of Saint Paul for many years, lived on concrete, was packed closely together with other people, and endured stressful noise and air pollution from cars, buses, motorcycles, and other human beings. I was burglarized, terrorized, and frightened. The presence of the natural area surrounding the Maple Woods Townhome Association is the reason I bought a townhome in Maplewood. The homeowners in the association, the residents of the apartment building nearby, and the residents of North St. Paul enjoy these woods and ponds and I believe that the property in its present natural state contributes a great deal to the peace, serenity, and friendliness of these neighborhoods. Residents stroll through the many paths in the woods, watch the birds and other wildlife, and wait in excited expectation of seeing a deer or red fox. To destroy this natural asset by cramming in more houses, more people; more streets, and more noise would 174 Attachment 30 Mr. Kenneth Roberts December 20, 1991 Page 2 be a great disservice by the city of Maplewood to the many citizens of Maplewood who benefit emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically from this property. It is my opinion, and I believe it is the only responsible choice for the city of Maplewood, that this property should be kept m its natural state. I urge Maplewood to honor its commitment to preserve the last few wildlife habitats it has left. Anything else would be a natural, financial, and ecological disaster in the long run. Please think of the future, not the short-term profit. Thank you. Sincerely, Lucy A. P chke cc: Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Chapter National Audubon Society, St. Paul Chapter 175 YES we the undersigned are in favor of the resolution to close (vacate) Sterling Street from the North St. Paul border to a point L38 fee by the City Engineer. We are in fa of a cul on Sterling making it a dead -end street from the north and the creation of a 10- foot -wide trail extending to Larpenteur, We agree with City Staff that this change to Sterling would be in the public interest and that adjoining properties have adequate access. U M MMIf tr �i11v �i / Ad dor s y Q�4 q� 115 81� '0, .— ft 11'U' 5 /�Lin/�-s/ i✓Ir�C /o� ................. Ass st�i� �� q�as z N LAND USE PLAN CHMGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, North Suburban Development, Inc. (Roger Kolstad) applied for a change to the City's land- use plan from R -3M (residential medium density) to R -1 (single dwellings) and OS (open space). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at Ripley Avenue at Lakewood Drive and Myrtle Street. The legal description is Lot 1, Block 1 of Maple P p Woods Estates (PIN 13- 29- 22 -34- 0001) . WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 2, 1992. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood .Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required b law. The q Y Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved. 2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on March 4, 1993. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The developer is proposing to develop the site for single ' dwellings. 3. Single dwellings would be more compatible with the homes to the north than multiple dwellings. 4. The City has already planned the homes to the north of this site for RL . use. 5. It would reduce the allowable density and traffic from this site. Adopted on March , 19930 ji res \Kolstad.LUPres Attachment 32 177 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, North Suburban Development Inc. started a change to the City's land use plan. This change is to drop the minor collector designation for Sterling Street between Holloway and Hoyt Avenues. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on March 4, 1993. They considered reports and recommendations from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described change for the following reasons: 1. The developer is proposing to end Sterling Street in a cul -de -sac between Holloway and Larpenteur Avenues. Sterling Street would not then be a through street. 2. The existing and expected traffic volumes on Sterling Street are not to the level of a minor collector street. 3. The existing Sterling Street between the south border of North St. Paul and Larpenteur Avenue has a gravel surface. This is not consistent with a minor collector street and Maplewood does not expect to improve this street to minor collector street standards. Adopted on March , 1993. kd/res /mwestate; Attachment 3 3 178 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, North Suburban Development, Inc. (Roger Kolstad) applied for a change in the zoning map from F (farm residence) to R -1 (single- dwelling residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at Ripley Avenue at Lakewood Drive and Myrtle Street. The legal description is: Lot 1, Block 1 of Maple Woods Estates (Pin 13- 29 -22 -34 -0001) . WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On March 2, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the change. 2. The City Council held a public hearing on March 4, 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 g 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. 40 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. The R -1 zoning is consistent with the proposed change to the Cites land use plan. Adopted on March 4, 1993. ji res \Kolstad.rezoning Attachment 34 179 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, North Suburban Development, Inc. (Roger Kolstad) applied for the vacation of the following - described street: That part of the north 33 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Maple Woods Estates, Ramsey County, Minnesota and that part of Ripley Avenue lying between the east line and its Southerly extension of Lot 11, Block 2 and the east line and its Southerly extension of Lot 11, Block 3 all as platted m Hillside Homesites, Ramsey County., Minnesota and that part of the north 33 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Maple Woods Estates, Ramsey County, Minnesota and that part of Ripley Avenue lying between the Southerly extension of the east and west lines of Lot 6, Block 3 all as platted in Wiesner Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. A majority of the property owners abutting this street signed a petition for this vacation; 2. The Planning Commission discussed this vacation on March 2, 1992. They recommended that the City Council approve this. vacation. 3. The City Council held a public hearing on March 4, 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 City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: Lot 1, Block 1, Maple Woods Estates, Lots 5 and 6, Block 3, Wiesner Park Addition and Lots 10 and 11, Block 3, Hillside Homes Addition, all in Section 13, Township 29, Range 22. 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 City does not need this right -of -way. 2. The adjacent properties have adequate street access and other streets would better serve them. 180 Attachment 35 The developer shall file the vacation resolution with the final plat. This vacation is subject to the retention of an easement for trail or park purposes on Lots 10 and 11, Block 3, Hillside Homes Addition. The developer shall file the vacation resolution with the final plat. Adopted on , 19930 il/res/Kolstad.vacres 181 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEN, the City of Maplewood would like to vacate the west one -half of Sterling Street from a point 120 feet south of the North St. Paul border to a point 350 feet south of the North St. Paul border. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: The City Council held a public hearing on March 4, 19930 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: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MAPLE WOODS ESTATES (PIN 13- 29- 22 -34- 0001) 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 City does not need this right -of -way. 2. The adjacent properties have adequate street access and other streets would better serve them. The developer shall file the vacation resolution with the final plat. Adopted on March 4, 1993. mb \res \Sterling.vac Attachment 36 182 CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City Engineer requested a variation from the City Code.. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition Development that is south of Ripley Avenue between McKnight Road and Sterling Street. WHEREAS, the legal description for this property is: Lot 1, Block 1 of Maple Woods Estates Addition 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 City Engineer is proposing 28- foot -wide streets. WHEREAS, this requires a variation of five feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: The City Council held a public hearing on March 4, 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 a chance 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 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 March 4, 1993. mb \res\maplewoods.varres Attachment 3 7 183 Maplewood Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 3 -2 -92 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Maplewood Estates 2nd Addition: Land Use Plan Change, Street Vacations, Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Change, Street Project Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, read the public hearing notice and presented the staff report. The president of North Suburban Development, Inca said he is in agreement with the conditions of the staff recommendation. In response to a question from Commissioner Rossbach regarding the debris on the site, the representative said the site would be regraded and the debris removed. The developer said there would be less of an increase in traffic in the area with single dwellings than if this property were to be developed with a higher density zonong. The public hearing was opened for comments from the audience. Twenty -one members of the audience spoke in opposition to this proposal. Some of their concerns were the potential for vandalism and trespassing on adjacent town house property, potential drainage problems, ponding areas, woodlands and wetlands, additional traffic and public safety concerns. A member of the Sierra Club spoke against development of this property and requested that an environmental assessment worksheet be done on this property to establish the size of the wetlands. Commissioner Rossbach stated that as a rule of thumb the houses would be of greater value than that of the surrounding homes because the development costs would make the lots more expensive. The representative for North Suburban Development, Inc., agreed with that statement. Since there were no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Ken Haider, Director of Public Works, responded to questions from the Commissioners on possible drainage problems. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution changing the land use plan for this site. This change is from RM (residential medium density) to RL (residential low density) and OS (open space). This change is based on the following reasons: 184 Attachment 38 Maplewood.Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 3 -2 -92 (1) This change would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) This change would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. (3) The City has already planned the homes to the north of this site for RL use. Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes-- Anitzberger, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn Nays-- Axdahl The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Maple Woods Estates Second Addition preliminary plat, subject to completing the following conditions before final plat approval: (1) The City Engineer approving final grading, utility, drainage, erosion control and street plans. The ,grading plan shall show the depth - and location of the Great Lakes pipeline. The drainage and utility plans shall include a five -foot -high, vinyl -clad chain link fence at the high water mark around the pond in Outlot A. The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. (2) The apartment owner to the south of this plat must give the City a 20- foot -wide utility easement, which includes ownership of the private sanitary sewer. This easement shall be over the sanitary sewer line from the south line of the plat to the Larpenteur Avenue right - of -way. The apartment owner must also give the City a right -of -entry agreement to allow City maintenance vehicles to use his private drives. The developer shall build 10 -foot -wide gravel drives over the sanitary sewer on the apartment property. The location and design of these drives shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The purpose is to provide maintenance vehicle access to the manholes. The developer shall document to the City Engineer the condition of the private sanitary sewer line. The developer shall document this condition with surveys and television inspections before the existing line is transferred from private to City maintenance. If the City Engineer determines that the private sanitary sewer line is not acceptable for public use, the City Engineer shall approve a repair and reconstruction plan Maplewood Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 3 -2 -92 for the line. The City Engineer also may approve another design for serving the site with sanitary sewer if the developer cannot repair or reconstruct the existing line. (3) The Director of'Community Development approving a tree plan which includes the developer marking all trees which are to be kept on the property during and after development. The developer will be held to the City of Maplewood's tree ordinance for replacement of trees that are taken down as per the ordinance. The Director must approve this plan before any grading begins or the City approves the final plat, (4) The final plat ' shal l have drainage and utility easements along all property lines. These easements shall be 10 feet wide along the front and rear property lines and 5 feet wide along the side property lines, (5) The City Engineer approving a signed developer's agreement, with required surety, for all required public improvements, erosion control and tree planting. This agreement shall include, but not be limited to: (a) The placement of temporary fencing, during ------- can-s-tr--uction- - around - woodl -ots -_ and- -trees - that - the developer will save. (b) The installation of street lights in four locations, primarily at street intersections. The exact location and type of lights shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. (c) The installation of the following eight- foot -wide bituminous trails, subject to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation: 1) Over the proposed park, between Sterling Street and the intersection of Ripley Avenue and Myrtle Street. 2 ) Between Lot 7, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 4. 3) Between Lots 21 and 22, Block 1 (d) The complete reconstruction of Ripley Avenue between Lakewood Drive and Myrtle Street. The reconstruction shall include concrete curb and gutter that shall extend to the north end of the curb returns on the north side of Ripley Avenue. These curb returns are for the intersections of Ripley Avenue with Lakewood Drive and Myrtle Street. Maplewood Planning Commission -5- Minutes of .3 -2 -92 (6) The developer shall provide public sanitary sewer service and public water to Lot 13, Block 3. This may require a privately - owned grinder pump and 2 -inch- diameter force main, (7) The developer shall revise the plat to show a 20-foot- wide drainage and utility easement centered along the property line between Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, if he decides to bring sanitary sewer this way to Lot 13, Block 3. (8) The City must order plans and specifications for the improvement of Sterling Street. (9) Deed 4utlot A to the City. (10) Revise the plat to show a 2 0 . foot -wide extension of the park between Lots 21 and 22, Block 1. Rearrange the lot widths as needed to meet code requirements. (11) Change the utility easement between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, to a 30- foot -wide drainage and utility easement centered on the property line. (12) Drop the drainage easements for the ponds on Lots 6 through 9 and 16 , 17 and 18, Block 1, from the final plat. (13) Submit recordable deed restrictions to the City.with the recording fees. These deed restrictions are to prevent the construction of a dwelling or its attachments within 100 feet of the' Great Lakes pipeline. (This effects Lots 1 -6 and Lots 22 -27, Block 1, and Lots 1 -7, Block 2). The developer also shall tell the purchasers about the pipeline. (14) Approval of the Watershed Board to fill part of the two wetlands on the east end of the plat for a trail. (15) The developer shall remove from the site all existing debris on the site from previous construction, .including any existing foundations, pipes, or loose debris. (16) Grading shall be limited on the development site to only the areas that need to be graded for the location of home pads, streets, utilities or drainage requirements as put forward by the City Engineer. (17) Cooperation should be arranged between the City of North St. Paul and Independent School District 622 pertaining to any common drainage problems which need to be resolved due to this development. 187 Maplewood Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 3 -2 -92 (18) Require an environmental assessment worksheet pertaining to the development area. (19) Require soil - borings.to be done to determine the suitability for construction on the site. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger, Fischer, Frost, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn Nays-- Axdahl , Gerke The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which vacates the following parts of the Ripley Avenue right -of -way: (1) East of a point that is 150 feet east of Lakewood Drive. (2) That -part between the west line of Currie Street and the east line of Myrtle Street, subject to retaining an easement for trail or park access. This vacation is based on the following reasons: (1) It is in the public interest. (2) The City does not need this right -of -way. (3) The adjoining properties have adequate street access. The developer shall file the vacation resolution with the final plat. Commissioner Anitzberger seconded Ayes-- Anitzberger, Fischer, Frost, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn Nays-- Axdahl, Gerke The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the resolution which rezones this property from F (farm residential) to R -1 (single dwellings). This rezoning is based on the findings required by ordinance and that the R -1 zoning is consistent with the proposed change to the City's land use plan. .. Maplewood Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 3 -2 -92 Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes-- Anitzber g er, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn OW Nays-- Axdahl The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend-approval of the resolution which orders a feasibility study for the improvement of Sterlin g street between Larpenteur Avenue and the north line of the plat. The developer shall provide an $8,000 cash escrow to the City to cover the costs of the feasibility tud . If t Y y he City orders the improvement project, then the project will pay the feasibility costs and the City will return the escrow to the developer. If the City does not order the project, then the City will only return the unused part of the escrow. The feasibility study should include a study of the traffic and solutions to the speeding problems that are currently occurring on the street. Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger, Fischer, Frost, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn Nays -- Axdahl, Gerke The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend that if the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the City may waive an conditions that Y do not apply to the final plat. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes-- Anitzberger, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn Nays-- Axdahl The motion passed. Commissioner Fischer moved to amend the agenda, moving item 5 b Comprehensive Plan after New Business. Commissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes-- Anitzberger, Axdahl , Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Pearson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn