Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Mondav. March 20, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 6,2006 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Alternative Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Review b. Concept Plan Review - Carpet Court (NW Corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street) c. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Introduction - Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) 5. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations February 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski February 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich March 13 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Ms. Fischer) March 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover April 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Staff Present: Present Present Present P rese nt Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dierich requested the addition of a public service announcement as item d. under Commission Presentations. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for January 17, 2006. Chairperson Fischer reminded the recording secretary that Commissioner Dierich was absent from the January 17, 2006, meeting and therefore her name should be taken off the voting in the minutes. Chairperson Fischer had an addition to page 7, in the third paragraph, it should read: Ms. Coleman said that's another thing the city has to keep in mind if the city wants to economically be in the ballpark,-some of the other communities miaht be looking for those grants or funding which aR€l is another factor to consider. On page 10, in the second from the last paragraph, it should read: Mr. Soby said the concepts you are looking at were developed prior to their meeting with Ken Roberts. The original set of renderings determined the cul-de-sac was too small so they changed it to the hammerhead version instead. Commissioner Trippler requested a deletion on page 13, in the tenth paragraph, after the word help, add the word avoid and strike the word witR. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -2- Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for January 17, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstention - Dierich V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Menards (2280 Maplewood Drive) (7:06-7:26 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Robert Geske, of Menards, I nc. is proposing to build a 16,1 05-square-foot garden center addition on the south side of the Menards store. They are proposing an exterior of glass panels, emerald green accent panels and a wrought iron fence for the garden center. The proposed plans also show changes to the existing parking lot and changes to the exterior of the building. Specifically, Menards would eliminate 17 parking spaces and reconfigure the parking lot so that all of the spaces would be at gO-degrees to the drive aisles. In addition, they are proposing to update the front of the store. This would include changing the existing mansard and signage over the main entrance and adding four fieldstone and timber columns to support the new canopy. Mr. Geske is asking for a conditional use permit revision, a parking reduction authorization for 50 spaces, and the site and building design plans to be approved. Commissioner Trippler said he spoke with people at Menards regarding the parking reduction on site and he doesn't think it will be a big issue. However, he asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition that Menards should hire a parking lot assistant to help with the traffic flow during the holiday season or during the busier times of the year? Mr. Roberts said that condition could be added if the commission chooses. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Robert Geske, Real Estate Associate with Menard, Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, addressed the commission. He said Mr. Roberts did an excellent job with his report and presentation. This is a fairly simple project if the city allows them to go forward with it. Menards looks forward to bringing this garden center addition into the city. Commissioner Grover said since most of the activity for a garden center mostly takes place in the spring, summer and early fall, he asked what Menards would be using the garden center space for during the late fall and into the winter months? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -3- Mr. Geske said a lot of Menards stores turn the garden center into an area to sell Christmas trees and other things during the off season months. If there were to be any storage in the garden center it would have to be stacked appropriately and would be done according to the city requirements. The garden center would be used for rocks, blocks, bricks, plants, flowers, trees, and other things like that during the season. Chairperson Fischer asked if Menards would have any problem with the request made by Commissioner Trippler regarding hiring someone to assist with the traffic flow during the busier times? Mr. Geske said he would have to take that back on advisement to the real estate committee but he believes Menards does that already. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the commission. Mr. Will Rossbach, city council member and Maplewood Resident, 1386 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said at a previous planning commission meeting Commissioner Grover said it would be nice to know what the city council might be looking for regarding certain projects. Mr. Rossbach said in the past the concern regarding Menards has been the residential homes along County Road B which is the reason the tall fence is there. Those residents may show up at one of the city meetings to see what the proposal for Menards is about. There was an oversight that occurred with the last Menards building addition project. There was an approved plan for Menards and they built a building that was not the same plan that had been approved by the city council. It wasn't discovered until the building was already started and he wants to make sure that Menards has crystal clear plans for the city and that Menards follows the approved plans so this problem doesn't occur again. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 26-28 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to add a 16,1 OS-square-foot garden center to the existing store. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped January 17. 2006 May 5, 1 QQQ. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east- west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B shall remain. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -4- (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots shall be 14 feet tall. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and material. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2)1, feet of the 17)1,-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard and qarden center shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security be turned off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year if Menards has not vet started the construction of the qarden center if the pr-oposod retail space adaition has not boqun. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. 10. -t-J. The proposed building addition and site work must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve a parking-reduction authorization for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to have 51 spaces fewer than the code requires. (The city code requires 451 parking spaces and Menards is proposing 401 parking spaces.) Approval is because: 1. The required number of spaces is excessive. Menards has gotten by, essentially, with the main parking area in front of the building since 1988. Menards customers do not typically use other available parking areas on the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -5- 2. The proposed garden center addition would need 80 spaces according to the code. However, Menards is currently using this same area for retail sales and outdoor storage as approved earlier by the city. 3. Durinq busv holidav seasons. Menards shall hire and use a parkinq lot assistant to help with the traffic flow in the parkinq lot. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on February 27, 2006. b. Code Amendment - Nonconforming Use (7:26 - 7:31 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said on May 29,2004, Governor Tim Pawlenty approved amendments to the state's nonconforming statute. The amendment authorizes further restriction toward repairing and replacing nonconforming uses. The amended statute takes precedence over the city's current nonconforming ordinance. To be consistent with the standards in the state statute, staff is proposing an amendment to the city's nonconforming ordinance. The City's zoning code, Article 1, Section 44-12 (c) states that a "nonconforming use that is wholly or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, flood or other phenomenon or legally condemned may be constructed and used forthe same nonconforming use provided that building reconstruction shall be commenced within one year from the date the building was destroyed or condemned and shall be carried on without interruption." However, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subdivision 1 (e) states that any nonconforming use may continue after destruction unless more than 50% of the market value was destroyed and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days from the date of the destruction. Changing the city's nonconforming use ordinance to disallow a nonconforming use if 50% of the market value has been lost and to mandate owners of nonconforming uses to apply for a building permit within 180 days will be consistent with state statute. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city has any choice in the matter? Mr. Roberts said yes. But if the city was in a court battle over this, than what is the point? In fairness to developers, applicants and property owners, the city should be consistent with state law. The city doesn't have to change the ordinance but it can get confusing. An example would be on the northwest corner of Roselawn Avenue and Arcade Street there is a small service station that burned more than 50% and was zoned LBC and with that zoning that type of business would not be allowable today. Because they started reconstruction before the six months time and the city did not have the 50% limit ordinance, the city allowed the station to rebuild. If this nonconforming use ordinance amendment were in place, the service station would not have been allowed to build another service station. It would have to be another use that met the zoning standards at that time. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -6- Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the proposed ordinance amendment attached in the staff report. This code amendment changes the nonconforming ordinance (section 42-12) to make it consistent with Minnesota Statute, Section 462.357, subdivision 1 (e). Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on February 27,2006, for the first reading. VI. NEW BUSINESS Resolution of Appreciation - Eric Ahlness Mr. Roberts said Eric Ahlness resigned from the planning commission on January 13, 2006. Staff is recommending the planning commission approve the resolution of appreciation for Eric Ahlness. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the resolution of appreciation for Eric Ahlness. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Noise Ordinance Discussion Mr. Roberts said prior to Eric Ahlnesses resignation from the planning commission, he requested that the city's noise-control ordinance be placed on a planning commission meeting agenda for discussion. Staff did so on January 3, 2006, but the commission tabled this discussion because Eric was absent. Commissioner Trippler has asked that this matter be scheduled again for a discussion about whether the noise-control ordinance should be amended. Mr. Trippler had proposed some revisions to the ordinance and emailed them to staff. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks the way he stated it in the e-mail makes it clearer regarding the first paragraph of the ordinance. In paragraph (c) he thought this would apply to the things like the Ramsey County Fair, National Night Out and the Fourth of July celebration at Hazelwood Park. If this is included in the ordinance it would take care of things. He is okay striking everything in paragraph (c) in the third line after the words "of a residential use" and deleting the rest of the sentence. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -7- Commissioner Yarwood said in paragraph (c) it states The city manager may waive the requirement in subsection (a) of this section where the event or activity would not cause a nuisance. If it doesn't cause a nuisance is it really even governed by this ordinance? He wasn't sure if that was meant to be a catch all term or not. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't care for the noise ordinance as it is stated. It states that you can make noise from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday but not on Sunday in a residential neighborhood. She has a lot of experience listening to noise at her house from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. when people are working on construction during the week and on Saturdays. She thinks people shouldn't be allowed to make noise on a Saturday at 7:00 a.m. because people like to sleep in on Saturday mornings. People like to sit outside and enjoy their yards but that can be difficult if you have to listen to machines and construction all day and night and that can be annoying. Commissioner Trippler said paragraph (c) gives the city manager the authority to waive an activity that is not within 350 feet of a residence. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there should be a line that specifies that the event would not cause a nuisance? Should that be stricken and go right into the "where the proposed activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use or the event or activity is limited in duration to less than 7 days. Because the city manager already has the choice to decide whether the activity is covered by this ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said the first question is if the planning commission wants to change the ordinance or not? Chairperson Fischer asked what the city's experience has been with handling complaints from neighbors regarding noise and monitoring the situation to the satisfaction of the neighbors? Mr. Roberts said it has been the city's experience in the planning department that noise is not to be made from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and if someone does make noise the neighbors should call the police. It has been a fairly simple matter in the Community Development department. Occasionally there are uses that are regulated by a CUP where hours of operation are a concern and then planning gets involved, but that doesn't happen very frequently. The most recent experience has been the St. Paul Pioneer Press building and the noise that has affected the neighbors in a residential neighborhood. Staff isn't necessarily pushing for a change to the noise ordinance but staff agrees the noise ordinance could be clearer and easier for everyone to understand, but no noise from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. seems pretty easy to understand. Commissioner Trippler said he had the opportunity to talk to the police chief about the noise ordinance because he telephoned a complaint in to the Maplewood Police Department. When he spoke to the officer who came to his house, she understood the noise ordinance meant people could make as much noise as they want to from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. and that the police department had no authority to do anything about it. Commissioner Dierich said that is the same thing the police department told her when she made a complaint call to the Maplewood Police Department. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -8- Commissioner Trippler said the police chief told him on the telephone that is not what the noise ordinance states. So the noise ordinance process may work well with the planning department but apparently it's not working well for the police department. He would hope the police would receive some training on how to interpret this noise ordinance. Mr. Roberts said the police department may be referring to the first sentence in paragraph (a) which says no person shall make or cause to made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes such person's enjoyment of property or affects such person's property values. He thinks what the police chief was saying is if somebody is playing their stereo so loudly that the neighbors within 350 feet can hear it in the middle of the day the police can tell that person to turn the radio down. That kind of noise is unreasonably annoying. Another example is if someone is putting an addition on their house and they use the nail gun at 7:01 a.m., the contractor will say he is working within the noise ordinance guidelines, even if the noise occurs right next door to someone's home. That kind of noise would be "reasonable" because they have the right to do construction during the working hours and the police could do nothing about it. Commissioner Yarwood said he agrees with that statement but in the last sentence it states "any violation of this general prohibition between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday is a per se violation of this division. "To him that implies the noise ordinance can only be enforced during those hours. Chairperson Fischer said there certainly seems to be a difference in what the interpretation of the noise ordinance is. Commissioner Trippler said he called the Maplewood Police Department because a neighbor of his was playing the drums every day in their garage. If he were to put his house on the market, and someone came to see his house, and they heard the drums banging, the prospective buyers would not be interested because of the noise. When he calls to complain about the noise, and the police arrive, the drumming is over so the police cannot hear what he has to listen to. Commissioner Yarwood said he would like a clarification as to when this noise ordinance can be enforced as the noise ordinance is written. Can it be enforced throughoutthe day oronly between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. It would be nice to have the attorney's perspective on the noise ordinance and that could give more direction on how the noise ordinance could be written clearer for everyone involved. Chairperson Fischer said another questionable situation would be a person working outside with a power tool, would that fall under this noise ordinance too or not? Mr. Roberts said if the noise were done within the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. hours they would be safe. Chairperson Fischer said in the summer month's people like to get out early on the weekends and get their outside jobs done and during the week they usually do the outside chores after work so they can enjoy their weekends. With the amount of daylight we have in the summer months people would try and get their work done before it gets to dark and that would go past 7 p.m. up until 9:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -9- Mr. Roberts said working outside in the evening is also cooler so people would do what they can before dark. Commissioner Desai said in the winter month's people get up early and snow blow their driveways at 6:00 a.m. in the morning as well so they can get out of their driveway in the morning. Does the noise ordinance cover that as well? Commissioner Yarwood said he believes the noise ordinance should be written in such a way that it can be enforced at any time. The police should feel they have the discretion to do so if the noise is unreasonable and he is not sure that the way the noise ordinance is written currently that the police department feels they can police the noise situation. Some help with the interpretation on this would be helpful. Commissioner Desai said it would be a good idea to get some input from the police department since they are the enforcers of the rule as to what the issues are that they see before anything is rewritten. Mr. Roberts said it seems the commission would like staff to do some further work on this and check with the police department and possibly, the city attorney and other departments involved for input and bring the matter back to the planning commission for more comment and or changes. Commissioner Trippler said it may be worthwhile to have in the noise ordinance whether an activity is a consistent on-going activity such as loud music every day that goes on for weeks as opposed to a snowplow going by early in the morning twice a winter. Mr. Roberts said some would argue that there shouldn't be any grass mowing on Sundays if there is no noise on Sundays. The problem with the example Commissioner Trippler gave is how do you document the on-going activity and who documents it. It's all up to interpretation of what noise is acceptable and what is not acceptable. One example of documenting things is the dog barking ordinance in the City of St. Paul. If a dog barks for more than 5 minutes in a row, three times a day, then animal control can be called to assess the situation. The problem is who has the time to use a stop watch three times a day, for 5 minutes or more, before animal control can be called and will the dog still be barking when they finally get there to prove there is a problem. Chairperson Fischer said the other problem is years ago there were not as many outdoor noises as we hear now. Chainsaws, power tools, leaf blowers, etc. are all common household tools that people have in their garages now and people use them readily at all hours of the day and night. Commissioner Oierich said she isn't worried about common noises like snow blowing, grass mowing, trimmers, kids playing. She is concerned about tree trimmers, backhoes, dump trucks etc. she thinks those types of noises could wait until 8:00 a.m. or later. Mr. Roberts said in the past people have called the city complaining about kids playing basketball or making noise outside in the evenings. This is especially true in summer when kids like to play outside when it gets cooler and that can annoy some people. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -10- VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Desai was the planning commission representative at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss was the Special Construction Agreement to build a house at 1784 Edgehill Road, which passed ayes all. Commissioner Desai said the city council meeting went until 2:00 a.m. and he sat through the whole meeting until his project came up. Staff gave their presentation and the city council had no questions for the applicant or for himself as the PC representative. He thinks the city should reconsider the necessity of having a PC representative at their meetings. If there is a subject that is likely to be hotly debated then someone should be there, otherwise staff could give their presentation and be there for questions. For simple issues like this proposal was you sit and sit and he didn't even get called on to answer questions and there was no need for him to be there all night. He could have had the pleasure of sitting in his own home instead of sitting on those hard chairs for all those hours. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks it would reasonable for the PC representative to only come for the timeframe or portion of the meeting that represents the PC rather than sitting through the city council meeting for several hours. Mr. Roberts said that is an option. But if you attend the whole meeting you get to see the city council in action and report back to the planning commission. b. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the February 13, 2006, city council meeting. The city council will continue their interviewing for the CDRB and the PC openings and the regular city council meeting will follow that. The only item to discuss so far is the 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report. c. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the February 27,2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive for a conditional use permit revision and the Code Amendment for Nonconforming Uses. d. Commissioner Dierich to make a public service announcement. Commissioner Dierich said the Payne Phalen Block Nursing Program is having a multi-cultural health fair and will have around 20 vendors for senior citizens of all cultures. It will be held on February 14, 2006, from 1 :00 to 4:00 p.m. at the First Covenant Church on Arcade Street in St. Paul, close to the Whirlpool site. The hope is that if this is popular the Block Nursing Program will branch out into Maplewood. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -11- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Reschedule the Monday, February 20, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting because of President's Day. The planning commission took a poll and decided to hold the meeting Tuesdav. February 21, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Memorandum TO: City of Maplewood Advisory Boards and Commissions FROM: Bruce Anderson, Chuck Ahl and Melinda Coleman DATE: 14 March 2006 SUBJECT: Review cif Gladstone Nei8hborhood Redevelopment Plan and recent alternative concept INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Over the last several years, the City of Maplewood has been exploring redevelopment concepts for the Gladstone Neighborhood. In December of 2004, the City retained the services of a consultant team to conduct/facilitate a planning process and develop a master plan for the neighborhood. A Task Force representing City Council, boards and commissions, community residents and neighborhood businesses was assembled to provide guidance to the process and to serve as a conduit to the neighborhood and greater community. The process has included five public meetings and ten meetings of the task force over the last 14 months. In November of 2005, a draft master plan was presented to the public and to advisory boards and commissions. In December of 2005, newly elected Council member David Bartol requested that an alternative concept be developed and explored. At a City Council meeting in January, the Council authorized staff to develop the alternative presented by Mr. Bartol and to put this alternative through the same analysis and public review as the November 2005 draft plan. Consultants and staff completed this review over the months of January and February, presented the concept to the Task Force and presented the concept to the public the first week in March. WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Weare nearing the point in the planning process where the City Council will need to converge on a preferred master plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. The redevelopment planning process includes a review by City advisory hoards and commissions. The objective of this review is for each board/ commission to offer a recommendation on the plan or its key aspects relative to the board/commission's individual mission or purpose. The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan is an important part of the community and virtually every advisory board or commission will be involved in the ongoing implementation of the master plan. SUPPORTING INFORMATION To assist you in preparations for your upcoming meeting we suggest reviewing the following items (note: some of these items were distributed in November while others are attached for your use): 1. The Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated 14 November 2005 (distributed in November of 2005) 2. The Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) (distributed in November of 2005) 3. February 21 Memorandum to the Gladstone Task Force describing the alternative concept and evaluation 4. Powerpoint presentation slides from public workshop/task force meeting presentation presenting alternative concepts and comparison to the November 14 draft plan 5. Summary of public meeting #5 survey questions evaluating the alternative concept compared to the November 14 2005 draft. This summary is of the evaluation form filled out by participants at the March 2 2005 public meeting. 6. Evaluation questions. These questions were developed by staff and consultants to help facilitate a review and discussion of key items of the plan. The core difference between the two concepts has to do with the level of public investments that form the basis of the plan (those public investments include improvements to parks, open space, trails, road reconstruction, burial of power lines, streetscape, stormwater systems). In the November 14 draft, a public improvement budget was established at roughly $18 million. In order to fund this investment without using general tax dollars, redevelopment to the magnitude of roughly 800 new units would need to occur. That level of development also would support 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development. The alternative concept reduced the public improvement budget to the tune of $ 11 million in order to reduce the development levels to 490 units. This concept would support approximately 10,800 square feet of commercial development. Reductions in public improvements were achieved by reducing the scope and magnitude of the $18 million dollar improvements. A more detailed summary of the changes is included in the attached information. The consultant team's analysis concluded that the either concept works from a financial perspective. The alternative concept with the lower public improvement budget and lesser development magnitude runs a greater risk of not achieving the broader vision and guiding principles established through the planning process. Through the task force meeting deliberations and the public process we know that the November 14" concept exceeded the level of acceptance for some members of the community. We also know that the alternative concept with the lesser public improvement budget and resultant development magnitude, underachieves what the Gladstone Neighborhood could or should be. RECOMMENDA nON Staff recommends that the board/ commission discuss the master plan from November and the more recent concept alternative with supporting documentation and offer recommendations or opinions on the concept and relevant aspects of the plan. Your recommendation( s) will be assembled with all other advisory board/ commission's recommendations and the recommendation from the Task Force and submitted to the City Council for their use in considering the plan at their meeting tentatively set for April 18". If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact staff. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 0013 ~n To: Gladstone Area Task Force From: Brad Scheib Subject: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan project update - Task Force Meeting #10 Scheduled for Thursday February 23"' at City Hall 6:30 to 8;30 17 February 2006 Date: Background As noted in our last memorandwn dated January 18, we have been revisiting an alternative scenario for the project at the request of Council member David Bartol and as approved/ directed by the Maplewood City Council. This memorandum is intended to provide you with the basic description of the concept alternative including the development patterns, density and public improvements associated with the project. We intend to entertain a discussion with the task force in evaluating the merits of this concept, its strengths and potential risks, in comparison to the concept that is reflected in the current Master Plan Draft report dated 14 Nov. 200S. City Council member David Bartol proposed a plan for the Gladstone Area that attempts to establish the lowest limit of possible development within the project area. It was requested of the City Council that direction be given to staff to consider this evaluation and conduct analysis to illustrate a pattern of development that results in 490 new units as opposed to the current concept which is for roughly 800 units. The alternative concept being proposed included a reduction in the public improvement investments from roughly $18 million dollars to approximately $11 million dollars. General thoughts on where the reductions in public improvement costs could be provided and where reduction in density could be accommodated were described in the agenda report to the City Council dated January 3,2006. The City Council approved this analysis at its January 9'" City Council Meeting. Alternative Concept Description Attached to this memorandum is an alternative concept plan reflecting the directions as approved in by the January 9'" City Council action. It was requested of us to prepare a concept that directly illustrated the number of nnits as could be built on each site. The attached concept plan illustrates a total of 332 new units. Not illustrated in this concept is the Tourist Cabin site which we have assumed could yield an additional 150 units. The total of both unit counts combined is 482 units. This falls 8 units short of our directed target of 490 units for the project. We are confident that the additional 8 units could probably be absorbed somewhere else within the project area to achieve the 490 unit target. Development pattern and density. We were also directed to consider development patterns of 6 to 14 units per acre with a variety of attached single family units (townhomes) and potentially some detached single family units. We attempted to prepare a concept site plan that did not include any stacked units (more than two story multi-family structures). The 123 North Third Street, Suite 100. Minneapoli~ MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com Task Farce Memo 17 February 2006 Page 2 feasibility of achieving the desired unit count proved to be physically constraining without some stacked units that would exceed the desired 1+ unit per acre maximum density. The final concept plan illustrates two structures on the northwest corner of the Maplewood Bowl site. These would be 3 story structures with underground parking and could be designed with the principles articulated in the master plan. We attempted to minimize the amount of stacked units in the concept. The footprints represent 57 total units of stacked housing. The remainder of the area consists of different attached townhome products. The footprints of these structures are reflective of product examples that we were able to pull from local and regional developments that might be well suited to the project. We will provide some examples of these at the task force meeting. (If you are interested in exploring some of these prior to the meeting. follow this link on line to a good resource that we used and look at the New Brighton and Woodbury fact sheets. hl:1p'/ /www desi!')1center umn edu/reference ctr/factsh,'ets/I'S housiIIg density.html). Actual density levels within the various areas range from a low of 7 to 8 units per acre on the edges to a high of 20 units per acre on the Maplewood Bowl site. On average across all areas shown as redeveloped, densities are approximately 13 units per acre a. The current draft master plan illustrated 800 units, including some additional areas of redevelopment along the east side of the Vento Trail south of Frost and across form the Gladstone Fire Station. Stacked units were illustrated in the current master plan fronting on Frost and English Street. Densities ranged from a low of 10 units per acre on the edges to 35 units per acre at the core area for the current draft master plan. Also as part of the project, we have included a small retail structure that contains approximately 10,800 square feet on the site of the funeral home. This structure would accommodate a small convenience grocer and potential coffee shop/bakery or other service retail. The intent would be to accommodate neighborhood retail services. The current draft master plan included 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of retail and commercial service space spread throughout the core area at Frost and English. Setbacks on this concept also vary from the current master plan. The setbacks shown on the attached concept are generally a 20 foot minimum setback from the property line. whereas the current master plan illustrated smaller setbacks particularly along Frost Avenue ranging from 10 feet for residential units to 5 or 0 feet where commercial fronted on the street. The maximum building height of any structure in the attached concept is 3 stories. The current master plan contemplated up to 4 stories. Public Improvements Part of the directions from the January 9'" Council directive were to consider a reduction in the scope of the public improvements. In general terms, this reduction was from rougWy $18 million to $11 million. It has been achieved in the attached concept in two ways. First, we reduced the scope of the improvements by limiting roadway improvements from extending all the way to Hazelwood along Frost Avenue. Reconstruction of Frost Avenue was reduced to include a 2" bituminous mill and overlay for most of the streets with some limited concrete curb and gutter replacement. A landscaped center median and concrete parallel parking bays are still planned along Frost Avenue between Frank Street and English Street but are not extended beyond those points. Bituminous parallel parking bays are also maintained in the attached concept along English Street north of Frost Avenue. Costs also assume that the existing Frost Avenue and English Street roundabout will remain as existing. The proposed roundabout at East Shore Drive remains as asstuned in the current draft master plan. Task Farce Memo 17February 2006 PaBe 3 Powerline burial has also been reduced in its scope. The attached concept assumes burial of power lines along Frost Avenue from Birmingham Street to Phalen Place. The draft master plan extended this to Hazelwood Street. English street remains the same as the current draft master plan. We also have limited the volwne of the improvements. The most significant volume reductions occur in streetscape improvements and park and open space enhancements. The streetscape enhancements continue to include a sidewalk but lessen the amount of landscaping and amenity treatments. At the meeting on Thursday we will present some imagery to demonstrate the possible difference in public improvements from the attached concept and the current master plan. The asswnptions for storm water improvements remain the same as in the current draft master plan. The Bebo structure (pedestrian bridge) proposed to connect Flicek and the Savanna has been reduced to a culvert that will provide storm water overflow. A more detailed tabulation of the public improvement costs compared between the attached concept and the current master plan draft will be provided at the meeting. Evaluation We have been working through an analysis of this alternative concept. It is imperative that prior to moving forward with this concept, we fully rmderstand feasibility from a fmancial and market perspective. We also need to discuss the pros and cons of the site as perceived by the community stakeholders. This evaluation begins with the Task Force discussion on Thursday and will be followed with discussions at the advisory boards and commissions and a public meeting. In preparation for Thursday's meeting, I would suggest as a starting point, that you review the attached concept, read through the brief description above and revisit the Vision and Guiding Principles as articulated in Chapter 3 of the draft master plan dated November 14-, 2005. Purpose of Task Force Meeting At the meeting staff will provide a presentation of the concept and walk through the rationale behind it. We will also provide a greater degree of detail on the public improvement; proposed and engage the task force in a discussion about how this concept adrieves the goals and principles of the Master Plan. As usual, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Attachment: concept2-16-06 LayoutJ (1) Melinda Coleman Subject: Chuck Ahl Friday, March 03, 2006 9:30 AM Melinda Coleman; 'Brad'; 'Bruce Anderson' Richard Fursman; 'Rusty'; Tom Ekstrand; Shann Finwall; Virginia Gaynor; 'jon.hom@kimley- horn.com' Tabulation of the Vote From: Sent: To: Cc: Here are the results from the Gladstone Public Meeting: First Choice: . Plan A (800 units): 30 votes . Plan B (490 units): 38 votes . Plan C ( 0 units): 16 votes . No Vote/Comment: 4 votes . Plan AlB combo: 2 votes Second Choice: . Plan A (800 units): 16 votes . Plan B (490 units): 22 votes . Plan C ( 0 units): 33 votes . No Vote/Comment: 17 votes . Plan AlB combo: 2 votes Chuck 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Carpet Court Concept Review 1685 Arcade Street March 14, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61. (Refer to Attachments 1 through 6.) Mr. Blair will relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. He is proposing building with steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. Requests Mr. Blair is requesting that the planning commission and community design review board review his proposed Carpet Court concept plan and offer feedback. In order to develop Carpet Court, the city would require Mr. Blair to get the following land use approvals: 1. Rezone one-half of the property from single-family residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC). 2. A 43-foot building setback variance. City code requires a 50-foot building setback from a commercial property to a residential property. The proposed building would be constructed within seven feet of a residential property line. 3. A 9.9 percent impervious surface variance. City code allows up to 40 percent impervious surface coverage for commercial buildings within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District. The proposed development would have 49.9 percent impervious surface coverage. 4. Vacation of a service road. This road is located on the east side of the property, adjacent Highway 61. 5. Design review. BACKGROUND November 20, 2000: The planning commission reviewed a development proposal by Mr. Blair for the vacant property on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Attachment 7). The development proposal included an 8, 160-square-foot, two- story building for his carpet store and warehouse. The proposal required a rezoning of one-half of the property from R-1 to BC, a 25-foot building setback variance from a residential property line, and a 13 percent impervious surface variance. The planning commission tabled the proposal, requesting that Mr. Blair revise his plans to eliminate the need for variances. Mr. Blair never resubmitted plans for that development. October 2005: Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for a 7,653-square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse. During review of the project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) indicated that they were interested in turning back the frontage road to the city. February 2006: MNDOT authorized the turn-back of the frontage road to the city. March 2006: Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for the property based on the turn-back and ultimate vacation of the frontage road. The new proposal includes a 7,848-square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse. DISCUSSION Zoning/Comprehensive Land Use Mr. Blair's property is located in a triangular tract of land which is bordered by Highway 61 on the east, Larpenteur Avenue on the south, and Parkway Drive on the northwest. This triangular tract of land includes 11 lots. All 11 lots are guided in the city's comprehensive plan as business commercial, however, only six of the lots are actually zoned BC, with the other five zoned R-1. (Refer to the zoning and comprehensive land use maps attached [Attachments 2 and 3]). Six of the lots contain single-family homes, four of the lots are vacant (including Mr. Blair's property), and one is used as a building contractor office (Bacchus Homes). Mr. Blair's property is located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 and includes two of the 11 lots mentioned above. The east lot is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC and the west lot is zoned R-1 and guided as BC. In order to develop a carpet store and warehouse on the property, the western lot must be rezoned from R-1 to BC. Required Setbacks The building and parking lot setbacks within a BC zoning district are as follows: 1. Building: a. Front: 30 feet b. Side and rear (toward commercial): No required setback c. Side and rear (toward residential): 50 feet 2. Parking: a. Front: 15 feet b. Side and rear (toward commercial): 5 feet c. Side and rear (toward residential): 20 feet 2 City code requires increased setbacks from commercial properties when they are adjacent properties that are used for residential purposes. The properties to the north and northwest are zoned BC. However, only the property to the north is a commercial use (Bacchus Homes), the property to the northwest is "used for residential purposes." The property to the west is zoned R-1 and used as a residential purpose. Therefore, the required building setbacks from the northwest (at the angled lot line) and the west are 50 feet. The proposed development meets all required setbacks except the 50-foot building setback to the residential property to the northwest. Mr. Blair's rationale for this decreased setback is twofold - first the building needs to be located as far to the west as possible in order to ensure the driveway maintains an increased setback from the intersection (described in detail in the service road/future cul-de-sac section below) and the residential structure to the northwest is located 160 feet away from the proposed commercial building. Shoreland District The property is located within the Phalen lake Shoreland Overlay District (properties within 1,000 feet of the lake). City code allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 40 percent, which could be increased to 50 percent if the applicant qualifies for impervious surface bonuses. To qualify for these bonuses the applicant must provide and maintain significant man made facilities for reducing stormwater flow or treatment of runoff for non-point-source water pollutants. Mr. Blair's 2006 development proposal has 49.9 percent impervious surface coverage, which requires a 9.9 percent impervious surface variance. The 2005 development proposal was eligible for impervious surface bonuses due to the design of an infiltration basin on the west side of the property. Since no grading and drainage plans have been submitted for the 2006 development proposal yet, it is difficult to determine if those bonuses would apply here. Service Road There is a 325-foot-long service road which runs north/south between the property and Highway 61. This road was designed to allow access from larpenteur Avenue to the three properties located on the east side of the triangular tract of land. During the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MNDOT) review of Mr. Blair's 2005 development proposal, MNDOT offered to turn back the service road to the city. MNDOT supported the turn back of the service road in order to increase traffic safety and alleviate their maintenance of a small, underutilized service road. To increase safety, MNDOT requested that the property be Iirnited to one driveway onto larpenteur Avenue and that it be constructed as far away from the intersection (west) as possible. After redesigning the development to accommodate for the vacation of the service road, however, Mr. Blair states that he is not able to develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. The eastern driveway will be set back 45 feet from the Highway 61 intersection and will allow for access to the parking lot. The western driveway will be set back 133 feet from the Highway 61 intersection and will allow for access to the loading dock. 3 MNDOT has reviewed this proposal and finds it acceptable based on the challenges of developing this lot. However, they strongly recommend that Mr. Blair continue to examine alternatives such as having a shared driveway for the loading dock and the parking lot, etc. City staff is supportive of the turn-back of the service road for several reasons as follows: 1. Future cul-de-sac: The redevelopment of the entire triangular tract of land bordered by Highway 61, Larpenteur Avenue, and Parkway Drive is a strong possibility due to the varying land uses and disjointed nature of the current developments. In order to ensure access to future redeveloped lots in the triangular tract of land, city staff recommends planning for a future road which would extend from Larpenteur Avenue and dead-end with a cul-de-sac in the center of the triangular tract of land (Attachment 9). With the approval of the vacation of the service road, the city could require Mr. Blair to dedicate a 30-foot roadway easement on the west side of the property. This easement would give the city one-half of the needed easement for a road, with the other 30 feet coming from the property to the west when that redevelops and remaining portions of the road coming from properties to the north. 2. Impervious surface: The vacated service road would add 6,762 square feet to the existing property, for an overall square footage of 36,775. The additional land would have reduced the percentage of impervious surface on the 2005 proposed development (7,653 square foot building) from 46.9 percent to 38.2 percent, alleviating the need for a variance. After redesigning the development to accommodate for the vacation of the service road, however, Mr. Blair actually increased the impervious surface coverage to 49.9 percent. This is due to the fact that the building is slightly larger (7,848 square feet) and there is a second driveway. 3. Access for properties located to the north: Two properties to the north currently utilize the service road (Bacchus Homes and a residential property). City staff recommends that only the portion of the service road located in front of Mr. Blair's property be vacated and removed with the development at this time. The remaining portion of the service road to the north would remain and be used by those properties until such time as they redeveloped. 4. Driveway: City staff supported the vacation of the service road to reduce the number and location of driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue. City staff has suggested several alternatives to accomplish this including shifting the building, using one driveway for both the parking lot and loading dock, or allowing for a temporary driveway to the north (onto the remaining portion of the service road) until the future cul-de-sac road is constructed. As stated above, Mr. Blair states that he is not able to develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. 4 Parking City code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of retail use and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse and storage use. Based on these standards, Mr. Blair's development requires 24 parking spaces. However, Mr. Blair states that he does not need this many spaces and would be willing to reduce the number in order to reduce impervious surface coverage. City staff is supportive of the reduction in parking. This would require approval of a reduced parking space authorization from the city council. Building Design The building will be constructed of steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. This is a vast improvement over previous proposals which included exteriors of flat concrete block and accent striping of rock face block on the 2000 proposal and steel vertical siding, brick wainscot, and a metal roof on the 2005 proposal. RECOMMENDATION Review the Carpet Court concept plan for the property at 1685 Arcade Street and give feedback on the land use aspects of the development. P:sec17\Carpet Court\March 20, 2006, PC Concept Plan Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Development Description 5. Site Plan 6. Building Elevations 7. 2000 Development Proposal 8. 2005 Development Proposal 9. Future Cul.De-Sac 10. Large Plans of 2006 Development Proposal (Separate Handout) 5 Attachment 1 Phalen Park , ...... co >. ~ .t:: C) :f '-' Q) ~ - en Q) "C i St. Paul N W+E S L.ocation Map Attachment 2 1685 Arcade I Street = Larpenteur Avenue - Q) ~ - en CIl "C ~ <( 81. Paul N W+E S Zoning Map Attachment 3 St. Paul N W+E S = Land Use Map Attachment 4 Mr. Gary Blair Carpet Court 1121 Minnehahah Ave E St. Paul, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 March 13, 2006 Ms. Shann Finwall, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Property Located on the Northwest Corner of Arcade Street and Larpenteur Avenue. (1685 Arcade Street & adjacent lot) Dear Ms. Finwall: This letter is for the proposed building (7,848 sf flot size 36,775 sf) to house my retail/warehouse carpet store called Carpet Court. The building proposed for this property will vastly improve the property of which I have made application. The property currently is a vacant lot adjoining 2 commercially rated lots. The property to the North is operated with commercial rating by Bacchus Homes. To the South Gustavus Adolphus Lutheran church and its adjoining parking lot. Our building will be an asset to the neighborhood both by the clean lines created in the building itself, and the landscaping (including new trees) surrounding the property, and parking facilities. The building will have siding f stucco and stone facing, the metal roof will be the same as your building (1830 County Road BEast) At the rear of the building we plan to have a water garden to improve the water quality which will help treat the water prior to runoff. This should also qualify us for the needed impervious surface requirements. Our business is a family owned business who has been operating in the middle of a residential neighborhood in St. Paul for over 33 years with no traffic congestion problems. The new location already has some of its residents using there property for commercial use, further use should not be a traffic problem. If you need to contact me for additional information: my work number is (651) 774-3321 and my home number is (651) 774-7021. Feel free to call me with your concerns. Thank you for your consideration of the project being submitted to your department. /7 ~;e~ ~!3lair Development Description 1Se-::>,dent 1"1 I ./ 00' / U I . / ,5; I I I _~__I ~O' II - .t =' .' ~ ~'a' ~ o "~r ; ;; )- / / / .' :- D- 0 , , II ~ ~ I ~ e! Attachment 5 \ ~ \j'~ \ 'iE;' ~ - ~ l, , - 7' ~ ~ 3 "" ') o ~ -~ toT_ ......... ___ ',MtIf ...--- ~. --- .,. r~-I I I I I .. / / ~X\sn~0 r'l\t;E R9>M /,-L-/ '/~:/N~" ~l . / HI bttwl'\Y tol f"'0'rt-j h~~ eye I'~l Site Plan Attachment 6 o ClOD 00 cr:- 'II &15/ I 100000 EJ\51 Building Elevations Attachment 7 '" "..,J , .- -- -- - .- - -,- '~ .- I .-- PROPOSED .. " CARPET COURT I I ~ I, @), I i ; ~ @l i k 0 it <t: ! I 0 c:: ! h w I ' ;~ -- . I C.9 Is ~ I <t: II I- - z it 0 . c:: .' Ole ; U. .. " n_ __n_~=-u ~ . .. - I -- -- - - LARPENTEUR AVENUE N w.' s 2000 Development Proposal Attachment 8 l!li!' ;1 \I \, ; I ,\ " .~ --. ,~ ;0 o i z ~~ "1 .. .u.::, >-,..... ~ G :;: ~ '" >- Vl -...... "'"1.1 _I1U p.r""",,", -<-.-<- LARPENTEUR < I A\mJ[< .~ -,~ ....'12.0 -- -- - -.......- -......- - -......-"""- N W.E s 2005 Development Proposal = Larpenteur Avenue 81. Paul N W*E Attachment 9 ~ ~ o "8 ~ ~ Phalen Park l'll ::E .... <0 o~ >- ~ .r:. C) I '-' Q) ~ - en (l) "0 ~ <( Future Cul-De-Sac s AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Carver Crossings Improvements (formerly CoPar Development) -- City Project 05-07 - Review of Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Preliminary Discussion of Area Development Plan March 15, 2006 INTRODUCTION On March 14,2005, the city council authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development of the former Schlomka property by the CoPar Development Company. The project is called Carver Crossing and the EAW has been completed and has been approved by the City Council to be routed for public comment. The EAW was prepared by one of the City's consultants, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA), Inc. City staff has conducted a preliminary review of the document and suggested several changes that the consultant made to the EAW. Staff has attached the final draft document for your review. The Planning Commission should review the EAW in the context of applicability toward the final development plan proposal. Comments on the EAWas it relates to the site development needs are appropriate. The Commission can submit comments about the EAW to the City Council that will be included and responded to through the City Council. Background The city ordered the EAW for this project area due to City Council concerns about the impacts of the originally proposed 386-unit development. At the time of the order, staff suggested that the EA W might provide significant findings that could require substantial revisions to the proposed site plan. The EAW found significant issues with original site development plans. Since then, the developer has been cooperative in revising their plans to better accommodate and address the environmental concerns. The long preparation time (over 1 year) for the EAW and development plan process is due to the findings and developer revisions to the project plans. The findings have required the developer to reduce the original planned unit count of 386 units to the current plan of 299 units. The 299 units are consistent with the lowest development level provided within the Maplewood Land Use plan at 4.1 units per acre. Background on EAW Process The EAW will be reviewed in general by the engineers from KHA at the meeting. There are a several main items for discussion on the site: · Woodlands: The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland in the 73+ acre site. The project proposes to change 15.4 acres of these woodlands. Woodland impacts will be mitigated according to City Ordinance up to 10 trees per acre. A total of 215 new trees will be required to be planted. . Wetlands: The project includes four wetland complexes covering 7.32 acres of the site. This is the major issue that required significant revisions to the original site plan. The current proposal only impacts 0.2 acres which will be mitigated on site with 0.43 acres of new wetland. Additionally, the developer has proposed features that will provide for future enhancement of the existing wetlands which have been degraded by area construction activity, namely from the 1-494 freeway. This change provides for a much improved site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT CARVER CROSSING EAW MARCH 20, 2006 PAGE TWO . Public Utilities: Sewer and water are available to this site from Carver Avenue. A lift station will be necessary to pump some of the sewage from this site to the Carver Avenue system. Future plans needed to be studied to determine the extent of the sizing of this lift station. The area to the east of this site (on the southeast side of 1-494) is currently unsewered. This area is planned under the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to have sewer at some point in the next 3 - 30 years. The proposed lift station within the Carver Crossing Development will provide service to this area. . As part of the construction of the lift station, it is necessary to install a sewer pipe under the freeway to the eastern side Of 1-494. It is necessary to construct this crossing pipe as part of this development to avoid major disruption of the Carver Crossing site when homes and roadways are constructed. This new sewer pipe will provide sanitary sewer to the eastern side of 1-494, which is disturbing to some of the existing residents of this area, who enjoy the large lots and septic systems of that area. Other property owners on the eastern side of 1-494 have expressed an interest in developing their property. The sanitary sewer extension will provide them the ability to develop their property. This sewer extension has the potential to be a very controversial issue. From an engineering standpoint, if/when the city authorizes the Carver Crossing development, a lift station is required and that lift station must have the sewer pipe constructed under the freeway as part of the development construction to avoid huge costs and disruption in the future. . Traffic: The proposed development is a 55+ community which reduces the traffic generation numbers from the site. The engineer's analysis concludes that some turn lanes and expansion are required on Carver at the entrance and also at the McKnight - Carver intersection. All other impacts are within acceptable standards, except the Bailey Road - Sterling Street intersection, which is currently failing. This intersection is within Newport (Washington County) and should be scheduled for improvement. This development does not have significant impact on that intersection. . Noise: This site currently is impacted by the freeway noise and many locations exceed the night time (10 pm to 7 am) noise standard. This is not uncommon for suburban developments located adjacent to major roadways. The proposed mitigation is to provide climate-controlled units and increased wall insulation. In addition, any outside common areas need to be located on the west side of the condominium buildings. A berm along 1-494 also is being considered as part of the final site planning. These elements should reduce future residents exposure to adjacent traffic noise and provide the City with a reasonable response to the freeway noise issue. EAW and Development Process Schedule City Council Receives EAW/Authorizes Publishing March 13, 2006 Planning Commission Receives EAW March 20, 2006 Neighborhood Meeting (6:00 - 8:00 PM @ Fire Station) March 30, 2006 EAW Comment Deadline April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Receives Response to Comments May 1, 2006 Development Plans to Planning Commission/Public Hearing May 1, 2006 City Council Determines Need for EIS May 8, 2006 City Council Authorizes Preparation of Feasibility Report May 8, 2006 Public Hearing for Public Improvements June 12, 2006 Start Construction for Improvements (assumes approvals) August 7, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT CARVER CROSSING EAW MARCH 20, 2006 PAGE THREE RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review and provide comments on the EAW for the Carver Crossing Development Proposal and review the area development plan. Attachments: 1. Carver Crossing EAW