The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/15/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 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. May 1,2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Carver Crossing of Maplewood (Henry Lane and Carver Avenue) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) - Findings of Fact and Negative Declaration Comprehensive plan change - R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3(L) (multiple dwellings- low density). Zoning map change - F (farm residence) and R-1(R) to R-3 (multiple dwellings) Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). Vacation of easements and right-of-ways Preliminary plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess June 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski (Note - to be held at Carver School - Upper Alton Road) June 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Oierich 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule June 5 meeting - June 6 or June 7? Annual Tour Date - July 31, 2006? 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 1, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Both Chairperson Fischer and Vice-Chairperson Desai were absent this evening so the Planning Commission agreed to have Commissioner Trippler serve as Acting Chairperson. Acting Chairperson Trippler 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 Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Acting Chairperson Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Absent Absent Present Present Present Present Present Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, said Carver Crossing of Maplewood was going to be reviewed this evening but the proposal has been delayed until the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, May 15, 2006. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Dierich, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 17, 2006. Acting Chairperson Trippler had clarifications or corrections to pages 6, 16, 18, and 19. On page 6, fourth paragraph, change the word approved to reviewed. On page 16, in the motion it should read with the exception of part C leaving part C as is and not striking the second part, on page 18, last paragraph, third line, change the word man fef6e to man power, on page 19, in the fifth and sixth paragraph, it should read Minnesota Chapter 7030.0030 noise rule. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -2- Commissioner Yarwood had a correction to page 19, fourth paragraph, he meant for it to read Commissioner Yarwood said he would like to have an ordinance soecifvinq decibel levels as a fall back if there is a chronic problem. Commissioner Hess moved to approve the planning commission minutes for April 17, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Comforts of Home Senior Housing (2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street) (7:08 - 8:06 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Mathew Frisbie of Frisbie Architects, Inc., representing Comforts of Home, LLC, is proposing to redevelop two lots located on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street). The two lots currently contain the vacant Auto Glass Specialists store and an electrical contractor's office. The proposed use will be a 42-unit, two- story, assisted living facility. The facility will also include memory care, respite care, and a hospice facility with 24-hour, on-site homecare staff. On January 3, 2006, the planning commission reviewed concept plans for the Comforts of Home development. During the meeting items discussed and areas of concern included: Highway 36 improvements, noise and parking. There are currently two Comforts of Home facilities operating in the Twin City Metropolitan area, Blaine and Hugo. In summary, Comforts of Home is an assisted living and memory care/Alzheimer community designed to assist those needing mild to high levels of personal care. The facility will have 42 private suites, a large kitchen, group dining/living/activity areas, and a beauty shop. Each suite has a private bathroom and a separate bedroom/living area. Some of the units would have kitchenettes. The facility has 24-hour, on-site home care and nursing staff. The facility will provide the residents' meals, housekeeping, and laundry service. Commissioner Hess asked about the condition of Hazelwood Street and when it would be repaired? Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director said Hazelwood Street is on the state aid system, it is a city street, however it has a higher designation and the city receives gas tax funds supportive of that program. The state hasn't raised the state gas tax since 1988 so the community is way behind in the construction of streets. Hazelwood Street has been delayed a number of years. Hazelwood Street is now scheduled for reconstruction in 2010. This road is pretty busted up but it will be reconstructed and the benefiting property owners will pay for that based on the city policies because everyone shares in the cost of roadway reconstruction. Commissioner Hess asked if the end of Hazelwood Street is scheduled to be closed off with the expansion of Highway 36? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -3- Mr. Ahl said there is no direct answer to that question because that is currently being negotiated. Many years ago Hazelwood Street used to extend across the freeway going north and south and it was a full intersection with Highway 36. I n the early 1970's MnDOT closed that intersection and made that a right in and right out with a promise to the City of Maplewood to install an interchange at some point in the future. Unfortunately 30 years later MnDOT indicated they don't have the funds to put an interchange in for another 30 years. MnDOT's commitment to build an interchange is over 60 years from their original commitment. The city is in the process to negotiate with MnDOT that this should be put in the program. However, the city and the community have not focused on whether they want an interchange here or not so a final decision has not been made yet from a public safety standpoint. It is nice to connect the north and the south side. It may change the character of the neighborhood with more traffic on Hazelwood Street. It's not currently that kind of roadway where that would happen. The city is in the process of looking at the issues and whether or not there should be an interchange at English Street instead and not have the connection at Hazelwood Street. Based on his understanding of how MnDOT works and the access guidelines, that connection will probably be closed in the next 10 years. Commissioner Pearson said on the blue prints he noticed a 30 foot offset from Highway 36. He asked if that was the current easement or what part of that would be taken if Highway 36 would be expanded and how would that affect the parking for Comforts of Home? Mr. Ahl said the 30 foot offset is from the right of way line. The additional lane on Highway 36, if they reconstruct it, would simply add about 12 to 14 feet to the edge of the roadway. There is probably not a lot of right of way needed on Highway 36 so he would expect the 30 feet is more than adequate. Commissioner Pearson said this is limited parking and staff mentioned Lakewood Commons and the activities they hold. Lakewood Commons has several promotions throughout the year and have a lot of cars that park on Maryland Avenue on both sides. He gets a lot of cars from Lakewood Commons parked in his neighborhood. In previous discussions with the developer for Comforts of Home they stated they don't hold those types of events and would not have a parking shortage. He wondered if that parking space clause should be included in the conditions to protect the residents in the neighborhood. The parking issue could cause a serious parking problem if Comforts of Home were to hold the same type of events as Lakewood Commons. Ms. Finwall said she received a letter from a Maplewood resident regarding this proposal later than when the report was sent out. It was from Mr. Robert Carey, a property owner at 2291 Hazelwood Street. His concern was the parking situation and the wetlands. She assured the property owner that the people that would live at this assisted living home would not have their own vehicles. If there is a concern regarding the parking, that condition could be added to the list of conditions in the staff report. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked if parking would be allowed on Hazelwood Street? Mr. Ahl said he didn't believe Hazelwood Street was restricted parking at this point and time. Under reconstruction Hazelwood Street would likely be restricted. There may be some parking bays installed that would be part of the design conditions. In all cases there would be no overnight parking. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -4- Acting Chairperson Trippler said on a facility of this size, if there were parking bays, how many cars would staff anticipate this area could accommodate? Mr. Ahl said in looking at the site plan it may accommodate a dozen parking bays. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked if staff thought there is enough space to consider proof of parking for this proposal? Mr. Ahl said looking at the site plan, the infiltration basins and some of the wetland characteristics, staff would say it would be difficult. When some of the right of way gets reconstructed until Highway 36, the parking lot could expand into the 30 foot area as proof of parking. However, looking at the site plan, proof of parking does not look too realistic. Commissioner Yarwood said staff indicated the city code does not deal directly with assisted living facilities or have an ordinance and he wondered if the city should consider an ordinance that deals more directly with these types of developments because they are somewhat unique. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB and PC are interested in reviewing the parking regulations which would include parking requirements for assisted living facilities. As far as other areas of an assisted living facility such as unit floor area, the city has only had 3 requests in the last 15 years for assisted living facilities so the city has not felt a real need to have an ordinance in that regard. Commissioner Pearson said he didn't see anything on the plans that represented a storm shelter or basement area of if there will be a basement, will it serviced by an elevator? Ms. Finwall said she would like the applicant to speak further on this. She said there will be an elevator. Looking at the grading plan the southwest corner will be underground. Commissioner Pearson asked if the basement would be a finished area with seating for the residents or just an open basement area for people. Ms. Finwall said several of the suites are located in the basement area and there is a large hallway with no windows which could be a point of gathering for emergencies. However, the applicant could elaborate more on this subject. Commissioner Hess asked about the security and safety for these high level Alzheimer's patients and what keeps them from wandering out of the building and onto Highway 36? Ms. Finwall said the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal and Lieutenant Michael Shortreed had concerns about that and wrote appropriate staffing should be available to assure that residents with Alzheimer's disease do not walk away from the facility, especially with Highway 36 located just north of the proposed facility. Acting Chairperson Trippler said under the noise section of the staff report it states there shall be a condition for a six to eight foot berm but in the conditions it only shows a four foot to six foot berm. Ms. Finwall said that was a staff error and would correct that in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -5- Acting Chairperson Trippler said he had concerns with the comment in the staff report that there would only be 3 staff members for 42 residents living at this proposed facility. Some patients would have Alzheimer's and with the proximity of Highway 36 and the possibility for a patient to wander outside this issue concerns him. He asked about the berm the city is requesting the applicant to build. It seems it may be difficult to construct an 8 foot berm with the location of the retention pond. Mr. Ahl said the city is asking for revised grading plans and site plans because the site needs to be reengineered. Michael Thompson, Maplewood Civil Engineer, discussed this with their site engineer and that doesn't seem to be a problem. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked about the unit floor area. The staff report shows the units would be 221 to 360 square feet in size. A room that is 221 square feet in size has the dimensions of 11 X 20 which seems awfully small. He asked if staff could comment on how common that is for assisted living space. Ms. Finwall said Lakewood Commons was also approved with a floor area reduction. These smaller units are sleeping units with a small bathroom. Acting Chairperson Trippler said the applicant is asking the city to authorize a 359 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area as part of the PUD which is more than a 50% reduction in what the code requires and that seems very small to him. Ms. Finwall said if the city had a code that clearly addressed assisted living facilities, the city would want to look at the overall common area as well which is quite extensive in this proposal. There is a large living room, a lounge, a dining room, and an activity room and that should be taken into account. This would allow for privacy in their room but allows the resident to be active in the larger areas of the facility. Acting Chairperson Trippler would like staff to address the comments that came up regarding the people that were opposed to this project. The overriding theme in the staff report related to traffic concerns on Sherren Avenue. Mr. Ahl said the comments from the neighbors that were received were regarding potential traffic concerns on Sherren Avenue. It is staffs opinion that other than a stray vehicle that may be lost most cars would be driving to the assisted living facility to visit someone or it would be an employee driving to work so the traffic would be minimal. If something other than this assisted living facility was built here the traffic would be more of a concern and cause more vehicle trips as was stated in the staff report. Commissioner Dierich asked if there was any possibility this building could be turned into a nursing home at some point since this building would have a nursing home design? Ms. Finwall said a nursing home would be a conditional use permit in any zoning district so this would need some sort of an amendment to convert this building from an assisted living facility to a nursing home. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 Mr. Mathew Frisbie, Frisbie Architects, 215 North 2nd Street, River Falls, Wisconsin, addressed the commission. He said this building would be constructed with window and wall construction built according to the Minnesota building code and the noise standards they would be required to follow. The smaller unit size takes into account that this is governed by the state health department to determine the living size. It takes into account the bathroom, common spaces, dining and living space. The parking reduction is fairly equal to the otherfacilities they have in the Twin Cities. The memory care units are on the south side of the building in a self-contained wing of the building. The whole building is secure and there is an outdoor space for the memory care patients with a decorative fence around a portion of the exterior to allow the residents to step outside but in a secured enclosure. This assisted living facility gets reviewed by the state for their license to operate. -6- Acting Chairperson Trippler asked staff to put the site plan on the screen that represents where the patio area would be for the memory care patients. Staff pointed out the patio area on the site plan. Mr. Frisbie said this is a smaller outside space to keep the residents fairly close to the building. The memory care patients do not have access to the whole building. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked what the size of the patio would be? Mr. Frisbie said the patio would be about 300 to 350 square feet in size. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked out of the 42 units how many of those units would be housed by Alzheimer patients? Ms. Wendy Fritz, Comforts of Home, 2340 East County Road J, White Bear Township, addressed the commission. She said there would be about 12 Alzheimer patients. Commissioner Yarwood asked if they expected the rest of the residents to be able to go outside for a walk or enjoy the outdoors as well? Ms. Fritz said the site is secured so the residents cannot freely exit the building on their own and the outdoor space is enclosed. The patients that do not have dementia have access to the outdoor space. Commissioner Dierich asked if staff could point out the portion of the building that would house the patients that need memory care? Commissioner Yarwood said sometimes when you go to visit loved ones you like to sit outside or take them for a walk. The outdoor space shown on the plan does not appear very large. Is there enough room for families to sit outdoors and enjoy the space together? It would be a good idea to have a sidewalk for family members to take their loved one for a walk as well. Ms. Fritz said if the family wants to take responsibility for their loved one while they go for a walk then sure, they can do that. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -7- Mr. Frisbee said there are areas for the patients to step outside. He asked Beth to come forward and speak regarding this proposal. Ms. Beth Doce, representing Comforts of Home, 2340 East County Road J, White Bear Township, addressed the commission. She said many of the residents can't go outside and walk because of the higher levels of acuity they require. Some of their other locations make it easier for a family member to take their loved one outside. Comforts of Home in Blaine and Hugo have walking programs where they walk in the building and do things with the activity coordinators. They also offer an exercise program in some of the locations as well so walking is not too much of an issue. Because of the clientele and their special needs it is hard for many patients to go outside and walk. Commissioner Hess said it appeared the outdoor space on the north side would be facing the pond. He asked if there was a concrete apron and what the size of the patio space would be? Mr. Frisbee said that space would face east and be approximately 15 X 40. There is a decorative rail there and the space would overlook Knucklehead Lake. Commissioner Hess said that space seems very small for the number of residents proposed for this location. He asked if that could be enlarged? Mr. Frisbee said it is possible to enlarge the patio, however, that is the size that has been built at the other facilities. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked how many people could be comfortably accommodated in that area? Mr. Frisbee said at the Hudson, Wisconsin facility they can comfortably accommodate four tables with five people at a table. Commissioner Dierich said she had questions regarding the types of residents that would be living here. She is fairly familiar with assisted living and one of the issues she sees is having only six staff members with 42 residents. That seems sparse to her especially with the needs of hospice and Alzheimer's patients. Ms. Doce said Comforts of Home can bring more staff on board as needed. They also have an RN and an LPN on staff. Comforts of Home has more staff than most communities do. The staff members can go back and forth from the memory care area to the assisted living portion of the building. The residents of the assisted living portion of the building have a certain schedule and have a call button if they need assistance and don't require as much one on one care. She said Comforts of Home wants to give quality care to the residents and that is one thing they stand for. Commissioner Pearson asked if Comforts of Home could explain their emergency management plan for the patients? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -8- Ms. Doce said Comforts of Home has an implemented weather plan and is stored in a book. They work directly with the fire department for emergencies and the caregivers close the blinds or curtains and the residents go to certain areas of their suites for safety. They also run emergency drills with staff and the residents. Some residents are moved to the inside of their bathroom for protection and other residents are assisted to the hallway area for protection. Last summer Comforts of Home in Blaine had to implement the storm plan during the storm that took place. Acting Chairperson Trippler said in attachment 1 , paragraph 5, in the staff report it states family is very important at Comforts of Home, we invite and encourage them to participate in activities and support groups. To him that statement is disconnected because on one hand Comforts of Home has stated they don't need as many parking spaces yet they are encouraging visitors and family members to visit where they could need more parking spaces. He asked for clarification. Ms. Fritz said Comforts of Home does not hold large events like some of the other assisted living facilities do so they would not need additional parking space. If that was a concern of the city Comforts of Home could shuttle people in from another location. Comforts of Home is so confident about the parking needs based on their parking history at their buildings that if the city would like to put an amendment in the conditions stating that fact that would be fine with them. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked on a typical day what kinds of social events would you have where you would encourage family members to participate in and how many family members would you anticipate having on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Doce said based on the experience at the Blaine location she would estimate four to five cars a day. During the day many family members are working. There are a few people that visit over lunch but otherwise most of their visitors come in the evening or on the weekend. Visitors are invited and encouraged to come for breakfast, lunch or dinner. The parking lot at the Blaine facility is never full. People are just busy so there isn't a lot of people that come all at once. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked how many residents there are at the Blaine location? Ms. Doce said they have 29 residents at the Blaine location. Acting Chairperson Trippler said the proposed Maplewood location would have 13 more people than the Blaine location so he would guess there wouldn't be a parking problem based on those statements made by representatives of Comforts of Home. Acting Chairperson Trippler asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the commission regarding this proposal. Nobody in the audience came forward to speak. Acting Chairperson Trippler closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -9- Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the comprehensive land use plan from business commercial (Be) to high multiple dwelling residential (R-3H) for the properties at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street. The city bases these changes on the following findings: a. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: 1) Having a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low-to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. 2) Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. 3) The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 4) The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. 5) It is located off an arterial street, on a collector. 6) It is located near a park, open space, and wetlands. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the conditional use permit for a multiple dwelling planned unit development within the BC zoning district. Approval is subject to several conditions as outlined below: a. Have the engineering department approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 25, 2006, engineering plan review including, but not limited to, the installation of a six to eight foot high berm with evergreen tree plantings on the north side of the lot (adjacent Highway 36) and the construction of a six-foot wide sidewalk along the entire Hazelwood Street frontage. b. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 27, 2006, with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. c. The owner shall combine the two properties into one lot for tax identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -10- d. The applicant must provide the city with verification that the assisted living facility will meet state noise standards. This can be accomplished through a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the applicant will have to construct the facility so it meets the standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. e. The project is approved with a parking reduction of 59 parking spaces (84 parking spaces are required per city code, 25 parking spaces proposed). f. The project is approved with a 359 square foot area reduction in the required unit floor area (580 square foot units are required per city code, 221 to 360 square foot units are proposed). g. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. h. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. i. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the CDRB on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, and to the city council on Monday, May 22, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler and Mr. Grover were the planning commission representatives at the April 18,2006, city council meeting regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Grover was absent this evening so the report was given by Mr. Trippler. Mr. Trippler reported that the Gladstone meeting was held at 6:30 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center theatre. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-01-06 -11- The Maplewood residents spoke first and then the different boards and commissions had the opportunity to speak. The city council decided to attend a special workshop to discuss and review the information they had received regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. More information will follow. b. Ms. Finwall reported on the April 24, 2006, city council meeting. Ms. Finwall reported that the city council discussed the CUP for the Maple Tree Group Home at length and the city council was proposing to revoke the group home license for 12 individuals but the discussion was tabled for more information. c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the May 8, 2006, city council meeting. Items that will be discussed include the code amendment for an accessory structure and the easement vacation at 2249 Kenwood Court. d. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative at the May 22, 2006, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a CUP for a PUD and the Land Use Plan Change. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Maplewood Planning Commission Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Carver Crossing Improvements (formerly Co Par Development) -- City Project 05-07 - Review of Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Comments and Responses May 9,2006 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 Company. The project is called Carver Crossing and Kimley.Hom and Associates, Inc. (KHA), (one pf the city's consultants) prepared the EAW. The city council approved the EAW and staff routed it for public comment (as required by state law). The city has received several comments from the public and staff has attached responses to those comments for information. The Planning Commission has previously received the EAW. Review of the comments and responses in the context of applicability toward the final development plan proposal is recommended. Comments on the EAW as they relate to the site development plans also are appropriate, as the city will be considering final action on the EAW. The Commission can submit comments to the City Council that staff will include and responded to through the City Council. BACKGROUND The City Council ordered the EAW for this project area due to concerns about the impacts from the originally proposed 386-unit development. At the time the city ordered the EAW, staff suggested that the EAW might provide significant findings that could require the developer to make substantial revisions to the proposed project plans. The EAW found significant issues with site development plans, and the developer has been cooperative in revising their plans to accommodate and address the environmental concems. The long preparation time (over 1 year) for the EAW and development plan process is due to the findings and the developers revisions to the project plans. The findings of the EAW have required the developer to revise the plans and to reduce the housing unit count from 386 units to the current plan of 299 units. As now proposed, the 299 housing units on the 73-acre site is the lowest density development level provided within the Maplewood Land Use Plan (at 4.1 units per acre). Background on EAW Process The planners and engineers from KHA will review in detail the EAW comments and the responses at the planning commission meeting. There are several important items that the planning commission should review and discuss: . 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 site includes four wetland complexes covering 7.32 acres. The protection of and the buffers around the wetlands were major issues that required significant revisions to the original site plan. The current proposal will impact 0.2 acres of wetland that the developer will mitigate 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 that have been degraded by area construction activity, namely from the 1-494 freeway. The changes the developer made to the original project plans to address these issues has created much-improved site and project plans. Planning Commission Report Carver Crossing EAW May 9,2006 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. The city needed to study future plans 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 sanitary service to this area. As part of the construction of the lift station, there is need for a sewer-crossing pipe under 1-494 to the eastern side of the freeway. It is necessary to construct the sewer pipe at this time as part of the public improvements for this development. This timing necessary is to avoid major disruption of the Carver Crossing site after the homes and roadways are constructed. · The crossing pipe will provide sanitary sewer to the area east of 1-494 (primarily along Sterling Street). The sewer extension is disturbing to some of the existing residents of this area, who enjoy the existing large lots and septic systems of that area. Others on the eastern side of 1-494 are interested in developing their property and the sewer extension will help provide them the ability to subdivide their property. This sewer extension has the potential to be a very controversial issue. From an engineering standpoint, if/when the city approves the Carver Crossing development, a lift station is required 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 (when compared to other residential land uses). The engineer's analysis concludes that some turn lanes and expansion are required on Carver Avenue at the development entrance (Henry Lane) and at the McKnight-Carver intersection. All other impacts on area streets are within acceptable standards, except the Bailey Road-Sterling Street intersection, which is already failing. This intersection is within Newport (Washington County) and should be scheduled for improvement. This development does not have significant impact on the traffic operations at that intersection. · Storm water issues: The project engineer has designed this site to meet the highest level of retention and treatment applied to development within the City of Maplewood. A majority of the site will exceed the infiltration of flows for over 90% of the storms within the area. This will provide infiltration of storm events of up to 2.5 inches of rainfall. Current standards within other developments, such as Legacy Village, provided for infiltration of only the 1.0-inch storm event. The impacts on Fish Creek on the receiving water bodies have been reduced to a minimal or negligible amount. This critical issue related to impacts of phosphorus and suspended solids are part of the City's current plan to meet the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements placed on Maplewood (along with 29 other communities in Minnesota) to reduce drainage for quantity and quality to pre-1988 levels. The analysis of the proposed project plans shows that drainage should meet this requirement with the increased standards. . Noise: This site currently is impacted by freeway noise. Many locations within the development exceed the night time (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise standard. This is common for suburban developments that are adjacent to major roadways. The proposed mitigation is to provide climate-controlled units and increased wall insulation. In addition, the builder will need to locate any outside common areas on the west side of buildings. The developer also is considering installing a berm along 1-494 as part of the final site planning. These elements should reduce future resident exposure to traffic noise and provide the City with a reasonable response to the freeway noise issue. Planning Commission Report Carver Crossing EAW May 9,2006 Page Three EAW and Development Process Schedule City Council Receives EAW/Authorizes Publishing Planning Commission Receives EAW Neighborhood Meeting (6:00-8:00 PM @ Fire Station) EAW Comment Deadline Planning Commission Receives Response to Comments Development Plans to Planning Commission/Public Hearing City Council Determines Need for EIS City Council Authorizes Preparation of Feasibility Report City Council Consideration of Development Proposal Start Construction for Improvements (assumes approvals) RECOMMENDATION March 13, 2006 March 20, 2006 March 30, 2006 April 12, 2006 May 15, 2006 May 15, 2006 May 22,2006 May 22,2006 June 12, 2006 August 7, 2006 The Planning Commission should review and provide comments on the EAW public comments and responses for the Carver Crossing Development Proposal and review the area development plans. Attachment: 1. Carver Crossing EAW Comments and Responses DRAFT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE CARVER CROSSING OF MAPLEWOOD PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA W) May 2006 Responsible Governmental Unit City of Maple wood Charles Ahl, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer 1902 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-249-2400 Fax: 651-249-2409 E-Mail: chuck.ahl@cLmaplewood.mn.us Approved by the City of Maple wood City Council on ,2006. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 I CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE CARVER CROSSING OF MAPLEWOOD PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET May 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION RESPONSE TO EA W COMMENTS EA W Notification, Distribution and Comment Period Comments Received and Responses COMMENT LETTERS FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description Criteria to Decide if the Project has Potential for Significant Environmental Effects Criteria A: Type, Extent and Reversibility of Environmental Effects Criteria B: Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects Criteria C: Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation Criteria D: Extent to Which the Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled RECORD OF DECISION City of Mapl<?Wood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 2 INTRODUCTION An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) has been prepared by the City of Maplewood, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the Carver Crossing Project. CoPar Development, LLC is the project proposer. The EA Wand the respective comments have been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 to determine if the project has potential for significant environmental effects. This document includes response to comments received by the City of Maplewood, Findings of Fact supporting the decision, and the Record of Decision indicating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary for this project. The proposed project is located just west ofl-494 and south of Carver Avenue in the southern part of the City of Maplewood. The proposed project is a senior housing development that will include 299 residential units. The planned density of the development is approximately 4.1 units per acre. The construction with the proposed development is expected to continue over several years. Construction activities will include grading, infrastructure installation, and construction of the residential units. The required project infrastructure, including utilities, roadway and storm drainage facilities are planned to be completed in approximately one year. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of FactlResponse to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS EA W Notification, Distribution and Comment Period In accordance with Minnesota Rule 4410.1500, the EA W was completed and distributed on March 6, 2006, to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EA W mailing list and other interested parties. The notification was published in the EQB Monitor on March 13, 2006, initiating the 30-day comment period. A press release was issued to the Maplewood Review following the distribution of the EA W. A letter was also sent out by the City of Maplewood to surrounding property owners with information about the proposed project, availability of the EA W, and details regarding the public informational meeting on March 30, 2006. A public informational meeting for the project was held on March 30, 2006 (see sign in sheet at the end of this section). The comment period for the EA Wended on April 12, 2006. The City of Maple wood City Council and Planning Commission were briefed on the EA W process on March 13 and 20, 2006, respectively. Comments Received and Responses The following comments were received on the Carver Crossing EA W. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (April 24, 2006) The Corps of Engineers commented that project Wetland 4 is not a "water of United States". Therefore, it is not subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Comment so noted for the record. Minnesota Department of Transportation - Metropolitan District April 6, 2006 1. Comment so noted regarding contact of Brad Canaday in MnDOT's Oakdale office (right of way). 2. Comment so noted regarding submittal of drainage information to Michelle Buller at MnDOT. 3. Comment so noted regarding the need for a permit if MnDOT right of way is impacted (permit included in Permit and Approval table). City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 4 Construction work is anticipated within Mn/DOT right of way. A permit will be obtained, as required, prior to the commencement of any work within MnlDOT right of way. 4. The City acknowledges that MnDOT will not be responsible for noise mitigation measures associated with existing background traffic near the proposed project. A noise analysis associated with the impacts of surrounding traffic on the proposed project was conducted and the results presented in the EAW. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources AprH12, 2006 I. The permit table will be revised to reflect the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval by the Minnesota DNR (associated with the Critical Area). 2. Item No. 14 of the EA W should be corrected to include reference to the Fish Creek Shore land Overlay District (Maplewood Code, Article IX, See 44-1236 through 1250). The City's Shoreland Overlay District requires a 50-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark. The proposed project will meet these requirements. 3. A letter from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (April 25, 2006) regarding their comments on the project is included at the end of this section. In the referenced letter, the Watershed District has requested that "Permanent Dual Purpose Basin (PDPB) 102 be rerouted to the central wetland on the north side ofthe project instead of connecting directly to the Fish Creek Piping System." The developer has agreed to this plan revision. 4. The MnDNR's comment of support associated with the proposed development's stormwater management features is so noted. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (April 10, 2006) I. Comment so noted regarding the need for a General Stormwater Permit. 2. Comment so noted regarding the information required to be included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 3. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permit application will include the appropriate wetland mitigation sequencing information. 4. A limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Pre- Development Response Action Plan have been prepared on the proposed project site based on the initial findings/recommendations in the Phase I ESA. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 5 Based on the findings of the Limited Phase II ESA, soil will be excavated at appropriate locations along with the excavation of solid waste from the ravine pile northwest of Henry Lane. Petroleum impacted soil will be over excavated using the MPCA guidance criteria. Impacted soils will be disposed of at a licensed facility. Metropolitan Council, April 7, 2006 I. The MnDNR's review of the proposed development will be added to the revised Permit and Approval table. 2. As stated in the EA W, the developer will work with the City to minimize impacts to this area and develop appropriate mitigation based on the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Based On the tree survey completed for the project site, there are a total of I, III significant trees (significant tree is defined as 8 inch diameter or larger) on the project site. The proposed action would remove 467 significant trees. To meet the requirements of the City's Woodlot Alterative Permit, impacted trees must be replaced one for one, up to 10 trees per acre. For the proposed project, a total of 730 trees are needed On site. The current landscaping plan for the project site identifies 624 replacement trees (over story, ornamental, coniferous and single family front yard trees) on site. This would exceed the City's tree replacement requirement (86 trees would be required to meet the 10/acre replacement ratio). As stated in the EA W" The City of Maplewood's comprehensive plan will need to be amended. This would change the land uses designation within the project area from R-I single dwellings to R-3(L) multiple dwellings -low density. For the proposed plan, the City will require a conditional use permit for a planned unit development (PUD). The PUD will allow the following features to be included in the project: a mix of housing styles, variety of setbacks, smaller lots for the detached homes, and many units to be located on private driveways. The PUD will allow for a site plan that will help preserve the natural features that exist on the site." 3. See response to comment number 2 from the Minnesota DNR. The proposed project would meet the 50-foot setback requirements from the OHW (Shoreland Zoning Section of Maplewood Code). Two separate twenty-foot access easements in favor of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and Ramsey County will be provided to Fish Creek. One easement will provide access to Fish Creek from that portion of the development located north ofFish Creek, and the other easement will provide access to the southern portion of the development. These access easements were discussed and agreed upon with Ramsey County Parks and the Ramsey City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 6 Washington Metro Watershed District during the development of the project site plan. 4. The proposed storm drainage system includes a series ofrain gardens and permanent dual purpose detention basins (PDPB's) to address the stormwater treatment and rate control requirements for the project. The following Permanent Dual Purpose Basin (PDPB) Data Schedule details the required and proposed infiltration volumes for each of the PDPB's. Required infiltration volumes have been determined based upon the City of Maple wood's "Environmentally Enhanced Storm Water Practice Worksheet." As shown on the table, all of the PDPB's meet the City's infiltration volume requirements. Overall, the required infiltration volume is 69,059 cubic feet, and the proposed PDPB's include a total infiltration volume of99,663 cubic feet. PERMANENT DUAL PURPOSE BASIN DATA SCHEDULE PDPB PDPB PDPB PDPB PDPB PDPB 101 102 I03A 103B 104 105 CATCHMENT AREA 17.61 14.42 3.89 0.98 2.06 2.12 (ACRES) PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 45 34 76 51 82 65 INFILTRATION 26,415 18,926 10,892 1,764 5,974 5,088 VOLUME REQUIRED. (CF) INFILTRATION 42,427 22,520 11,630 2,004 12,022 9,060 VOLUME PROPOSED.. (CF) BASIN BOTIOM 870 870 862 864 880 876 ELEVATION 2 YEAR IDGH WATER 872.1 872.8 865.9 866.3 882.1 878.3 10 YEAR IDGH WATER 873.7 874.1 867.8 866.9 882.8 880.1 100 YEAR IDGH 876.7 875.0 868.3 867.3 883.8 881.6 WATER DISCHARGE RATE - 2 0.05 0.04 0.76 0.46 0.06 0.00 YR EVENT (CFS) DISCHARGE RATE-I0 1.99 1.52 1.50 2.76 0.68 0.00 YR EVENT (CFS) DISCHARGE RATE- 4.46 15.99 21.38 4.71 1.18 0.69 100 YR EVENT (CFS) INFILTRATION 2.75" 2.50" 1.25" 2.00" 2.50" 2.50" CAP ACITYu. (EVENT) TOTAL INFILTRATION VOLUME REQUIRED. - 69,059 CF TOTAL INFILTRATION VOLUME PROPOSED.. = 99,663 CF City ofMaplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 7 developer has proposed to undertake restorative/stabilization work along the section ofFish Creek within the boundaries of the project area. 7. The Permit and Approval table has been revised to reflect the required City action on the Mississippi River Critical Area. Washington County (April 5, 2006) 1. As part of the initial analysis, the trip generation for typical single-family detached homes and senior adult housing - detached home were compared to estimate the reduction in trips for a senior development. This comparison showed that a reduction in trips between 47 and 65 percent for the AM perk hour, PM peak hour, and the daily trip generation would be likely. That is the reason a 50 percent reduction was used to estimate the trip generation in the EA W. Additional dialog with Washington County Staff, regarding the trip generation has occurred since receiving their comments to the EA W. To help ensure that the traffic impacts are conservatively assessed, the reduction in the apartment trip generation was decreased from 50 percent to 25 percent as suggested by Washington County. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect this increase in traffic. The updated analysis is included at the end of this section. 2. The site trip distribution map included in the EA W caused some confusion because some of the percent distributions were not listed on the figure. This figure has been updated. The previous analysis assumed that 30 percent of the traffic would travel south to the Interchange ofTH 61 and 1-494. This traffic was split between Point Douglas Road and Sterling Street. Fifteen percent of the site traffic was distributed to the north via Carver Avenue to Century Boulevard. After further discussion with Washington County, the percentage of site trips using Point Douglas and Carver A venue were decreased by 5 percent each. The 10 percent of trips that used those roads were rerouted to the south on Sterling to obtain access to the TH 61 and 1-494 Interchange. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect the impacts of the changes in the site traffic trip distributions. The updated analysis is included at the end of this section. The traffic analysis using a more conservative trip generation number and an increased trip distribution to/from Sterling Street did not significantly change the traffic results. There was no significant change in the approach level-of-service values at any of the intersections included in the original analysis. The delay on the southbound approach to Sterling Street did not increase and remained similar to the no build conditions. Therefore, the mitigation measures presented in the original EA W are still recommended and no further mitigation measures are recommended. Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (April 7, 2006) City oj Map/ewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to CommenvRecord of Decision May 2006 9 1. As presented in this Findings of Fact Document, the City has carefully considered the findings from the EA W, comments received on the EA W, and public input received during the comment period. Based on the findings and review of the four criteria reviewed to determine the need for a state EIS; the City as the RGU has determined that an EIS is not required for the proposed action. 2. As presented in the EA W, vehicle related air emissions are expected to be negligible based on traffic operations and air quality findings from the 1-494/TH 61 EA prepared by MnlDOT at intersections surrounding the proposed project 3. See response to comment number 1 above. 4. As stated in the EA W (Item #24) "The traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are not expected to be at levels that would result in a measurable increase in noise on surrounding neighborhoods. 1-494 is located on the east of the proposed project and the noise generated from 1-494 may impact residents in the proposed development." The EA W also referenced the 1-494/TH 61 Environmental Assessment (EA), which included a detailed noise analysis and review of mitigation measures. The noise analysis included in the EA indicated that the proposed roadway project would result in noise levels 3 to 4 decibels higher than existing noise levels (existing 1999 versus build 2020). Noise walls were not considered cost effective in this area. Therefore, no noise mitigation was programmed as part of the roadway improvement. The noise analysis completed for the 1-494/TH 61 EA assessed the impacts to the east ofI-494. To assess the impacts of the grade differences between the east and west sides ofI-494, the proposed project grading, and the two condominiums, a noise analysis was completed for the Carver Crossing project to determine the highways impact on the proposed project. The results were presented in the EAW. To assess the noise impacts, the traffic model was validated against existing (1999) conditions, and modified to estimate 2010 conditions with the proposed Carver Crossing project. The model included one additional lane in each direction on 1-494, the impacts of the proposed condominium buildings and projected 2010 traffic volumes on 1-494. As stated in the EA W, the noise analysis indicated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) daytime standard LIO is exceeded at the two condominium buildings located closest to 1-494 and at five of the attached townhomes located north of the buildings. MPCA nighttime standards are anticipated to be exceeded throughout the entire portion of the proposed project located north ofFish Creek, and a significant portion of the proposed project located south of Fish Creek. City of Map/ewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 /0 As stated in the EA W, and the specific comment; Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that "Any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) I, 2, or 3 in any location where these standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use." In that regard, the City has worked with the developer during the past year on a site plan that provides noise mitigation measures either through natural topography, landscaping buffer, and/or building/site design and layout. As stated in the EA W, the common areas for the two condominium buildings to the west of 1-494 will be on the west side of the buildings. No decks/patios associated with the two condominiums will face 1-494. Additionally, as noted in Response No.2 to the Metropolitan Council, the current Tree Preservation Plan submitted as part of the Preliminary Plat references a total of 624 replacement trees on the project site. The City and developer will work closely together to maximize the density/effectiveness of tree plantings on the eastern edge of the project (see Cross Section and SectionlElevation figures at the end of this section). Additionally, as stated in the EA W, residential units will be designed to minimize noise impacts by providing climate controlled units and increasing wall insulation. These specific requirements will defined in subsequent building permit submittals to the City. Based on the findings from the noise analysis, the mitigation measures incorporated into the overall site plan, and the building requirements to reduce noise, the City has determined that "reasonable measures" have been incorporated into the proposed development. 5. See response to Metropolitan Council comment number 4. 6. See response to comment number 5 above. 7. See response to comment number 5 above. 8. Item No. 14 of the EA W should be corrected to include reference to the Fish Creek Shoreland Overlay District (Maplewood Code, Article IX, See 44-1236 through 1250). The City's Shoreland Overlay District requires a 50-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark. The proposed project will meet these requirements. Under the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the developer, an approximate ISO-foot conservation easement on Fish Creek will be established for this project. Additionally, the developer is proposed to undertake restorative/stabilization work along the section of Fish Creek within the boundaries of the project area. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 II 9. See response to comment number 5 above. 10. See response to comment number 5 above. Terry and Linda Baumgart (March 29, 2006) I. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices gives criteria that should be considered prior to the installation of a multi-way stop application. The traffic volumes are not at levels where a multi-way stop application should be considered. The realignment of the intersection improves the sight distance by 300 feet, making the new location better from both a safety and traffic operations perspective. 2. See Response to Comment No.1 above. Sue Schlomka (April 7, 2006) I. Your support for the proposed project and its design is so noted. Matt Ledvina (April 10, 2006) 1. The permit and approval table has been revised to reflect the required actions associated with the Mississippi River Critical Area. 2. As stated in the EA W, the proposed project is within the Mississippi River Critical Area, in an area designated as "Urban Diversified District". This district classification has the following goals: I. The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial and residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. 2. Protect historical sites and areas, and the natural scenic and environmental resources. 3. Expand public access to and enjoyment of the river. The City may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if they are compatible with these goals. Based on review of the surrounding land use, specific project site conditions, and the fact that the proposed action would not impact the public access and enjoyment of the river, the city has concluded that the proposed action is compatible with the Urban Diversified District. In addition to the above noted goals defined as part of the Urban Diversified District under the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, the City has defined the following policies for the Critical Area: City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 ]2 . The City shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. The proposed action will not impact Mississippi River bluffs and/or scenic overlooks. . Maplewood will work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on possible ordinance changes that would affect lands within the Critical Area. The permit and approval table has been revised to reflect the DNR 's review role regarding proposed development within the Critical Area. . The City will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies. The revised permit and approval table identifies the subsequent reviews/approvals required by the City of Maplewoodfor the proposed development. The developer recently submitted a preliminary plat for City review. . Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The City will review these effects when approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single- family homes. As noted in the EA W, and responses to comments provided on the EA W; the City has worked closely with the developer over the past 12 months in developing a site plan for the proposed action that minimizes environmental and social impacts to the site and surrounding area. Mitigation measures have been addressed and identified, to the extent appropriate, within the EAW and this Findings Document. The revised permit and approval table identifies the subsequent reviews/approvals required by the City of Maplewood and other permitting agencies for the proposed development. . Maplewood requires all development in the Critical Area to meet all state regulations for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). This particular city policy is not applicable to this development, as ISTS's are not proposed as part of this project. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 13 . Maplewood will notify the DNR whenever the City receives a development or subdivision application for land within the Critical Area. The revised permit and approval table identifies review by the MnDNR. . The City shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. See response to Metropolitan Council comment number 4. . Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. See response to policy above. . The City encourages the clustering of structures and the use of designs that will reduce public facility costs, which will provide more open space and will improve scenic designs. As stated in the EAW" The City of Maplewood's comprehensive plan will need to be amended. This would change the land uses designation within the project area from R-l single dwellings to R-3(L) multiple dwellings- low density. For the proposed plan, the City will require a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. The PUD will allow the following features to be included in the project: a mix of housing styles, variety of setbacks, smaller lots for the detached homes, and many units to be located on private driveways. The PUD will allow for a site plan that will help preserve the natural features that exist on the site. " 3. See response to comment number 2 above. 4. There is an existing stormwater discharge from the large central wetland area that will be used as part ofthe proposed development. This existing discharge was inadvertently omitted from Figure 9 of the EA W. 5. Your comment correctly states that the proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer stub will be constructed east of the proposed lift station to accommodate potential future development to the east ofI-494. Although no specific development plans have been submitted for the property to the east ofI-494, the infrastructure will be designed to accommodate up to 60-acres ofland zoned as R-2. 6. The developer is in the process of obtaining a geotechnical report for the proposed development. The report will contain soils information and construction recommendations as required per the City's Engineering Design Standards. Also, City ofMaplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 14 additional borings will be included for critical areas; such as locations for proposed retaining walls, steep slope construction areas and locations for proposed infiltration. Mark Bonitz (April 10, 2006) 1. Rottlund Homes provided information regarding a similar senior condominium development that they completed in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. As part of the referenced development, over 65 percent of the buyers were over the age of 65. The buyers' family status were as follows: 55 percent single, 39 percent couple, and 6 percent did not respond. Over 55 percent of those that purchased condominiums moved from within the same city. Responses to the series of question presented under item 1 are as follows: Must all residents be 55 or older? The active adult "senior" age restriction applies to the owner of the home. In the case of joint ownership (couple) one must be 55 to qualify. How would qualified residents with children be addressed? Children will not be restricted from the development. Due to the age restriction applied to the parents, a limited number of children in the development are expected. Children that live in the development will likely be in the late teen to young adult or college age range. Would there be a requirement that all units be owner occupies? All residences will be occupied by a single family that qualifies as such in accordance with the Maplewood City Code definition offamily. The renting of a single family home to another single family could occur, but the renter would have to meet the 55+ age requirement. Would residents be allowed to rent out the units? See previous response. 2. This development is not an assisted living center, so if a resident's health makes it impossible to continue to reside in their home without assistance, they will need to pursue a development/facility that provides the assisted care that is required for his/her condition. There are several reasons why a resident may want to change to a different housing style within the development. An example could include a situation where a healthy senior no longer feels that maintaining a detached single-family dwelling unit is necessary, provided that one is for sale, they could move into an attached townhome or condominium. 3. As stated in the EA W: 'The City of Maplewood's comprehensive plan or land use plan will need to be amended. This would change the land use designation within the project area from R-I single dwellings (4.1 units/acre) to R-3(L) City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 15 multiple dwellings -low density (4.4-6.3 units/acre). For the proposed plan, the city will require a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development CPUD). The PUD will allow the following features to be included in the project area: a mix of housing styles, variety of setbacks, smaller lots for the detached homes, and units to be located on private driveways. The PUD will allow for a site plan that will help preserve the natural features that exist on the site." 4. As stated in the EA W, there are several parcels of land owned by Ramsey County Parks and Recreation that are located within or adjacent to the study area. One parcel runs east-west throughout the majority of the proposed development. The remaining parcels border the portion of the proposed development located south ofFish Creek. These parcels are about 35, 26 and 21 acres in size and are located adjacent to the southern portion of the development on the south, west and north sides, respectively. The proposed development will not impact this public land, which is currently used as open space and for deer management. 5. The EA W states that the change in cover type associated with the proposed project will result in displacement of species that inhabit existing grassland and woodland areas. As noted in other responses to comments, the PUD provides flexibility for the site plan to help preserve the natural features that exist on the site. Additionally, the project developer currently proposes to plant 624 replacement trees on the project site. This number of replacement trees far exceeds the City's requirements under the Woodlot Alternative Permit. The reference to "region" within the EA W does not represent a defined geographic area. Rather it was meant to refer to the general surrounding area to the project site. More specifically, there are three parcels of land owned by Ramsey County Parks surrounding the proposed project that could provide habitat for displaced wildlife (see Item #25 of the EA W). 6. See response to Metropolitan Council comment number 2. 7. The Carver Crossing EA W was submitted to all agencies/organizations required under the Minnesota Environmental Review requirements. Additionally, the EA W was posted on the City of Maplewood website. As the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy submitted comments on the EA W, they will officially receive this Findings Document. 8. This area of Maplewood is served by several parks and open space areas which are briefly described below: . Pleasantview Park, a fully developed 14 acre neighborhood park which is located about one mile north of the proposed development. This park includes play fields, basketball courts, picnic grilles, playground area, City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 16 extensive trail system, and an undeveloped portion with seating areas that provide great vistas of downtown St. Paul. . The development would be surrounded by Fish Creek Regional Park (130 acres) and be located near Caver Crossing (27 acre open space site) located just north of Carver Avenue and west of 1-494. . Many residents in southern Maplewood also utilize Carver Lake Park which is owned and managed by the Woodbury Parks and Recreation Department. This park offers public swimming on Carver Lake, expansive trails system, and picnic facilities. Because the proposed development is surrounded by several parks and open space and the development will serve senior residents, City Staff is recommending that public park land not be pursued in lieu of park dedication fees. City staff will also request that the developer meet the following conditions: I. A tot lot be constructed for grandchildren and/or visiting children that would be a public tot lot to serve the surrounding property owners. 2. The sidewalk trail system be public and made available to the public. 3. Two areas be set aside as vista viewing points to be constructed and developed at the city's expense at a future date. 4. Trail access be afforded to Fish Creek Regional Park for the residents within the proposed development. City staff will also recommend to the Parks and Recreation Commission that a minimum of one-third of the park dedication fees collected as part of this development be allocated south of Mailand Road in southern Maplewood. Maplewood residents have the opportunity to be involved with park related decision by attending and participating in both the City of Maplewood Park Commission and City Council Meetings. 9. See response to comment number 3 above. 10. The estimates presented in the EA Ware based on the best available information at this time. Please refer to responses to comments numbers 1 and 2 above. I J. As stated at the public meeting: The development will generate significant increase in property value and thus new tax value. The decision on how to use those new taxes falls entirely with the City Council determining a city-wide need. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 17 12. At present, the City has nothing specifically planned for this area. There could be several spot sights that connect to the piping under 1-494, but the City does not proposed to extend sewer south along Sterling for at least 10 to 20 years. 13. See responses to Washington County's comments I and 2 (Revised Traffic Analysis). Ron Cockriel and The Sons and Daughters of Highwood (April 11, 2006) I. The City requirements for storm water control are quite stringent and exceed the current watershed standards. The problem with the Fish Creek project in 2005 was that wetland restoration work was underway when a protective dam failed and washed debris into the Creek. 2. As stated in the EA W; "At this time, there have not been development plans discussed or proposed on the east side ofI-494. A review of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the topography in the area was completed to determine the most economical and environmentally sound way to serve this portion of Maple wood. The option of crossing 1-494 was suggested in the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. When development plans are proposed, east of 1- 4949, and south ofFish Creek, the required environmental review process will be completed to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed development. " The City does not have plans to extend sewer south along Sterling Street for at least 10 to 20 years. 3. The proposed project site includes four wetland complexes covering 7.32 acres of the site. During the development of the site plan, revisions to the plan were specifically made to avoid and minimize impacts to area wetlands. The current plans impacts 0.2 acre of wetland, that will be mitigated on site with 0.43 acres of new wetland. Additionally, the project proposer has agreed to features that will provide for future enhancement of the existing wetlands. As part of the wetland conservation act permit application, the applicant will provide the required wetland sequencing information. 4. The referenced oak tree in question is outside the proposed project area, and will therefore not be impacted by this project. 5. See response to Mark Bonitz comment number 5. 6. See response to Matt Ledvina comment number 2. 7. See responses to Washington County's comments I and 2 (Revised Traffic Analysis). City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 18 Fran and Vickie Meyer (Submitted at March 30, 2006 Public Meeting) 1. The overpass at 1-494 just east of the proposed access provides some limitations as to how the turn lanes can be introduced at the access to the development. Carver A venue will have to be widened both to the north and south in order for the westbound left turn lane to be added. Since there is a right-turn lane, the majority of the widening will occur on the south side of Carver Avenue. The roadway will be striped to provide smooth transition through this area so that the through lanes of traffic are not forced into a turn lane. See the conceptual intersection layout included at the end of this section. Greg Miller (Submitted at March 30, 2006 Public Meeting) I. Current plans do not call for a connection to Dorland from/to the proposed development. Attachments to Response to Comments Section . March 30, 2006 Public Information Open House Sign In Sheets (3) . Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Letter, April 25, 2006 . Revised Figure - Site Traffic Distribution . Revised Figure - 2010 Projected Conditions (AM Peak Hour Trips) . Revised Figure - 20 I 0 Projected Conditions (PM Peak Hour Trips) . Revised Table - Updated Proposed Development Trip Generation . Table - McKnight Road/Carver A venue Intersection . Table - Carver A venue/Sterling Street Intersection . Table - Henry Avenue/Carter Avenue, One-Way Stopped Control . Table - Sterling Street/Bailey Road Intersection, AM Peak Hour . Table - Sterling Street/Bailey Road Intersection, PM Peak Hour . HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (2010 AM and PM Peak Hour) . Figure - Carver Crossing - Cross Section Topography City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 19 . Figure - Carver Crossing - Sections/Elevations . Concept Layout, Carver A venue Turn Lanes City of Mapl~ood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 20 City of Maplewood Carver Crossing of Maplewood Environmental Ass~sment Worksheet OpeJ,l HouseIPublic Meeting March 30, 2006 6pm Londin Lane Fire Station SIGN IN NamelAe:ency Street Address City State Zin ., .... I ,- ~~r ;;. .J7 ~ ,,-? .... ....c.-;JC. , -~ oJAJ ~~/ '9 ~ J..4JJl f'YJ drel'" 137~ 'S'". /j .1 I ILl ,...e,.v k1tJ .~nt-;';: L; :.~S-LA:,.Inr-1' .,.- CfiO// ~?f~b.L itJ. h ,::)...., _._ {'II.N ~l. 'r:;,i ^ 1& A tn ,^-.'.-.. 1 A J... ,t'1'1-1 :....",.... <:..WnY ~A.._IA' ..J M..' ~1I';1- ..J (. I I .- . - NamelAl!encv "'\~.\f "" .D I" 'Ok ..f:J Frl-L..",.. /P' ,/ . City of Maplewood Carver Crossing of Maple wood . Environmental Assessment Worksheet Open HouseIPublic Meeting . March 30, 2006 6pm Londin Lane Fire Station SIGN IN Street Address City 2'3./,80"" f.\"l"".\. a.a. 'B""f do..,/.."..I' Cf MAl...! I . State IAtJ J'Ii ,r..- Zin C~ll~ S-F//91 . City of Maplewood Carver Crossing ofMaplewood Environmental Assessment Worksheet Open HouseIPnbJic Meeting March 30, 2006 6pm Londin Lane Fire Station SIGN IN rz /r",41 ~Il ;If"" Ramsey-Washington Metro District 2665 Noel Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 (651) 792-7950 fax: (651) 792-7951 email: office@rwmwd.org website: www.rwmwd.org April 25, 2006 Mr. Chuck Ahl City of Maplewood 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ahl, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Carver Crossing project. District staff met with the project developer and engineer yesterday afternoon to review the stormwater, wetland, and erosion and sediment control plans. I have the following comments to offer: Storm water Plan District staff was pleased to see the developer working with the City to accomplish above and beyond in the storm water management plans. We recognize the need to reduce volumes from this site and reducing volumes achieves a great deal in water quality improvements. The developer indicated that they will be infiltrating well more than an inch of runoff from the entire site. It appears that currently the plan would meet our requirements for storm water management with the following additional comments: I. We request that PDPB 102 be rerouted to the central wetland on the north side of the project instead of connecting directly to the Fish Creek piping system. 2. Maintenance agreements for all the storm water management BMPs shall be recorded with the County and include performance standards to determine if the infiltration areas are functioning as designed. 3. Planting plans for the infiltration basins and rain gardens should be submitted for review. Wetland Plan The developer indicated on the plans that a wetland buffer of 50 feet will be left undisturbed with the current plan. That does meet the requirements of the District. The wetland mitigation area is now being proposed along the south and east sides of the northern most wetlands. Thatlocation is acceptable to the District but will wait to see the wetland replacement plan to comment on the quality of the replacement. I informed the developer that the wetland replacement application should be submitted fairly soon in order to keep on the schedule they are looking for. Once a complete application is submitted to the District, I will notifY the agencies about the project and provide a comment period for the wetland plan. Ultimately, the District Board approves the wetland replacement plan. Erosion and Sediment Control I have not fully reviewed the erosion and sediment control plans but I did indicate to the developer that we would like special attention given to the plan especially in the areas directly adjacent to the wetlands and most importantly the creek. We may require additional information be provided including narratives describing the construction sequencing and methods of erosion control during the various phases of construction. What we don't want to happen is to have the whole site open, being graded and left that way for long periods of time, especially along the edge of Fish Creek. We would like to see some selective grading occur with seeding and stabilization directly behind the grading. We will review the plans further and provide additional input to the developer and their engineers. In addition to the above items, the District discussed with the developer the need to maintain access to the creek for maintenance of storm water management structures in the creek and the creek itself. It was also recognized that an easement the District holds over this property will have to be rewritten to include only the areas needed by the District for drainage rights. When the developer submits their grading permit application to the District, staff will complete a more thorough review with all the information provided. As we usually do, staff will copy the City on any additional comments we provide to the applicant through our permitting process. Please contact me with any questions you may have on the comments provided. Sincerely, Tina Carstens Permit Program Coordinator cc: Ken Roberts, City of Maple wood Kurt Schneider, Copar Development George Abernathy, Alliant Engineering Cliff Aichinger, RWMWD Brad Lindaman, Barr Engineering ~ 120% I ~=n Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Vl "C '" il. II~I Carver Avenue " c '" --J i:- 51 :z:: Vl .......0 1U 0..... ~ III I;; . '" ...... .f: N "i: ~ " " " " > 0( ~ '" ::;: ID Carver Crossing of Maplewood Senior Housing Development T raffle Study 110% I Site Traffic Distribution t .!:: 1:: o z \@ FIGURE 1 - .. - ~ ~ - :::::0:;;- 8.:::::.. - - ~ - V> "0 '" /1 ~ .r:; C> ';: "" v ::E 28(0)1281 0(16) [16] )~ "'- 47 (2)1491 __ 162 (47) [209) 58(0)/58]...../ 8(3)(11] _ Carver Avenue ~ .." Leaend -- AM Traffic Volumes. Background (Site) [Total) ......_n .......-,.., Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 1( 00 :;;;:~ $8 !i ~ ::::N'=" 0__ t::!..st:::!.. 0-_ ~ ~- )~~ 8(6)[14] ...../ 173 (0) [173] _ 17(0)117] ~ Carver Crossing of Maplewood Senior Housing Deve[opment T raffie Study "'- 128 (1) [1291 -- 1023 (0) [1023] 0 r 8 (0)(8] ~~e~ ~oll 1i( =::9:E eee: _ 0 ~ 2010 Projected Conditions (AM Peak Hour Trips) t .r:; 1: o z FIGURE 2 Leaend -- __ 53(0)[53] ~ 0(35)[35] Vl "C ~ 125 (0)[125]_ '- ( o (58)[58] ~ I ~ """ '" 'c '" O)~ ~ F:"=- eo;- -~ 0- -0 ~ N ~ - '- 24(1)~5) __ 12 (29) [41] )~ 107(0)[107]-./' 24 (9)[33) __ $ '" o _ M ~ ~2::: ~ -- -0 - ~ -M - - ~ )t~ 23 (24) 147] -./' 873 (0)[8731 __ 2(0)~J ~ PM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [Total] ~=n Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Carver Crossing of Maplewood Senior Housing Development Traffic Study Vl ~ ClI ClI ~ ~ Vl '" .= ~ '-15(2)[17] __ 229 (0) [229] rO(O)[O] )i( =-!2.. ~ e:e:e: _ 0 N 2010 Projected Conditions (PM Peak Hour Trips) __ 29 (9) ~8) r25(0)[251 )( 0_ :=::!. ~ - ~e.. t """ ;: o Z FIGURE 3 Table I-Updated Proposed Development Trip Generation Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Code Description Size Dally In Out Total In Out Total Senior Adult Detached 251 Housing 93 units 509 10 16 26 29 18 47 Apartment (reduced by 220 25%) 206 units 1041 16 63 79 64 35 98 Total New Trips 1,550 26 79 105 93 53 145 Table 2 - McKnight Road/Carver Avenue Intersection Table 3 -Carver Avenue/Sterling Street Intersection Weekday AM Peak Hour LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS (delay) (delay) Year Northbound Westbound Northbound Westbound 2005 2010 No Build Table 4 - Henry Avenue/Carter Avenue, One-Way Stopped Control Weekday AM Peak Hour LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS (delay) (delay) Year Northbound Westbound Northbound Westbound 2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2010 No Build N/A N/A N/A N/A 2010 Build B A B A (10 seclveh) 11 sec/veh) 110 seclveh\ 13 sec/veh) Source: Kimlev-Hom and Associates, Inc. Table 5 - Sterling Street/Bailey Road Intersection, AM Peak Hour Weekday AM Peak Hour LOS (delay) Year Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound 2005 2010 No Build 2010 Build Table 6 - Sterling Street/Bailey Road Intersection, PM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS (delay) Year Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound 2005 2010 No Build HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Carver Avenue & McKnight Road 5/4/2006 .-J- - - '- \. ,.I Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume 58 of Stop 11 to Stop 209 , Stop 49 24 ." 91 Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) 86 Volume Left {vph) 73 Volume Right (vph) . 0 Hadj (s) 0.20 Departure Headway (s) 4.8 Degree Utmzalion, x 0.12 Capacity (veh/h) 714 Control Delay (s) 8.4 8.4 323 o 61 . ~.08 4.3 0.38 ".".."....."..... 810 9.9 9.9 30 30 o . 0.53 6.0 0.05 566 8.1 7.5 114 o 114 ...0.67 4.8 0.15 701 7.4. 9.1 A DelllY HCM Level of Service Build 2010 AM Peak Hour Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Bailey Road & Sterling Street Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (vehlh) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (flls) Percent Blockage. Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh} Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (vehlh) .,1- - " .f - '- "" t oft. oft. 4- Ffee. Free . Slop 0% 0% 0% 14 173 17 8 1023 129 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 18. ,216 21 10 1279 161 5/4/2006 ~ ...... + ~ 4- Stop 0% 2 40 0.80 0.80 2 50 None 1440 . 972 1722 119 1532 1652 720 1440 238 4.1 972 1722 119 1532 1652 720 7.5 6.5 6.9 7,5 6.5 6.9 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 78 97 86 169 84 . 911 75 93 370 Volume Total' 126 129 Volume Left 18 0 Volume Right 0 21 cSH 467 1700 Volume to Capacity " 0.04 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 Control Delay (s) 2.3 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 1.1 Approach LOS 2.2 96 467 849.. 10 . 0 1327 0.01 1 0.2 A 801 o 161 1700 0.47 o 0.0 . 354 0.03 2 15.5 C 15.5 . C 69 16 50 182 0.38 41 36.2 . E 36.2 E Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilizalion Analysis Period (min) 1.7 50.7% 15 JCU Level of Service: Build 2010 AM Peak Hour Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Carver Avenue & Sterling Street 5/4/2006 - .. -('" - " I' Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (vell/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate {vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) . pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol . vCu, unblocked vol tC, single {s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (vehfh) 0.80 26 0.80 46 13 0.80 ..16 4' Free 0% 25 0.80 31 V Stop 0% 159 0.80 199 11 0.80 14 72 4.1 113 6.4 49 6.2 2.2 99 1527 3.5 77 874 99 1019 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity. Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay {s) Approach LOS . 72 o 46 1700 . 0.04 o 0.0 48 16 o 1527 .0.Q1 1 2.6 A . 212 199 14 882 '0.24 24 B B Average Delay I ntersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 7.0 24.8% 15 ICU Level of Service Build 2010 AM Peak Hour Kimiey Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsi9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Carver Avenue & Henry Lane 5/4/2006 Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veil/h) Peak Hou r Factor Hourly flow rate (lIphl Pedestrians lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (It/s) Percent BlOckage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) .' pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume. vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (sl . . . tC, 2 stage (s) tF {s) pO queue free % cM capacity (vehlh) " .- - ..... ". - 1> 4' 1j Free Free Slop 0% 0% 0% 28 . 16 10' 174. .49 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 35 20 12 218 61 38 55 288 6.4 45 6.2 3.5 91 697 3.3 96 1025 Volume Total 55 230 99 Volume Left 0 12 61 Volume Right 20 cSH 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Control Delay (11) . 0.0 Lane LOS Approach Delay ($1 Approach LOS 1550 0.01 1 0.5 A 0.5 794 0.12 11 10.2 B 10.2 B 0.0 Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) ICU Level of Service Build 2010 AM Peak Hour Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Reporl Page 4 HCM Unsi9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Carver Avenue & McKnight Road 5/4/2006 ...J- - - '- \. .; of Stop 107 33 to Slop 41 'I S~op 169 " Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume 25 57 71 Volume Total (vph) 175 Volume Left (vph) .; 134 Volume Right (vph) 0 Hadj{s) . .0.19 Departure Headway (s) 4.9 Degree Utilization, x . 0.24 Capacity (veh/h) 690 Control Delay (s) 9.5 Approach Delay (s) 9.5 Approach LOS A 83 o 31 -0,19 4.7 0.11 715 8.3 8.3 A 211 211 o 0,53 5.7 0.33 611 . 10,3 9.4 A 71 o 71 .0,67 . 4.5 .0.09 . 767 6.7 Delay HCM Level of Service 9.3 A Build 2010 PM Peak Hour Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsi9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Bailey Road & Sterling Street 5/4/2006 ..J- - .. .(" - '- '" t ". \. ~ .; Lane Configurations off> off> 4- 4- Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 47 873 2 1 229 ,17 . 1 2 74 1 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0,80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0,80 0.80 0,80 0.80 Houny flow rate (vph) 59 1091 286 2 92 1 38 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (v~h) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 308 1094 1394 1520 547 966 1511 154 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unbiocked vol 308 1094 1394 1520 547 966 1511 154 tC, single (5) 4.1 4.1 7,5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (5) tF(s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 95 100 99 99 99 53 99 96 eM capacity (vehlh) 1250 634 92 112 481 199 113 865 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH 1250 Volume to Capacity 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 ControIOelay{s) 1.3 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.7 Approach LOS 548 o 2 1700 0.32 o 0.0 144 1 o 634 0.00 o 0.1 A , 164 o 21 1700 0.10 o 0.0 5, 1 2 167 0.03 2 27.2 D 27.2 D 131 92 38 252 0.52 69 33.8 D ,33.8 D Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.4 55.1% 15 ICU Levi!! of Service B Build 2010 PM Peak Hour Ki m iey Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Carver Avenue & Sterling Street 5/4/2006 - ... . - ..... /" Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (vehlh) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) . Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fils) Percent Blockage .. Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 conI vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC. single (5) tC, 2 stage tF (5) pO queue free eM capacity (vehlh). '. 95 ,,25. 0.80 0.80 0.80 64. 119 4' Free 0% 38. . 0.80 V Stop 0% 50 0.80 62 14 0.80 18 None 182 233 123 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 92 98 738 928 Volume Total'., Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (5) Approach LOS 2 o 119 1700 0,11 o 0.0 0.0 .79 31 o 1393 0.02 2 3.1 A 3.1 80 62 18 773 0.10 9 10.2 B 10.2 B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.1 25.5% 15 ICU level of Service Build 2010 PM Peak Hour Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsi9nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Carver Avenue & Henry Lane - " 5/4/2006 . - '" /*" <f V Free Stop 0% 0% 53 33 0.80 0.80 0.80 .44 66 41 Lane Configurations to Sign Control free Grade 0% Volume (vehlh) . . 125 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 Hourly floW rate (vph) . 156 Pedestrians Lane Widtih (ft) Walking Speed Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh} Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 229 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 229 tC, single {s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity {veh/h) . None 346 192 6.4 6.2 3.3 97 849 Volume Total . . 229 Volume Left 0 Volume Right 72 cSH 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Control Delay (s) . 0.0 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 Approach LOS 110 44 o 1339 0.03 3 3.3 A 3.3 66 41 25 697 0.09 8 10.7 B 10.7 B Average Delay Intersection CapaCity Utilization Analysis Period (min) ICU level of Service ! Build 2010 PM Peak Hour Kim/ey Horn and Associates, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 4 AYEtIJE E /'-', , ~l ~:!f ~~~. ....w:~l zw.. <Z.I ::;Ci:li ..JZ" . C:UI~ .. Qi ~!" ! 8 "8 :~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~i ~! ~~ ~~ ; iii l;:1 ~I ~:!l ",-/. I-W:;J zw.: ,II <z., "' ::;c;:Jj II! ...JZ. <w: E:I ,II Ct~ II! Ii! r" -. E;I ~ :~ :~ II! 1;1 I! II Ii! ........-.. ; III {;:~. ;". (i:.' .'. "I ~ ; tIl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~i e-io: II .'''..., ~~"~ ...."~'-~"~t~:;~.,,~, ~ '" '--,! ; "~ '----.. "..... ~ ; 7"'JJI '..... '...." "-'1--....., .....>, ""5.~,,,, ".... --- ~ "~~ i ~"k~""...J'.... .......,...:.'''.....1 ~I' I i "..,,'''-.., ~."I ,," ...... '....... ~ ~ ~".! ~"' ',,-- '" --..... i --,"-... ......, '0..,'" J', ! . "'" . . ..........~":\... 't-..... "', "'. . ~.~ '-, ~"~_ "'---....~", I '~~ 'i ",,-,;'~ --, ; t 1'--............." " /----.......'' I....' .....", 9' ~ .....-.1 -'--.... -., ~; . l~ ..f..... '" .-........: j --...."~ "- \'" ~.....-. .,......... '-~ "" \ ~ --'-. ---'---.,. .... :.:. \ -"-.,.-.1 '-. ~ I"~..... .. ........~........ \QI~' -., If'- -"'~....."c:::::: ...."'-;., '- "--" I' I ! ~--,/ I ! ~7"--r-"" ;,. ...... 1,'I9+;Ql":ld -i .. ~ .. n / i~ I .-."....." ' "-,",- '---. ...._--_....~~,'-< "-"""'" .... ::l~l!I- .-'" '" ~~ :11 '" <> ~ '.~ i!i~zj '~-.....15~f ~~~~ !i!"~ UUI U ............ 'o..,~ --", ',. .......... ''0.., ~.~ '. ~. ~. ~. '-...", ~. '. ....... '.. , '. ,.--...., 1,1i ! ~ l.ili I. ,I... I~ ............... . -.......: ........'0.., -.........::::: ',-..,.....~, '----. ........~-,"-........-..,,~"""---- ~"-=-~~""'r~=::..~--- \ \ '----. ,................... ' ~ ~ I _____J "--.." ,1,1 ~ I , t....~,-_., I , 1 I , " r I .- ,,/ Ei I ~-----~-.. (r'~--"-~ i. ~ L,,~L_,. " .! ,"_, ,C':"~", " "',\,:::::>:> '>::,,,,,;:; ',--~"",-/"-- ". .. .~ --.-"...... - ......... COMMENT LETTERS Comment Letters Received From: Minnesota Department of Transportation (April 6, 2006) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (April 12, 2006) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (April 10, 2006) Metropolitan Council (April 7, 2006) Washington County (April 5, 2006) Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (April 7, 2006) Terry and Linda Baumgart (March 29, 2006) Sue Schlomka (April 7, 2006) Matthew Ledvina (April 10, 2006) Mark Bonitz (April 11, 2006) Ron Cockriel and The Sons and Daughters of Highwood (April 11, 2006) Fran and Vickie Meyer (March 30, 2006) Greg Miller (March 30, 2006) Comment Letters Received Followinl! the Close ofthe Comment Period U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (April 24, 2006) City of Map/ewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 21 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY St. Paul District Corps of Engineers 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1683 RECEIVED REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Operations Regulatory (2006-1910- TJF) Mr. Charles Ahl City of Maple wood 1902 County Road BEast Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 ;J ? April 24, 2006 Dear Mr. Ahl: We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) that was prepared for the Carver Crossing - Senior Housing Development project. The project site is on the west side ofl494 and south of Carver Avenue, in the W Y, of Sec. 24, T.28N., R.22W., Ramsey County, Minnesota, as shown on the attached drawing or map. The EA W identified four wetland basins, generally in the northern portion of the site, along with Fish Creek that flows through the site. Based on the information reviewed it appears that only Wetland 4, about 0.2 acre in size would be filled as part of the development. Wetland replacement would occur on the north side of Wetland 3. We have determined that Wetland 4 is not a "water of the United States" because it is: (I) not a "navigable water" as defined by Federal law, (2) not an interstate water, (3) not part of a tributary system to (1) or (2), (4) not a wetland adjacent to any of the foregoing, and (5) not an impoundment of any of the above. In addition, the interstate commerce nexus to this particular waterbody is insufficient to establish Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Therefore Wetland 4 is not subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Please note that a water that is not navigable under Federal law mav still be "navigable" as defined bv state law (and mav therefore be subiect to regulation bv the state). This jurisdictional determination takes into consideration tlle U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agencv of Northern Cook Countv v. Corps of Engineers (the SW ANCC decision). It is based on the Headquarters guidance available to us at this time. This jurisdictional determination is valid only for the project and waterbody/wetland referenced above. If the project is altered in a manner that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into any other waters or wetlands, our office must be contacted. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. Printed on * Recyclecl Piper CEMVP-OP-R (2006-1910-TJF) - 2- If you have any questions, contact Mr. Tim Fell in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5360. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory number shown above. Sincerely, -1.Nh~~Fif?f LkQbert J. Whiting fChief, Regulatory Branch Enclosure CF to: R-WWD CoPar Dev. SHPO WE N 1 \L r, b,~: . CJ C\ . o . n w PROJECT AREA I. I , 0'" Oe " f / LEGEND I. . . . . . - . . 1 WETLAND ~ FLOODPLAIN , , e EXISTING WELL ~ 500 I I SCALE IN FEET ~=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CARVER CROSSING OF MAPLEWOOD FIGURE WETLANDS/FLOOD PLAINS/ EXISTING WELLS FEBRUARY 2006 7 ;;/,oo(.,-/C))O- T:n=- .~1\<o !~~~ ~"TR'~ Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Rosevllle MN 55113-3174 ,...- '"" ...., ~<I~D . ~ ... " '.~ . '.' :- i-,r,\ U 7 lU05 April 6, 2006 Mr. Charles Ah1 Public Works Director I City Engineer 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 SUBJECT: Carver Crossing of Maple wood EnviromnentaJ Assessment Worksheet MnlDOT Review # EA W06-006 SW Quad ofI-494 and Carver Aveneu Maplewood, Ramsey County Control Section 8285 Dear Mr. Ah1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). MnlDOT's staffhas reviewed the document and has the following comments. Please address these commerrts as this development progresses through the planning process. 1 Ri of Way: MnIDOT has und~lying fee and access control along our highways in this area. Henry Lane and part of Carver Ave was released to the city .of Maplewood in 1972. The developer should contact the Oakdale Survey office for the correct rigbt of way information to be sbown on the plat and or site review wben they are submitted for review. Please contact Brad Canaday in the Oakdale Survey office at (651-779-5007) with questions regarding this issue. Drainage: Additional drainage information is required to detennine if a MnDOT Drainage permit may be required. The proposed construction will need to maintain existing drainage rates to MnDOT right-of-way. MnlDOT bas a drainage easement through this area with two pipes. One drains to Fish Creek and another into the wetland.. Our agency will maintain our easement. Please provide the following: 2 I) A grading Plan of the existing & proposed project. 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing botb existing and proposed drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows) 3) Hydrologic, and bydraulic cOlUputationslmodeling before and after proposed reconstructions (ie., Hydro-CAD input assumptions, calibration data, results for 10 and lOa year storm events). 4) Electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations Please submit any further documentation electronically as Adobe Acrobat (.pdt), and HydroCAD(.hc) files. The electronic model and pdffile can be emailed to michelle.bul1er@dot.state.mn.us Please direct questions concerning these issues to Michelle Buller (651-634-2078) ofMnlDOT's Water Resources section. Permits: [Any use of or werle impacting MnIDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are 3 available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsuo/\1tilitv . Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Noise: MnJDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. 4 MnlDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnlDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EA W. Our agency looks forward to working with your city as this development progresses through the planning process. If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378. Sincerely, ~', Brigid mold Senior Planner Copy: Dan Soler I Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Tom Hansen I CoPar Development, liC 2 3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St Paul, Mlnn950ta 55106 651.772.7900 April 12, 2006 Charles Ahl, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Maplewood 1902 County Road BEast Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 RE: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Ahl: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the proposed Carver Crossing residential development in the City of Maplewood. We offer the following comments for your consideration. 1 Water-related land use mana ement district Item No. 14 This item correctly notes that the proposed project is within the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. The project will require a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning the site from single family residential to high density residential. The comprehensive plan amendment must be approved by the Metropolitan Council as indicated in the table of project approvals, Item 8. In addition, per Minnesota Rules part 4410.9100 the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved by the DNR before it can take effect. The rule requires EQB approval; however, the EQB's authorities in this regard were transferred to the DNR in 1995. Please contact Rebecca Wooden at 651-259-5717 with questions regarding the Critical Area approval process. Additionally, this item does not mention Fish Creek, which is identified in the City of Maplewood's Shoreland Overlay District. The development should be required to meet the Shoreland Overlay District standards for standards for bluff and steep slope setbacks, structure height requirements, screening, and impervious surface coverage. Water Qualitv and Surface Water Runoff (Item No. 17) The document and the preliminary plat identify steep slopes along the entire Fish Creek Ravine. Fish Creek has been an area of concern for bank stabilization and erosion control in the past. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has participated in several creek stabilization ro' cts. The document indicates that the majority of the runoff from the proposed development will eventually discharge into Fish Creek. Regarding these issues, we recommend that the City . coordinate with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. In addition, the placement of stormwater outfall structures along Fish Creek may require a DNR permit. Please note this in the Permits and Approvals Section (Item No.8). An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TIY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 Carver Crossing of Maplewood April 12, 2006 Page 2 I We are encouraged to see that the City requires new development to incorporate stormwater 4 management features to hold stormwater runoff rates and volumes to levels equal to or below existing conditions. Local governments often overlook runoff volume. Land cover, which the project will alter, plays a major role in determining runoff volume. Because channel shape is largely determined by runoff volume, streams in urban areas typically increase by several times to accommodate the additional runoff. Channel enlargement is the stream's natural response to increases in discharge. Enlargement, both from widening and downcutting, results in the degradation of instream habitat and sharp increases in annual sediment yield. A secondary result is a large drop in aquatic diversity and an overall decline in water quality. The major driving force behind the increased runoff is the amount of connected impervious area in urban or urbanizing areas, and the subsequent efficient delivery of runoff to streams. Numerous studies throughout the North America have documented a significant decline in water quality, channel stability, and aquatic diversity in urban streams. Impervious cover in a watershed exerts a profound and often irreversible impact on the quality of streams and other aquatic resources. The approximate threshold for significant decline appears to be about 10% level of imperviousness in the watershed. The proposed project represents a substantial increase in impervious area in the Fish Creek drainage. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of environmental review. If you have any questions about these comments, please call Wayne Barstad, the Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, at 651-772-7940. C: Steve Colvin, Wayne Barstad, Sarah Hoffmann, Bryan Lueth, Travis Germundson, Dave Zappetillo, Rebecca Wooden, Bernice Cramblit (DNR) Jon Larsen (EQB) Dan Stinnett, Nick Rowse (USFWS) EROB#20050919 MW06CarverCrossing.doc An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR InfolT1'lalion: 651.296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 04/13/2008 12:24 FAX 8513790412 COPAR COMPANIES Ii!I 002/003 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ,. li~C~lTI:E Ant I l ZfI06 ']J April 10,2006 Mr. Charles Ahl City ofMaplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 R:E: Enviromnental Assessment Worksheet for Carver Crossing of Maple wood Dear Mr. Ahl: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment Workshcct(EA W) for the proposed Carver Crossing senior housing development. project (Project). The proposal includes detached homes, attached townhomes. and condominiums. The Project will occupy approxiInate1y 70 acres near the intersection of Highways 61 and 494. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has reviewed the EA W for this Project. The MPCA staffhas the following information and comments for your consideration and response in determining the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Project. Stormwater ~ noted in the document, the proposed Project is eligible for the General Stonnwater Permit for 1 Construction Activity (pennit). Pcnnit coverage will become effective seven days after the postmarked date of the completed application form. The commencement of any construction activity is prohibited until permit coverage becomes effective. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed in accordance with Part ill of the Pennit The SWPPP must be developed prior to submittal of a completed permit application and application fee. A site investigation using MPCA's Special and Impaired Waters Search electronic map tool did not indicate a special or impaired water within 2,000 feet orthe closest border or the project; hence, in accordance with Part II.A. of the Permit, the SWPPP is 2 not required to be submitted along with the permit application. The EA W indicates that the project will likely use infiltration basins and mnwater gardens as pennanent stormwater man~gement prlICtices. Part mC.2 of the Pennit has specific requirements for these SlIUCtures including, but not limited to, on-site testing that ensures a minimum of three feet separation from the seasonally-saturated soils or from bedrock and the bottom of the proposed infiltration system. Calculations and computer model. results that demonstrate the design adequacy of the infiltration system must be included as part of the SWPPP. 520 Lafayette Ad. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194: (651) 296-6300 (Voice): (651) 282-5332 (TTY); www.pca.atate.mn.us St. Pa\ll . Brainerd' DeUOll Lakes . Duluth . Menkato . Marshell . Rochester. Willmar EqUal Oppor1unhy EmplOV8f . Prin*' em ~ peper containing allee.sl20 ptlrceni fibeR fmm paper recyc:Ie(l' by con'l,jrniMB. 04/13/2008 12:25 FAX 8513780412 COPAR COMPANIES IaI 003/003 Mr. Charles Ahl April I 0, 2006 Page 2 Wetland impacts are expected during project construction; the EA W indicates that a Wetlands Conservation Act permit will be required. Appendix A., Part D. requires that the pennittee demonstrate that the wetland mitigative sequence has been followed in accordance with Appendix A., 0.1. or D.2. of the Permit (i.e., submittal to the MPCA of documentation indicating that this teQ1Iirement has been addressed, along with the permit application and related application fee). Past Land Use 8.Ild Potential EnvfroJlBlental Hazards The EA W identifies the presence of tanks, bmels, and dump areas on the property. The property may be eligible for the MPCA's Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program. Further information about VIC may be obtained on the MPCA's web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.usIclcanupivic.html. The proposer should ensure that excavated materia1s are properly characterized and disposed in accordance with applicable regtll~tions. Plans should be ~bmitt"'<l to the VIC program if the site becomes enrolled, Of to the MPCA's solid waste program for compliance review. This comment letter addresses matters of concern to MPCA staff reviewing the EA Wandis submitted for consideration by the Responsible Governmental Unit in determining the need for an EIS. It does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the puzpose of pending or fUture Permit action(s) by the MPCA. We have attempted to identify and consult with ~terested program staff to identify the MPCA Permits that may be required. Additional comments or requests for information may be submitted in the fUture to address specific; issues related to the development of such pennit(s). 3 4 Ultimately, it is the responsibility ofthc Project proposer to secure any required Permits and to comply with any requisite Permit conditioDs. If you have other questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me at (651) 296.6703. Sincerely, ~~~' Barbara Jean Conti Project Manager Environmental Review and OperatioRS Section Regional Division BJC:mbo cc: Tom Hansen, CoPar Development David K. Johnson, MPCA Katie Koelfgcn, MPCA ~ Metropolitan Council Building communities that work April?,2006 RECEIVED APR t 1 2005 Charles Ahl, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer City ofMaplewood 1902 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 - RE: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) Metropolitan Council District 11 Metropolitan Council Review No. 19724-1 Dear Mr. AhI: This project involves constroction of 299 senior housing units on a 70-acre site. 1111"ee acres of the site are owned by Ramsey County for parks and recreation/natural resource protection along Fish Creek. Approximately 52.8 acres are developable, resulting in a net residential density of 5.66 dwelling units per acre, above the Metropolitan Council standard of a minimum of three units per net developable acre. 111e Metropolitan Council staff review finds that the EA W is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns. An illS is not t1ecessaxy for regional purposes. However, staff offers the following advisory comments for your consideratiOll before distribution of the final EA W document and submittal of a comprehensive plan amendment. Item 8, Permits andApprovals (Victoria Dupre, 651-602-1621) The EA W should list Minnesota Department of Natural Resot11"ces (MNDNR) to be notified. The City ofMaplewood Critical Area Plan indicates that the City will notify the MNDNR when it receives a development or subdivision application for land within the Critical Area. The Critical Area Act requires all local governments to notify the MNDNR of all developments at least 30 days before City action on the application. 1 Item 10- Vegetation; Item 11- Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources; Item 25- NeIlrby ResoU1'Ces (Freya Thamman, 651-602-1750) According to the Council's Natural Resource Inventory (NRI), approximately 17 acres of the development are identified as being in a regionally significant natural resource area of 'outstanding quality' (see Figure enclosed). The southwest comer of the development has land within the Minnesota County Biological Survey. Although there are no regional parks or trails within the development area, the Battle Creek Regional Park and proposed . Afton Bluffs Regional.Trail are within 0.3 mile. Three sides of the southern development area are surrounded by parldandlland owned by Ramsey County Parks and Recreation and/or Mmnesota County Biological Smvey Area. www.metrocouncu.org Metro Info Une 002.-1888 230EastFlfthstreet: SLPDul,Minnesot.a55101-1626. !651}EJ02..1000. Fax802-1550. 'ITY291-o904 An Equal Op__ Page 2 Charles Ahl April 7, 2006 Gevelopment will directly abut the Biological Survey Area. Staff encourages 2 conservation design principles in the final site plan to aid in protection of surrounding natural resources and parklands. 3 Item 11 - Fish, WildUfe and Ecologically Sensitive Resources Jim Larsen, 651-602-1159) The document has not identified the location of the bluff line within the site boundaries, or recognized the need to maintain at least a 40- foot setback of earth alteration and vegetation alteration activities from the bluff line. Adequate maintenance access has not been provided to the adjacent properties owned by Ramsey County. Item 14, Water Related Land Use (Victoria Dupre, 651-602-1621) The EA W indicates that the project is within the Mississippi River Critical Area. The EA W provides the City's Critical Area policies and concludes that the proposed action is consistent with the goals. However, the EA W does not discuss how the project will meet the Critical Area goals, such as minimizing nmoff, to conclude that the proposed project will meet Critical Area goals. The City must ensure that erosion is controlled and storm water is contained on the site during and after constroction to meet NPDES requirements and Critical Area policies to minimize runoff, adverse impacts, and improve nmoff quality. 4 Item 17- WaterQIUllity-Surface Water RunoffOimLarsen, 651-602-1159) Figure 9 indicates that storm water runoff is proposed to be piped off-site into Fish Creek from the south portion of the proposed development. It is uncI ear from the document if or when any of the existing on-site wetlands currently contribute flow to the Creek. The Creek's ability to accept direct piped runoff without causing potentially significant destructive erosional consequences has not been established. The rate and volume capacity of the Creek and its ability to accept piped runoff will first need to be detennined to the satisfaction of the City, Ramsey County, and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District before it will be acceptable to directly discharge runoff into Fish Creek. 6 lThe document needs to clarifY the need for alterations along the Fish Creek ravine side ~opes. The extent of earth moving and vegetation removal could 5 Page 3 Charles Ahl April 7, 2006 [jtentiallY jeopardize the integrity of the side slopes of the ravine, the stability of the 6 Creek bed, and the integrity of the planned retaining walls adjacent to the Creek. Council (CONT) staff recommends that a wider setback from the Ramsey County park land be preserved in native vegetation to prevent the deterioration of its potentially unstable slopes. Diem 27, Compatibility With Plans (Victoria Dupre, 651-602-1621) 7 The EA W indicates that the project requires a comprehensive plan amendment The EA W also needs to indicate. that the City must amend the plan's Critical Area component. If you need further information, please contact Bob Mazanec, Principal Reviewer, at 651 602- 1330, or the technical reviewer indicated for matters pertaining to specific comments above. }21 :60~) Phyllis HI{~~ger Local Pl:;t'~~tance cc: Greg Mack, Director, Ramsey Cmmty Parks and Recreation Department Cliff Aichinger, Administrator, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Jack Jackson, MultiFamily Market Analyst, MHF A Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Chris Georgacas, Metropolitan CmIDcil District 12 Bob Mazanec, Sector Representative & Principal Reviewer Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator V:\REVIEWS\CDmmunities\Maplewood\Lctters\Mllplewood 2006 SAW Cnrver Crossing 19n4-l.doc Carver Crossing Oevelopement Area City of Maplewood Surrounding ParksIRegional TrailsINatural Areas EAW for senior housing development with 299 units on approximately 70 acres. o M", 0.09 o.1e ... Legend o CalVer Crossing Oevelopment Area - S1ream ~ - - Proposed RegionalTrali _ Regional Park MN County Biological Survey Area ~ Non-Reglonal Park D Park-Owned Land _ National wetlands Inventory MC NRI- Outstanding Quality mil MC NRI- High Quality Washington r :;County :: ~ \~'i:.CE.IVED APR 0 7 2005 Department of Transportation and Physical Development Donald J. Theisen, P.E. Director/County Engineer April 5,2006 Charles Ahl, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Maplewood 1902 County Road 8 East Maplewood, MN 55109 CARVER CROSSING OF MAPLEWOOD SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTWORKSHEET(EA~ Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Deputy Dlrector/Ass'l County Engineer Dear Mr. Ahl: We have reviewed the Carver Crossing of Maplewood EAW for traffic impacts to Washington County roads. We have the following comments: ' )> Traffic Impact Analysts, Section 3.0, Traffic Generation: We feel that the 50 percent reduction in the trip generation for the apartment porllon of the proposed development, due to it being senior housing, is too large a reduction. We do recognize that the Trip Generation Manual has limited data for senior housing developments. The number of studies conducted for both detached and attached senior hOiJsing is low. While we understand the rationale that was used to estil1)ate number of trips generated by the apartment units, the 50 percent reduction seems to be overly aggressive. We suggest that a 25% reduction would more accurately reflect the trips generated by this development and provide a more conservative estimate. We suggest the City discuss modeling techniques with the EAW preparer and adjust the figures accordingly. )> Traffic Impact Analysis, Section 4.0, Traffic Distribution: The trip distribution for the WakOIa 8ridge EA examined the regional traffic and where the majority of the regional trips would go to or come from. Because this Is a senior type of development, we would expect that a greater portion of the trips used by these persons would be on the local road systems rather than on the regional MN/OOT highway system. Since the traffic impact Study was conducted, the Trunk Highway 61IBailey Road (Washington CSAH 18) Interchange opened to traffic in July, 2005, so traffic patterns at the Bailey Road/Sterling Avenue intersection are, by now, fairly stable. Our expectations are that Sterling Avenue will be used as the primary route to get toJfrom Bailey Avenue, which will in tum place a greater strain on the Bailey RdlSterling Ave intersection. We also expect that some, though a relatively few, drivers would use Carver Avenue to get to Century Avenue and destinations to the north and east. The trip distribution map does not reflect that any percentage of trips will use this route. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted, the Impact of this development on Washington County's road system would be negligible. However, we feel that the TIS should be modified to reflect our comments end analysis of any changes to traffic control, lane assignments, etc., should be based on what the revised TIS Indicates. Please contact me at 651-430-4312 or bye-mail at loe.luxca>.co.washlnoton.mn.us with any comments or questions. 1 2 Sincerely, , c:Z.,;1"7<' ~eph Lux Senior Transportation Planner mwOROU"Ial RWew- Rarmey CCUnI}'\CaMlr ClOning Of MlpIewood fAW.do~ 11660 Myeron Road Norlh, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-4304300 . Fax: 651-4304350 . TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washlngton.mn.us c:........l 1:.........1..................+ ".........0+1,..11\. 1 Affjrrn~u43 .6."tinn April 7, 2006 Charles Ahl, P .E. Public Works Director/City Engineer 1902 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 249-2400 1-2409 (fax) Chuck.ahl@cLmaplewood.mn.us RE: Carver Crossing ofMaplewood EA W Dear Mr. Ahl: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the Project). I am the forestry and wildlife advocate and a staff attorney for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA). MCEA is the legal and scientific voice protecting and defending Minnesota's environment, wildlife, and public health. We work with communities and conservation groups, as well as in the courts, at the legislature, and with state and local government agencies, using science and policy to develop, communicate, and achieve positive change. MCEA is glad to have the opportunity to comment on the Project. 01 DThiS project has the potential to cause significant negative effects on the quality of the environment, including public health, and thus requires an EIS. Following are MCEA's comments. Human Health and Air Quality-Related Risks to Residents: The Project poses serious air pollution related health risks for the elderly would-be residents. These significant health risks merit further study in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Motor vehicle exhaust is a source of many harmful air pollutants, including particulate matter, ground-level ozone, and various carcinogenic compounds. Concentrations of these air pollutants are typically elevated within roughly 150 meters of high traffic-density roads (Zhu 2002). Health risks associated with these pollutants are also expected to be higher among populations residing near busy roads, or near other sources of exposure (Edwards 1994; Lin 2002). Population sub-groups such as the elderly, young children, and people with respiratory or cardiovascular disease are especially susceptible to the health impacts of traffic-related air pollutants. Numerous scientific studies have found a correlation between air pollutants and serious health effects among the elderly. These include not only long-term effects such as cancer, but more immediate and short-term effects, as well. Air pollutants have been linked to short-term increases in mortality (Dominici 2003) as well as increases in rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular disease (Metzger 2004) and respiratory illness (Dominici 2006). Similarly, studies conducted among elderly populations in the Minneapolis-Sl Paul metropolitan area have found a link between air pollutants and increased risk for hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular ailments c:ChWartz 1994; Moolgavkar 1997). 2 These risks must be analyzed for the projected elderly population residing at the Project, and an EIS is the appropriate vehicle for performing that analysis. Human Health and Noise Standards Violations: The Project as designed violates Minn. Rules 7030.0030, 7030.0040, and 7030.0050, which are intended to protect the 3 public health and welfare from damaging effects on speech, sleep, hearing, and other quality of life considerations. These apparent violations, their consequences, and alternatives to the proposed Proj ect must be considered in an EIS. The Minnesota Rules cited above require that Maplewood take all reasonable measures, including denial of requested government approval action such as issuance of pennits, to prevent establishment ofland uses in Noise Area Classifications (NAC) I, 2, and 3 where these standards would be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use. The Project calls for the following NAC I uses in NAC 2 and 3 areas: household units; and group quarters; and other residential; and possibly "medical and other health services," and "other cultural, entertainment, recreational activities." As is stated in the EA W, "the MPCA daytime standard for L-1 0 is exceeded at the two condominium buildings. .. and at five of the attached townhomes located north of the condominium buildings"; and "the noise MPCA nighttime standards are anticipated to be exceeded throughout the entire portion of the proposed project located north ofFish Creek and a significant portion of the proposed project located south ofFish Creek"; and "[n]oise levels are above and projected to be above state standards throughout a significant portion of the proposed development." EA W answer to Question 24. The EA W proposal for Buildings I and 2 and other residential units is that all units will be provided with year-round climate control and built with additional [sound] insulation, and that outside common areas for Buildings 1 and 2 will be located on the west side of the buildings. These conditions to not entitle the Project to the exceptions provided for in the plain language ofMinn. Rule 7030.0050. First, the EA W does not assure that insulation will meet the requirements in 7030.0050, Subp. 3 (B)(1), or (C)(l), or (0)(1), which require specific exterior to interior sound level attenuations. Second, no mention is made of the areas and accommodations intended for outdoor activities associated with any but Buildings I and 2. The residents of the many single family and attached townhomes are designed to have areas and accommodations (such as yards and decks) where outdoor activities will take place. Third, the EA W states that there will be areas and accommodations for outdoor activities associated with Buildings 1 and 2, again in violation of the Rules. That the areas and accommodations will be located on the west sides of those two buildings does not satisfy the conditions of Minnesota Rules 7030.0050 Subp. 3 (B)(3), (C)(3), and (D)(3), all of which require that in order to qualify for exceptions, the buildings must have "no" areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. It is not clear that even with the exceptions provided for in rule, that all the proposed units would then meet state standards. These significant noise standard violations have consequential public health and welfare effects on speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing conservation for potential residents, and merit further study in an EIS, including consideration of alternatives that would move new residential housing units of all kinds into areas where the noise standards will not immediately be violated. Current traffic levels and consequent modeled noise contour data should also be used in addition to the older data used here, given traffic changes in the area. 4 Environmental Effects on Fish Creek: The Project has the potential to significantly negatively affect the hydro graph, water chemistry, and course, current and cross-section ofFish Creek, a protected water draining into the Mississippi River at a location upstream, and thus part of the watershed of, Lake Peppin, a water body impaired for phosphorous. Effects on the hydrograph and hydrochemistry, the likelihood of substantial scouring and erosion, and consequential changes to the course, current, and cross-section of Fish Creek all must be analyzed in an EIS. The Project will be increasing the impervious swfaces on the 73.2 acre Project area from 0.8 acres to 23.6 acres, for an increase from 1 % to 32% imperVious. This is an area of steep slopes dominated by silt loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand soils. All soils are highly drained soils, and the combination of highly drained soils and low existing impervious surface area on the site leads to the conclusion that the majority of rainfall infiltrates and charges ground water. To the extent the site area precipitation feeds Fish Creek, it does so most likely through ground water flows. The Project proposes to increase impervious surface on the entire site to 32%, and to replace much of the remainder with sod and landscaping. Stormwater collected from the southern portion of the Proj eet area would be held and in high rain events discharged directly from a Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond to Fish Creek. This water would travel approximately 350 horizontal feet, simultaneously dropping roughly 45 feet from NURP pond to the level ofFish Creek. The effect of even occasional large rain events sending water through the overflow through the pipe and into Fish Creek will be to scour the receiving area, causing erosion, downstream sedimentation, and thus alteration of the course, current, and cross- section of this protected water. Occasional overflow events will change the hydrograph ofFish Creek in some measure, as well. Water chemistry in Fish Creek will also be affected during large rain events, as NURP standards allow up to 20% of suspended solids and up to 40% of phosphorous to be released to receiving waters. Phosphorous would not be present in any significant levels in groundwater feeds to Fish Creek, but will be present in NURP pond discharges. This additional phosphorous will add to phosphorous loads in the Mississippi River upstream of, and thus within, the Lake Peppin watershed, which is a watershed already [JCeeding phosphorous limits. An additional permit from the Department of Natural 6 Resources (DNR) is required due to the above-described effects on Fish Creek's course, current, and cross-section. The hydrographic, hydrochemical, and course, current, and 5 [}ss-section changes to Fish Creek as a result of the Project are likely to, and certainly 6 have the potential to, have significant negative effects on the environment, necessitating (CO NT) an EIS and consideration of alternatives to the proposed development In addition, the effects on the water quality in Fish Creek cannot be examined without analysis and discussion of the cumulative effects of land development activities elsewhere in the watershed ofFish Creek, and the associated increases in impervious surface, nutrient loading, and suspended sediment yield to surface waters as a result of 7 those development activities. The information on number ofland development activities within the watershed affecting Carver Lake and Fish Creek should be readily obtainable by contacting the local governmental units having jurisdiction over those areas. The information and cumulative effects should have been but were not analyzed in the EA W section on cumulative impacts, which was limited to discussion of sewer-related concerns and did not look at effects on Fish Creek of recent, current, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Fish Creek watershed. Those cumulative effects should be part of the issues considered in the Project's EIS. Applicability of Shoreland Rules to Lands Buffering Fish Creek: MCBA suggests that Fish Creek, as a protected water, is entitled to shoreland protections found in Minnesota Rules 6120, unless there is a topographic divide separating the land within the shoreland buffer zone and the protected water, and the reduction has been approved by the Commissioner of the DNR. It does not appear that there is a topographic divide separating Fish Creek from much of the Project Area. A significant amount of the Project Area within the buffers from the ordinary high water (OHW) level identified in Minn. Rule 6120.2500 slopes directly to Fish Creek, and thus is not topographically separated from it. Land suitable for development within shoreland areas is addressed in ~ 44-1249 of the Maplewood City Code, which provides: Sec. 44-1249. Land suitability. Each lot created through subdivision shall be suitable for development with minimal alteration. The city shall not consider lots suitable for development that would create any of the following effects: I. Susceptibility to flooding. 2. Filling wetlands. 3. Building on soils with severe development limitations. 4. Creating severe erosion potential. 5. Building on steep topography. 6. Inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities. 7. Creating a loss of protected wildlife habitat. (Code 1982, S 36-573) The Project calls for grading on 53 of73.2 acres and movement of217,000 cubic yards of soil, and construction of numerous concrete block retaining walls. This does not sound like minimal alteration. MCBA would like to discuss whether and how its understanding of the applicability of shoreland rules may differ from that of the Project proposer or the City ofMaplewood. For purposes of this comment letter, MCBA states that much of the Project area seems unlikely to qualify as land suitable for development because it requires more than minimal alteration and is within the buffers from the floodplainlOHW level ofFish Creek. 8 Impervious Surface Standards: The Project site is dominated by areas where, due to highly erodible soil types and steep slopes, significant soil erosion, with its associated effects on forest productivity, understory vegetative health, and water quality of runoff, is very likely to occur. Soil erosion is problematic on significantly sloping areas, including on slopes of12-18%, and likely will be severe in steeper areas such as are found on the Proj eel site. In addition to the steep slopes and highly erodible soils, the Proj ect will increase impervious surface on Ge 73.2 acre Project area from 0.8 acres to 23.6 acres. MCEA asks whether these 9 changes comply with city and watershed district standards for changes to developable areas' impervious surface amounts. []isSisSiPPi River Critical Area Corridor: The Project calls for an intensity of 10 development that is inappropriate for lands within the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. The Project is located in the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. City policies for the area, including but not limited to the requirement that "development and consb:uction reduces and improves the quality of runoff," will be violated by this project. The addition of more than 25 acres of impervious surface will raise the area's impervious cover from 1% to 32.2%. Water which now infiltrates and percolates down into highly drained soils instead will be prevented from infiltration into soil and groundwater; it will be intercepted and concentrated by impervious surfaces and storm sewers. Water temperatures will be raised in stormwater settling ponds, and the water then discharged directly to Fish Creek is likely, even if it meets design standards for removal of suspended solids and phosphorus, to result in an increased delivery of heat energy, sediment, and phosphorus to Fish Creek and to the Mississippi River, given the typical sediment and nutrient inputs associated with consb:uction and post-consb:uction lawns and landscaping such as will dominate the Project site if the Project is built. This concludes MCEA's comments on the Project. Submitted in hardcopy by U.S. Mail are the papers referred to above. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the concerns raised herein. Sincerely, Matt Norton References: Dominici 2003. Dominici F, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM. Airborne particulate matter and mortality: timescale effects in four U.S. cities. American Journal of Epidemiology. 157(12): 1055-65, June 2003. Dominici 2006. Dominici F, Peng RD, Bell ML, Pham L, McDermott A, Zeger Sl, Samet JM. Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Journal of the American Medical Association. 295(10): 1127-34, March 8, 2006. Edwards 1994. Edwards J, Walters S, Griffiths RK.. Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool children: relationship to major roads in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Archives of Environmental Health. 49(4): 223-7. July-August 1994. Lin 2002. Lin S, Munsie JP, Hwang SA, Fitzgerald E, Cayo MR. Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to state route traffic. Environmental Research. 88(2):73-81, February 2002. Metz2er 2004. Metzger KB, Tolbert PE, Klein M, Peel JL, Flanders WD, Todd K, Mulholland JA, Ryan PB, Frumkin H. Ambient air pollution and cardiovascular emergency department visits. Epidemiology. 15(1): 46-56, January 2004. Moo12avkar 1997. Moolgavkar SH, Luebeck EG, Anderson EL. Air pollution and hospital admissions for respiratory causes in Minneapolis-St. Paul and Birmingham. Epidemiology. 8(4): 364-70, July 1997. Schwartz 1994. Schwartz J. PMIO, ozone, and hospital admissions for the elderly in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. Archives of Environmental Health. 49(5): 366-74, September/October 1994. Zhu 2002. Zhu Y, Hinds WC, Kim S, Sioutas C. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway. Journal of the Air aJUi. Waste Management Association. 52(9): 1032-42. September 2002. March 29,2006 To Maplewood Planning Commission - Maplewood City Counsel COP AR companies - Alliant Engineering RE: Response to New Development Proposal; Carver Crossing of Maple wood Let me start off stating that I don't have a problem with the proposed development, or the type of housing being proposed. What I do have a problem with is the realignment of Henry Lane. We have lived at 2445. Carver Avenue for twenty four years and have enjoyed the slow Pace ofllie neighborhood. I understand the need for housing and the developers need to create it. I have worked in the engineering field and know the hard work that goes into land development. I currently work in surveying and have had some design responsibilities for developments. Back To Our Problem; Our house sits directly across from the realignment of Henry Lane. We can see our house lit up like its Christmas with all the cars waiting to tum onto Carver ave. We do not want 200 to 2000 sets ofhea\llites ~h;nn;'1g into our windows all night. This problem should have been discovered early in the design process. maybe this was just an over site maybe not. We could understand if it were a city block with twenty or thirty homes, that planting a row of trees might eliminate problem. We are talking about 299 households. There is no way of knowing how many trips people will make out of this exit\entrance every night seven days a week. So planting a row of trees just isn't going to help or eliminate the problem. With that said: I'm sure your first reSponse will be, It's a safety issue , the second response will be its a traffic flow issue. I can only state what is obvious. The development has unusable land due to the gas pipeline running through this comer of their property. fm not sure who owns itat the present time. It also wants an attractive entrance with a nice sign so they can sell their lots faster. I can't blame them for that. There are safety issues, me or one of my family crossing carver just to get the inail. During the detour with the Wakota project I'm surprised we all survived and I really don't want to cross three lanes in the future. 1 CWhat we would like the city and the engineering firm to look at is leaving Henry Lane at Its present location and make it a controlled intersection. (four way stop) 1 lThere is room for a right turn lane from east bound Carver, I'm not sure about west (CO NT) L bound. I'm sure they can make it just as attractive and still use their nice sign. This also solves the safety issue of the turn lanes. there are four driveways to the east arid one to the west of the proposed Itenry Lane. The visibility from these driveways are limited due to the curve under the Interstate 494 bridge and the curve in front of 2445 Carver. They are all in close proximity to the proposed turn lanes, making it more difficult and dangerous to gain entry on to Carver. The posted speed limit on Carver is 35mph. my estimate is traffic traveling at closer to 40mph. Dot uncommon for this road, I'm guilty of it myself. The added controlled intersection would slow traffic down a little thus rnAlring it safer. Let me state we do not like stop signs any more than the next person, but at the same time with the added traffic volume to Carver avenue. I see this as the safest alternative. With this scenario it also solves two more problems. I'm now speaking for the people not invited or unable to attend (and my family) this meeting. When the county reconstructed carver ave. approximately four years ago from the washington\ ramsey county line to McNight they had the four site to widen the shoulders of the road approximately four feet on the north side and three feet on the south side in our area: In the first twenty years we lived here very few people walked up or down the road, never letting their children near it, way too dangerous. With the wider shoulder on the north it now gets used as a substitute for a sidewalk with people enjoying it alot. Still not safe but better than it was. If the proposed turn lanes were to be built I don't think there will be additional room for the wider shoulders, and it would go back to being just to scary to walk down. [1e more problem to solve 2 With the controlled intersection at the existing intersection a crosswalk could be installed letting people safely across Carver to access the Maplewood open space, if it ever gets developed with trails by the parks department. May I add that this may also save taxpayers\ county\ and city money in construction and maintainence costs. Bottom line simpler is better. , Once again something has to be done about this problem. If you would like to stop by after dark I think I can give you a quick demoustration of how bright a set ofheadIites can be even at the distance we are from the road. Thank Yon: Terry & Linda Baumgart Page 1 of2 Bourdon, Brandon From: Chuck Ahl [Chuck.AhI@CLmaplewood.mn.us] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:57 AM To: Bourdon, Brandon; Horn, Jon Cc: Kurt Schneider Subject: FW: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Another Comment. From: Ken Roberts sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:53 PM To: Chuck Ahl Subject: FW: CalVer Crossing of Maplewood Chuck - FYI Ken From: SUSAN SCHLOMKA [mailto:Sue859@msn.com] Sent: Friday, Apnl 07, 200612:36 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Mr. Roberts: We have received your request for comments on this development. My husband (Don Schlomka) and I 1 support the project. It is an attractive well-planned development. We also support the city bringing sewer and water to the east side of 494. We have just signed, along with my in-laws to market our property (just under 7 acres combined) with United Properties. This parcel is at 1675 Sterling Street South (last house in Maplewood on the west side of Sterling). We have already purchased another home and will have extra mortgage payments, utilities, and taxes until the property is sold. Sincerely, Sue Schlomka 4/13/2006 Page 1 of2 Bourdon, Brandon From: Chuck Ahl [Chuck.Ahl@cl.maplewood.mn.us] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:43 AM To: Bourdon, Brandon; Horn, Jon Cc: Kurt Schheider; Ken Roberts Subject: FW: EAW for Carver Crossing of Maplewood More comments on EAW. Matt is a member of Community Design Review Board. Chuck From: Matthew Ledvina [mallto:mlledvina@nrglnc.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:26 AM To: Chuck Ahl Cc: dtripp@usfamny.net; WIll Rossbach SUbject: EAW for Carver Crossing of Maplewood Dear Mr. Ahl: I am a concerned citizen living within a 1/2 mile of the proposed Carver Crossing project Site. The Site lies within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) and represents one of the remaining large undeveloped areas of Maplewood. The area is unique and ecologically sensitive In terms of wildlife resources and landforms. The Site development In proximity to steep slopes associated with the Mississippi River bluff and Fish Creek must be carefully planned and managed to minimize impacts to water resources, at the time of deveiopment and into the future. I had a few questions/comments concerning the EAW. I understand that the preference of City staff is for commenters to pose them formally during the public comment period so they may be addressed in the EAW process. 1 Question 8. - Are there any approval processes associated with the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA)? Will variances to the MRCCA requirements be necessary under the provisions of Chapter 12, Article VII. "Environmental Protection and Critical Area" of the Maplewood City Code? As a Planned Unit Development, can these be waived without review? Question 14. - The EAW states that the development will ..... "meet or exceed the development standards set by City ordinances and policies and require that all new development minimize adverse effects and maximize all possible beneficial effects". The above referenced City code has numerous requirements (Sec. 12-308. Slopes) related to "significant slopes" which appear to exist on the western and central portions of the Site. A grading plan is not provided with the EAW and It is difficult to determine the area of disturbance associated with the project. I believe the goals of the Maplewood ComprehenSive Plan for this area should be expressly indicated in the EAW. A narrative should be provided to identify how the project is consistent with these goals. 2 Question 17. - Regarding stormwater management, the EAW states that....."The City requirements are as follows:.....Stormwater runoff volume and rates must be equai or less than existing conditions.....". The stormwater analysis that was provided In Appendix E did not include 4/1312006 Page 2 of2 @analysis of the existing conditions to enable a determination regarding this City requirement. 3 How will the volume of stormwater runoff be equal to or less than the existIng conditions with an Increase In Impervious surface from 0.8 acres to 23.6 acres? The modeling graphic that is provided with the HydroCAD analysis in appendix E does not appear to match the Storm Sewer Plan presented as Figure 9. The modeling indicates a discharge from the large central wetland area while the Storm Sewer Plan does not provide infrastructure for this discharge. The modeling graphic should be overlain directly on the Storm Sewer Plan to enable review of the modeling results. At his point, it Is difficult to correlate the HydroCAD analysis and the Storm Sewer Plan. 4 The use of rainwater gardens within the development to maximize infiltration Is strongly supported. Question 18. - The development of the Site with provisions for connection to the sanitary sewer is a strong asset for the project. The EAW states: "An 8-inch sanitary sewer stub will be constructed east of the proposed lift station to accommodate potential future development on the east side of Interstate 494". It is further stated thatthe "....stub will accommodate the peak flow anticipated from the potential development that may occur, as long as the development Is consistent with the City's land use plan". City staff is to be commended in its' foresight for considering this as an opportunity to capture additional unsewered areas of Maplewood and avoid the future propagatIon of Individual septic systems. 5 I would however, like full clarification of the statements made in the EAW and want to make sure that the City is doing all It can regarding capturing all possible areas wIthIn the unsewered area east of 1-494. What is the additional area (preferably shown on a map) that can be serviced by the S-Inch stub? What is the intended land use as referenced above? 1 would strongly support the expenditure of additional City funds to oversize the lift station and ensure the capacity to provide sanitary sewer to areas east of 1-494. It is my opinion that the use of individual septic systems will have a significant long-term detrimental affect to water resources, as this area is developed and utilized in the future. Question 19. - The EAW states: "Prior to development of the construction documents, several soli boring should be taken at various locations throughout the project site and a geotechnical evaluation should be completed". The potential for "geologic hazards" associated with Karst topography for this SIte warrants an assessment by a qualified Geologist. This would likely include field reconnaissance, surface geophysics and/or a soil boring program as determined by the Geologist. The analysis should be done early in the planning process to confirm the feasibility of the current Site design. 6 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW. Best regards, Matthew Ledvina. 4/13/2006 To: Chuck Ahl City of Maplewood Re: Comments: Environmental Assessment Worksheet, CoPar Development, LLC - South Crossing April 11 ,2006 1 The EAW states "This development will be set up so that residents must be fifty-five years or older to reside in the developmenr There appears to be a fair amount of inconsistencies in the projected population of this senior development. It is difficult to believe that 299 total residences would translate to a projected population of only 564 people. Please provide additional clarification specifically: . Must all residents be fifty-five or older? . How would qualified residents with children be addressed? . Would there be a requirement that all units be owner occupied? . Would residents be allowed to rent out the units? . In similar developments what percentage are purchased by single persons? 2 The EAW states "The development is planned to include detached homes, attached townhomes, and condominiums which will allow senior residents to have a choice in the type of residence that best fits their needs. This varietv of ootions will also allow tham to stav within tha develooment throuah various staaes of their retirement. Piease provide greater detail as to how a typical resident will be able to stay with in the development through their various stages of retirement. Under the proposed Plan Unit Development this could have profound effects on the amount of City resources required as the residents age. 3 The EAW states "The City of Maplewood's existing zoning and land use information is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The zoning maps show that all Darcels within the studv area are zoned as Farm Residential which matches the prior land uses on the property. Please provide clarification of zoning. It has been my understanding that in the August-September 2003 timeframe the City of Maplewood approved an amendment to the city code that added a rural residential (R-1 R) zoning classification to portions of the proposed development as well as a significant portion of South Maplewood. If true this would mean a significant increase in density over the current zoning. Under R-1 R is that not one home per two acres? 4 The EAW states "The proposed project would convert 32.1 acres of grassland to impervious surface and urban landscaping. This would result in habitat loss for a variety of species. Many of the Wildlife species that currently inhabit the project site would be displaced" I am very concerned over what will happen to all the "wildlife species" being displaced. What will become of them? Will most of them die? What is the proximity of another grassland habitat of similar size that perhaps they could migrate to? 5 The EAW States in Section 11: Overall, development of the Project Site is not anticipated to cause substantial impact on the general wildlife population in the Region. For the purpose of this EAW how are you defining "Region". Coupled with other pending developments along the Mississippi River Critical Area, such as the Rivers Edge development just to the South, what is the project cumulative effect on the wildlife species in the "Region" as well as South Maplewood individually? 10 6 The EAW states, to mitigate potentiai impacts, the Minnesota DNR recommends a buffar zone of native vegetation be created betwean the threatenad communities and the new deveiopment. The Developer wUI work with the City to minimize impacts to this area and develop appropriate mitigation based on the City's Tree Preservation. Please provide additional information and details as to how the developer and City will work together to minimize the impact I would hope we are not talking about planting stick like starter trees that will take tens of years to fill out I Has either the City of Maplewood or the developer submitted the EAW or South Crossing 7 Developments Proposal to the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy for an independent review? If not, why not 8 After reading the Designated parks, recreations areas or trails section, I find that the once again the southem most portion of South Maplewood appears to be left out in the cold. I can find little if any commitment to provide a natural style type park, usable trail system, neighborihood gathering site, picnic areas eto. In fact, in CoPar Oevelopmenfs March 171h letter to neighbors it clearly states. The City has directed that CoPar will pay a park fee based on the number and type of housing units in the project. I personally find this shameful that the City would issue such a directive without any public input prior to the decision. Do we expect a lighted sports arena, tennis courts or playgrounds no. But a comprehensive plan with a city backed commitment to develop trails; pathways eto. that would allow us to better utilize open spaces and truly experience the Urban Rural feelin9 of South Maplewood would be an innovqted concept 9 There appears to be more than the usual amount of confusion surrounding land use versus zoning as it applies to density. For example: After a number of consultations with City Staff the development concept has been refined to a density of 4.1 homes per acre Which is equivalent to traditional single family home lQ!}jfJg, in Maplewood. That said, "Traditionar is not the gold standard in zoning. Maplewood has other single family zoning classification such as the two Residential Estate classes, the urban-rural class etc. so I am not really such what your point is by stressing "traditional". Please provide clarification. The EAW states: "The Maplawood Police Department estimates that one additional officer will be required, to adequately respond to a population increase of 550 residents. The Maplewood Fire Department estimates 550 new residents wiH require 1.3 medics per year" In light of this I have several concems as these are 24X7 needs. . I question the validity of these figures and believe them to be low. Given that this proposed development is being presented as Senior Housing and that the residents must be fifty-five years and older I would believe even 550 Senior residents would required more Medical intervention than say a more diverse demographic makeup found In typical developments of similar size and scope. . South Maplewood's current Police & Medic capacity is stretched very thin in regards to response times and general coverage. Any additional requirement would push these precious resources to the breaking point. In life threatening situations a second or third emergency call to 911 for police or medical assistance In South Maplewood would find response times severely compromised as unils would have to be dispatched from a distant station. These are cases were seconds can make the difference between life and death. . While both the Police & Fire departments call out for one additional officer and one plus additional medic I find nothing that guarantees the residents of South Maplewood that 11 these positions would ever be filled. Without an up front commitment from the City, I believe we would be placing ourselves and our love ones at risk. . The EAW states "To accommodate the increased demand that residents will place on the public health, safety and welfare services it should be noted that the annual tax impact of this project is an estimated $268,000 of City revenue and $679,000 of schooVcounty/state revenue." What is the projected cost to the City of Maplewood to provide tihese additional police and medical response personal on a 24X7 bases? If you factor in salaries, benefits, equipment (including additional squad cars, and ambulances), on-going continuing educations etc...etc. this hardly appears to be a great deal for the City and may well place additional tax burdens on tihe residents of Maplewood. The EAW States, the City of MapJewood's Comprehensive Plan or Land Use wi/I need to be amended. This would change the land use designation within the project area from R-1 Single dwellings (4.1 units/acre) to R.3(L) multiple dweJlings- low density (4.4-6.3 unils/acre). I find this extremely disturbing were talking about amending tihe City of MaDlewood's ComDrehensive Plan for the sake of one sinole orooosed develoomenl In addition, this has tihe high potential to establish a very dangerous prescient that may well effect tihe future development of Soutih Maplewood as a whole. I believe the City of Maplewood has a responsibility to further explain and open for additional public comment this topic before any action is taken. The City of Maplewood has but a limited few tracks of land of this significance. The wrong moves at this time will haunt us all for generations to come. The EAW States, An 8-inch sewer stub will be constrvcted east of the proposed lift station to accommodate potential future development on the east side of 494. This stub will be jacked from the liftslation located adjacent to Henry Lane to the east side of 494........ The stub will allow the City to expand the sanitary sewer system in the future to areas not currently served by sanitary sewer. Although there are no definila plans for development on the east side of 1-494, an 8 inch sanitary sewer stub will accommodate the peak flow anticipated from potential development thai may occur. as long as the development is consistent with the City's land use plan. 12 . This easily over looked statement could very well place a substantial financial burden on tihe current residents of South Maplewood located on the east side of 494. This area involves portions of Carver Avenue, Sterling Street Soutih and tihe entire Haller woods development. As the vast majority of these sites utilize private well and septic systems the cost in either current or in future dollars will place a substantial financial burden on these residents through costly assessments. Please provide the estimated costs projected by tihe City to tihese existing residents to hook up to City water and sewer. . While there are no definite plans for development on the east side of 1-494 today, it is an almost foregone conclusion. With tihe proposed sewer stub extending under 1494, developers have started to aggressively seek and acquire property along Sterling Street Soutih. To date somewhere between 10-20 acres. In February oftihis year the City was made aware of several significant land acquisitions by Lauren Development out of Stillwater. Couple that with the proposed amendment to the City of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan opening the door perhaps to muitiple dwelling townhome and condominium housing options and very soon we could have wall to wall track developments. I have a very difficult time finding the information contained in the Traffic portion of the EAWas credible. Even the EA W states: The trip Generation Manual has limited data for senior adult housing development. The majority of the senior developments related data is based on a low number of trip generation surveys and in many cases does not include trip generation estimates for the daily or one of the peak periods. In short, key conclusions contained in tihe report are based on what I believe to be false assumptions and conjecture. The reports attempts to project a significantly lower trip generation (in short, how often these residents will leave their residence in a car) than a comparable no senior residential development. Lefs examine some common sense rules. The developer states that the proposed development is focused on the' Active 55+ Baby Boomers". I do not believe that the vast majority of 55+ baby boomers are going to be getting in there car any less. In fact I believe most will stili be actively employed and engaged in the same everyday trip (auto) usage as the majority of the under 55+ demographics. Common sense would also dictate that after 65 or so, the actual number of trips would increase as these 65+ seniors finally have more available time to pursue outside activities and hobbies. After all, whafs to keep them in the proposed development? There is no community center, parks or other recreational resources to keep them occupied. 13 The traffic analysis also did not show a significant Increase in traffic on Sterling Street South. Once again I find this astonishing. Sterling Street South between Carver Avenue and Bailey Road provides the Quickest and most direct route for anyone livin9 in the proposed development needing to access 494 and/or Highway 61. Both of these highways are the main arteries to access the Twin Cities and surrounding shopping areas. Yet reading the EAWwould be lead to believe that this development would have little or no impact on Sterling Street. Continuing on the topic of Sterling Street South between Carver Avenue & Bailey please address what steps are City of Maplewood and the developer prepared to take to insure that the "Weight Restrictions on the Fish Creek Bridge are adhered and enforced. Finally, there is considerable concern that the safety of local residents and their children will continue to be compromised if traffic levels are allowed to increase on Sterling Street South. This is not you're a typical suburban residential street. It has very limited visibility, several schools buss stops, numerous hidden driveways, very poor sight lines due to the heavy tree cover. Enforcement continues to be a problem as the street crosses into Washington County, as well as in to the City of Newport. Respectfully Submitted: Mark Bonitz April 11, 2006 Charles AhJ, P.E. Public Works Director 1 City Engineer City of Maplewood 1902 County Road Beast Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Chuck: Please consider this mailing as my comment sheet to the City of Maplewood in regards to the Carver Crossing of Maplewood Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). In review of the material puhlished February 2006, I have the following comments. 1 1. As mentioned at a City Council meeting, and an open house with city officials, I am very concerned that the numbers used in the studies to determine surface water impact to the Fish Creek watershed are grossly incorrect. It was not more than three years ago the watershed district completed a major renovation to Fish Creek. Just last year one rainfall caused Fish Creek to flood and washed out the failed renovation project. This is proof that numbers need to be reviewed and corrected before any additional development is granted. At this time, the small Fish Creek watershed is undergoing a great deal of development, i.e.: Valley Creek Freeway exchange, 494 upgrades, the Woodwinds Medical complex plus the potential of a 1,000 more housing units in Maplewood's south leg. All of these projects plus more will drain into this narrow ecologically critical creek bed. There are photo available to document various failures in the man-made, installed system. 2 2. With regard to 611.. of the EA W , the question reads" Are future stages of this development on any outlots planned or likely to happen?" I believe this qnestion was incorrectly answered "no", when in fact this proposal will consist of an oversized lift station to accommodate as many as 700 additional housing units in Maplewood all draining back throngh this proposed development and the Fish Creek watershed. 3. Responding to item 11a, "Fish, wildlife and ecologically seusitive resources. a. Identify fish, wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe auy measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts." I am in complete disagreement with the statement "Overall development of the project site is not anticipated to cause substantial impact on the general wildlife population of the region." This EA W identifies that 32 of the 34 acres of open grassland will be removed. It identifies that it will clear cut and grade 15 of the 26 Ch.arles AhI, P.E. Page 2 wooded acres on the site. The EA W proposes that the 7.2 acre wetland identified on the site to become the holding pond of the entire 299 unit development. It is important to recognize that the number one pollution problem of housing 3 Cevelopments is contaminated rainwater runoff. This proposal drastically alters the wetland and is in violation of recognized wetland regulations. 4 Identified within this mixed old growth forest there lies Papa Oak. It has been identified as 1538 and its days are numbered. This grand oak stands amongst others, with a circumference of more than 12 feet, it has stood for more than two centuries. We can not replace what we lose when an old growth forest, upland grassland and a fragile watershed is cleared, graded and replaced with minimal, boulevard plantings. The area, has national and regional significance. 4. Item Ub., "Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities, or other sensitive ecological resonrces such as native prairie habit, colonial water bird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant on or near the site?" [This EA W has identified 8 known occurrences of rare species and plant communities. I would argue with confidence, that with additional review, more 5 occurrences will be identified within this ecologically inter-dependent and sensitive area. Also identified in the EA W items 12, and 14 as having negative impact on water resources and federally designated wild or scenic river land use district. All of the above items plus many other issues all fall within what the city has designated as an "urban diversified district". This entire urban diversified district falls within the Mississippi River critical Area Corridor that was created with a federal act of Congress in 1988. This act, creating a National park in Maplewood, known as the Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRA) was "intended to bund partnerships with local park agencies, private sector, and citizens to protect the Driver and its resources and provide recreational, interpretive, and educational 6 opportunities" Efforts should be pursued to preserve what comes natural to this area. 5. Item 21 Traffic I feel, that due to the identified population of 55 and older, the vehicle per day count is grossly underestimated. This community of older citizens is isolated by proximity. There are no services within walking distance, so all services will either be a resident trip or professional delivery. Also, this population could possibly have school age children in the home. This planned development will greatly increase traffic movement and congestion and safety issues in this geographically challenged 7 7 (CONT) Charles Ahl, P.E. Page 3 area. Neither the city nor the developer has adequate plans to address the issues that added traffic will generate. This development has one-way in one-way out road way. This raises many concerns for health, safety and access issues for the residents and for the emergency vehicles which would service the area. The location of this project will put a fmancial and logistical burden on the city. I have concerns about the accuracy of the EA W. Sincerely, Ron Cockriel and The Sons and Daughters of Highwood 943 Century Ave N ~aplewood,~ 55119 Transmission to chuck.ahlCillci.m.anlewood.mn.us and delivery by fax to 651-249-2409 Comment Sheet City ofMaplewood Carver Crossing of Maple wood Environmental Assessment Worksheet Please fill out ton' h or rovide to Charles Ahl address below Your Comment: (!.t)/1feRIII 'i,Ai -r;;~N G #/I"'e /l~. M~ titlE. ""t /ffc: t6J/J'h T- . {lA-AI ?;.e.vL ,/r/Je .be K".ej7~ t:)N ~rhC 1 .::5j-',O-e J eI9-Kt/ee. w/rn"tI T /l1tJo/~ ~X ,'51;''1 1ft:),4b ~'/JES"_ c!x/)/nple L#Re e"'A"/"Y We1C7dC;'!1/1"1!' ,2),I?,'&/E_ ---;2'iI~~/' 'z cl'ls;L t::Jn C,,9Le- /!,t - J'r l"~ J)MY (!/7~ ,41;?1!' S -/"D / "" r - '".q ~ / Data Priv cy Warning: All "written statements" received prior to close of the comment period will be included in the public record. Name: .{kIlAl ~. V:d.'e.. m~ er Address: Z Z. S2:: (!fJR. V(; t::.. fhJ'L ..,. 22.. ~ 2.... .# A..I"/ '?A"e.. THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING Please submit comments by April 12, 2006 to: Charles AhI, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City ofMaplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-249-2400 Fax: 651-249-2409 E-Mail: chuck.ahI@ci.maplewood.mn.us Comment Sheet City of Maple wood Carver Crossing of Maplewood Environmental Assessment Worksheet Please fill ont ton' or rovide to Charles Ah1 address below A ril12 2006 Your Comment: 1 . Wf,-k ij;t/o tl.. U.f. CoVl~c.-l(l:>~ -10 Aop./lllAd de 1J1l-/()f.......J-; No ~ c( .(' ro"'-'l... Data Privacy Warning: All "written statements" received prior to the close of the comment period will be included in the public record . Name: ~.~ 1:'7~ JIVt. . . {( er S. boR../fdu4 ~ Address: THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING Please submit comm.eIlls by April 12, 2006 to: Charles AhI, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City ofMaplewood 1902 County Road B East MapIcwood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-249-2400 Fax: 651-249-2409 E-Mail: chuck.ahI@ci.maplewood.mn.us FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description The proposed project is located just west ofl-494 and south of Carver Avenue in the southern part of the City of Maple wood. The proposed project is a senior housing development that will include 299 residential units. The proposed development would provide better coverage of senior housing across the City of Maple wood. The planned density of the development is approximately 4.1 units per acre. Senior residents will be able to choose from detached homes, attached townhomes, and condominiums. Residents must be 55 years of age or older. The total study area is 73 acres. The development will occur on 70 acres of private land. A three acre parcel that runs through the middle of the study area and includes Fish Creek has also been included in the study. This parcel is included so that impacts on Fish Creek and the steep slopes associated with the creek can be assessed. The three acre parcel is owned by Ramsey County Parks and Recreation. The construction associated with the proposed development is expected to continue over several years. Construction activities will include grading, infrastructure installation, and construction of the residential units. The required project infrastructure, including utilities, roadway, and storm drainage facilities are planned to be completed in approximately one year. This schedule will reduce the duration of site construction and allow the site to be seeded which will reduce erosion and associated potential impacts to the adjacent wetlands and Fish Creek. For purposes of representing potential traffic issues for the Traffic Study, development is assumed to be completed in five years, or the end of201O. The construction of the residential units will be market driven and is anticipated to last between three and five years. Construction activities are projected to begin in 2006. Criteria to Decide if the Project has Potential for Significant Environmental Effects Criteria A: Type, Extent and Reversibility of Environmental Effects According to Minnesota rule 4410.1700 Subp. 7(A), the first factor the City must consider is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects." The City's findings are set forth below: City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 22 1. Project Site. The majority of the property has been privately owned prior to the purchase by CoPar Development LLC. Until recently, parts of the property were used for agricultural purposes. The aerial photos show little change to the subject property between 1937 and 2003. Recent aerial photos show that the land has returned to a natural state and no agricultural cultivation has occurred. 2. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. The proposed project would convert 32.1 acres of grassland to impervious surface and urban landscaping. The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland. The project would change 15.4 acres of wooded area. A tree preservation plan has been completed by the project proposer, and would include the planting of 624 trees to meet and exceed the City's Woodlot Alternative Permit requirements. The proposed project would impact 0.2 acre of wetland (7.3 total acres of wetland on the project site). Wetland mitigation includes the creation of 0.43 acres of new wetland on the project site. Based on the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System database, there are no known occurrences ofrare species within the project site boundaries. The majority of documented occurrences are located to the west of the proposed site, and is near the Mississippi River. As the project site includes public land, and there is surrounding open space/public land, the development of the site is not anticipated to cause substantial impact on wildlife populations. 3. Water Resources. As noted above, the proposed project will impact 0.2 acre of wetland. Wetlands will be mitigated on site at a minimum 2: I replacement ratio as required under Wetland Conservation Act Rules. Specifically, Wetland 3 will be expanded to the northwest, resulting in an additional 0.43 acre of on-site wetlands. 4. Water Use/Water Surface Use. The proposed project will not increase the number of watercraft on any waterbody in the vicinity of the redeveloped area. The Phase 1 ESA completed for the project identified two private wells on the project site. These wells have been sealed and abandoned by a licensed contractor. No new water wells will be installed as part of this project. The proposed development will utilize the City's public water supply system, which is owned by St. Paul Regional Water Services. An 8-inch watermain will be installed along all roadways within the development to serve the residential units and for emergency services. An 8-inch watermain will be installed from the end of the existing watermain on Heights Avenue to Henry Road. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 23 5. Water-Related Land Use Management Districts Originally there was a 100- year floodplain located within the proposed construction limits that would potentially be impacted by the project. The floodplain is located near Fish Creek. As there is a significant change in grade, the developer applied for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) to amend the FIRM. FEMA has issued a LOMA (removal of portion of property from the special flood hazard area) for the area in question (March 16, 2006). The entire project is located in the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor (MRCAC), in an area designated as an "Urban Diversified District". Policies for this area include: inform the MnDNR on potential changes and development applications, ensure any development and construction reduces and improves the quality of runoff; ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by City ordinances and policies, and require that all new development minimize adverse effects and maximize all possible beneficial effects. Based on the findings presented in the EA W, and supplemental information presented in this document, the proposed action is consistent with these goals and the policies. The proposed project is located within a shoreland zoning overlay district ofFish Creek. Based on the preliminary plans for the project, development activities would be outside the required 50 foot setback from the OHW. 6. Soils, Erosion and Sedimentation There are steep slopes on the proposed site, particularly along the banks ofFish Creek. Best management practices (BMP's) will be employed to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be obtained from the MnPCA prior to the start of construction to ensure proper temporary and permanent erosion control measures are implemented. 7. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. The proposed storm drainage system includes a series of rain gardens and permanent dual purpose detention basins (PDPB's) to address the stormwater treatment and rate control requirements for the project. The following Permanent Dual Purpose Basin (PDPB) Data Schedule details the required and proposed infiltration volumes for each of the PDPB's. Required infiltration volumes have been determined based upon the City of Maplewood's "Environmentally Enhanced Storm Water Practice Worksheet." As shown on the table, all of the PDPB's meet the City's infiltration volume requirements. Overall, the required infiltration volume is 69,059 cubic feet, and the proposed PDPB's include a total infiltration volume of99,663 cubic feet. City o/Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings o/Fact/Response 10 Comment/Record o/Decision May 2006 24 PERMANENT DUAL PURPOSE BASIN DATA SCHEDULE PDPB PDPB PDPB PDPB PDPB PDPB 101 102 103A 1038 104 105 CATCHMENT AREA 17.61 14.42 3.89 0.98 2.06 2.12 (ACRES) PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 45 34 76 51 82 65 INFILTRATION 26,415 18,926 10,892 1,764 5,974 5,088 VOLUME REQUIRED. I (CF) INFILTRATION 42,427 22,520 1l,630 2,004 12,022 9,060 VOLUME PROPOSED" (CF) BASIN BOTIOM 870 870 862 864 880 876 ELEVATION 2 YEAR HIGH WATER 872.1 872.8 865.9 866.3 882.1 878.3 10 YEAR HIGH WATER 873.7 874.1 867.8 866.9 882.8 880.1 100 YEAR HIGH 876.7 875.0 868.3 867.3 883.8 881.6 WATER DISCHARGE RATE - 2 0.05 0.04 0.76 0.46 0.06 0.00 YR EVENT (CFS) DISCHARGE RATE - 10 1.99 1.52 1.50 2.76 0.68 0.00 YR EVENT (CFS) DISCHARGE RATE- 4.46 15.99 21.38 4.71 U8 0.69 1 ()() YR EVENT (CFS) INFILTRATION 2.75" 2.50" 1.25" 2.00" 2.50" 2.50" CAPACITY." (EVENT) TOTAL INFILTRATION VOLUME REOUIRED. = 69.059 CF TOTAL INFILTRATION VOLUME PROPOSED.. = 99,663 CF . INFILTRAT10N VOLUME REQUIRED HAS BEEN CALCUlATED USING mE "ENVIRONMENTALLY ENHANCED STORMWATER PRACT1CE WORKSHEET" AS REQUIRED BY mE CI1Y OF MAPLEWOOD. . mE INFILTRATION VOLUME PROPOSED HAS BEEN CALCUlATED USING THE STORMWATERMODELINGSOF1WARE "HYDROCAD" IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OVERALL STORMWATERMANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH mE Cl1Y OF MAPLEWOOD. ... mE SPECIFIED EVENT IS THE 1YPE II - 24 HOUR EVENT USING SCS TR-20 RUNOFF METHOD. The proposed stormwater system will result in a reduction in the runoff rate for the after conditions. The following Comparison of Existing and Proposed Discharge Rates table details the existing and proposed discharge rates for the 2-year, 100year, and 100-year storm events. City ofMapJewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fa::t/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 25 COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED DISCHARGE RATES EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS (CFS) (CFS) DISCHARGE POINT 2-YR IQ-YR 100- YR 2-YR IQ-YR 100- YR CENTRAL WETLAND 7.42 7.73 7.96 7.30 7.59 7.95 FISH CREEK- 1.31 6.83 15.01 0.06 1.05 2.97 NORTH FISH CREEK - SOUTH 3.18 18.24 41.88 3.16 10.37 21.27 OFFSITE NORTH 0.90 4.46 9.69 0.71 2.33 4.79 OFFS1TE 3.27 17.94 40.15 0.65 7.43 20.10 SOUTHWEST The net effect of the proposed stormwater system will be to reduce phosphorus and total suspend solids discharges from the site. A letter from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (April 25, 2006) regarding their comments on the project is included at the end of the Response to Comments section. In the referenced letter, the Watershed District has requested that "Permanent Dual Purpose Basin (PDPB) 102 be rerouted to the central wetland on the north side of the project instead of connecting directly to the Fish Creek Piping System" The developer has agreed to this plan revision. 8. Water Quality - Wastewater. Wastewater will consist of typical domestic wastes associated with a residential development. Proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer lines will be constructed throughout the proposed development to provide sanitary sewer service. An 8-inch sanitary sewer stub will be constructed east of the proposed lift station to accommodate future development on the east side ofI- 494. There are no definite plans for development to the east ofI-494 at this time. 9. Groundwater - Potential for Contamination. There are no known sinkholes, shallow limestone foundations, or karst conditions on the project site. From the map "Sensitivity of the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan Aquifer to Pollution", the site is located in an area with low to moderate ratings. Estimated travel time from water borne contaminants at the land surface to reach the aquifer varies from years to a century, depending on the specific location. 10. Solid Waste. Construction and operation of the proposed property is anticipated to generate standard nnmicipal solid waste. City ofMaplewood Carver Crossing Findings of FactlResponse to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 26 11. Traffic. As part of the initial analysis, the trip generation for typical single- family detached homes and senior adult housing - detached home were compared to estimate the reduction in trips for a senior development. This comparison showed that a reduction in trips between 47 and 65 percent for the AM perk hour, PM peak hour, and the daily trip generation would be likely. That is the reason a 50 percent reduction was used to estimate the trip generation in the EA W. Additional dialog with Washington County Staff, regarding the trip generation has occurred since receiving their comments to the EA W. To help ensure that the traffic impacts are conservatively assessed, the reduction in the apartment trip generation was decreased from 50 percent to 25 percent as suggested by Washington County. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect this increase in traffic. The site trip distribution map caused some confusion because some of the percent distributions were not listed on the figure. This figure has been updated. The previous analysis assumed that 30 percent of the traffic would travel south to the Interchange of TH 61 and 1-494. This traffic was split between Point Douglas Road and Sterling Street. Fifteen percent of the site traffic was distributed to the north via Carver Avenue to Century Boulevard. After further discussion with Washington County the percentage of site trips using Point Douglas and Carver Avenue were decreased by 5 percent each. The 10 percent of trips that used those roads were rerouted to the south on Sterling to obtain access to the TH 61 and 1- 494 Interchange. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect the impacts of the changes in the site traffic trip distributions. The updated analysis is included at the end of the Response to Comments section. The traffic analysis using a more conservative trip generation number and an increased trip distribution to/from Sterling Street did not significantly change the traffic results. There was no significant change in the approach level-of-service values at any of the intersections included in the original analysis. The delay on the southbound approach to Sterling Street did not increase and remained similar to the no build conditions. Therefore, the mitigation measures presented in the original EA Ware still recommended and no further mitigation measures are recommended. 12. Air Quality. The proposed project would not adversely impact air quality conditions. 13. Adverse Visual Effects. Temporary visual impacts may occur during the construction period with the presence of heavy machinery and equipment. The visual environment of the project site will change as a result of the proposed project. Residential buildings will be visible from Carver Avenue and 1-494. 14. Noise. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are not expected to be at levels that would result in a measurable increase in noise on surrounding City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 27 neighborhoods. 1-494 is located on the east of the proposed project site. Existing noise levels are above and projected to be above state standards throughout a significant portion of the proposed development. This is not uncommon for suburban developments located adjacent to major roadways, such as 1-494. The proposed residential units will be designed to minimize noise impacts by providing climate-controlled units and increasing wall insulation. In addition, any outside common areas, and/or decks/patios for the two condominiums will be located on the west side of the buildings. The final landscaping plan for the proposed project will also focus on concentrating tree plantings along with eastern edge of the project site, to the extent possible. 15. Compatibility with Plans. The City of Maple wood's comprehensive plan will need to be amended. This would change the land use designation within the project area from R-I single dwellings to R-3(L) multiple dwellings. The City will require a CUP for the PUD. 16. Cultural Resources. A Cultural Resource Assessment and Phase I Archaeological Survey were completed on the project site. The Phase I survey indicated that there are areas on the site that exhibit a high potential for containing intact archaeological resources. The development plans have been developed to avoid any archaeological sites within the project area. Criteria B: Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects According to Minnesota Rule 44 I O. I 700 Subp. 7(B), the second factor the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects". The City's findings are set forth below. The EA W addresses potential environmental effects related to all stages of the proposed project. There are no future defined projects anticipated in the project area. Criteria C, Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation According to Minnesota Rule 44 I O. I 700 Subp. 7(C), the third factor the City must consider is the "extent to which the environment effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority." The City's findings are set forth below. The following permits and approvals are required for this project: UNIT OF GOVERNMENT State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit To be applied for General Stormwater Permit Extension of Sanita Sewer To be a lied for To be a lied for City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 28 UNIT OF TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS GOVERNMENT Minnesota Department of Abandonment of Water Well In Process Health Watermain Extension & Testing To be applied for Minnesota DNR Groundwater Appropriation To be determined Permit Development Review (30-day To be submitted minimum before City takes action on development application) Minnesota Department of Approval of storm sewer To be applied for Transportation reVISIOns MnlDOT Drainage permit To be determined MnlDOT ROW Permit To be determined Ref!ional Ramsey-Washington Metro Grading and Erosion Control To be applied for Watershed District Permit Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Guide Plan To be applied for Chanlle Connection Permit - Sanitary To be applied for Sewer Service Connection Local City of Maple wood Plat Annroval To be applied for Comprehensive Plan To be applied for Amendment Mississippi River Critical Area Amendment To be applied for Planned Unit Development To be applied for AODroval Site Plan Review To be applied for Grading, Excavation, and To be applied for Foundation Permits Buildinll Permits To be applied for UtilitY Permits To be applied for Environmental Determination In Process Ramsey-Washington Metro WCA Wetland Permit To be applied for Watershed District Floodolain Review To be submitted The potential environmental effects associated with this project are less than significant and will be mitigated in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The City of City of Map/<Mood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 29 Maplewood therefore finds that the potential environmental effects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority and an EIS need not be prepared. Criteria D: Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled According to Minnesota Rule 4410. I 700 Subp. (D), the fourth factor the City of Maplewood must consider is the 'extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or ofEIS's previously prepared on similar projects. The City's findings are set forth below: I. The proposed project is similar to other development projects within the metropolitan area. Other projects of similar scope have in general, successfully mitigated on and off-site environmental impacts. 2. The EA W, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies that provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects that can be anticipated and controlled. 3. An EIS is not necessary for this project. 4. In light of the results of the environmental review and permitting processes, the City of Maplewood finds the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated and controlled. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 30 RECORD OF DECISION City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 31 A RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project City of Maplewood, Minnesota WHEREAS, CoPar Development LLC is the proposer of the Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project; a senior housing development with 299 units on approximately 70 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the general boundaries ofthe Carver Crossing project can be described as 70 acres of land to the west ofI-494 and south of Carver Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.0500; and WHEREAS, the EA W was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for EA W's in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1300; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EA W was completed and distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board distribution list; and WHEREAS, the notification of the EA W was published in the Minnesota EQB Monitor on March 13,2006; and WHEREAS, the public review and comment period remained open until April 12, 2006; and WHEREAS, a public informational meeting was held for the project on March 30, 2006 in the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, the comments on the EA W were received and responded to; and City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 32 WHEREAS, the record considered by the City Council for purposes of its decision herein consists of the EA W, related reports and analysis, the comments received thereon, and the responses to such comments, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part ofthis decision; and NOW, THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, acting with respect to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Project of Maplewood, that it finds and concludes the following: I. The EA W as prepared in compliance with the procedures ofthe Minnesota Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700; and 2. The EA W satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained; and 3. The Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit A (attached) are made; and 4. Based on criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, and the Findings of Fact, the Project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects; and 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the City of Maple wood therefore makes a "Negative Declaration". Adopted by the City Council of the City of Maple wood, Minnesota this 22nd day of May, 2006. City of Maplewood Carver Crossing Findings of Fact/Response to Comment/Record of Decision May 2006 33 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Carver Crossing South of Carver Avenue, west of 1-494 May 10, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted plans to the city for a senior housing development called Carver Crossing. He, in conjunction with Rottlund Homes, has prepared a site plan that shows 299 housing units (in three different types of housing) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 33 - 38 and the maps on pages 39 - 55. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The applicant's designer has told staff that each town house building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors. In addition, each town house unit would have a two-car garage. (See the building elevations on pages 53 - 55 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve: 1. The results and findings of an EA W for the project area. 2. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3(L) (multiple dwellings -low density). (See the land use plan map on page 40.) 3. A change to the zoning map. The zoning map change would be from F (farm residence) and R-1 (R) to R-3 (multiple dwellings) for the site. 4. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project to have a mix of housing styles, to have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have many of the units on private driveways. 5. The vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within the development. 6. The proposed preliminary plat to create the new public street right-of-ways, the lots for the structures and for the outlots. (See the preliminary plat date on page 42 and in the project plans.) 7. The design plans (architectural, site, landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings. (See the project plans on pages 47 - 55 and the separate enclosures.) 1 BACKGROUND In 1992, the city considered parts of the subject property in the inventory of possible properties to buy for open space. Of the approximately fifty properties the city considered, the open space committee ranked this site 20th overall and first out of 15 in the neighborhoOd. The city, however, was unable to negotiate a purchase of any of the property with a willing seller. As such, the city did not buy any of this property for open space and instead bought two parcels north of Carver Avenue for open space. On March 14, 2005, the city council reviewed an early concept plan for this property. That plan showed 386 units of senior housing on the property. After some discussion by the council, the applicant asked the city to table their request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal. On May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed a second concept plan prepared by CoPar Companies for the Schlomka property south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane. This plan showed 376 housing units in at least four styles of homes on about 72 acres. The council also authorized the preparation of an EAW for the development area and for some of the area along Sterling Street, south of Carver Avenue. DISCUSSION Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) An EAW is a preliminary environmental review of a proposal to look at how the development could potentially affect the environment. The state designed the EAW to gather and disclose information about potential environmental effects from a proposed project. The EAW also reviews ways or methods to avoid or minimize any environmental effects. An EAW has a list of standardized questions that cover issues such as land use and habitat, storm water, wetlands, air emissions and pollution and traffic. As proposed, the project does not meet the minimum size thresholds (with the proposed number of units) set by state rules to mandate an EAW. However, the city can require the developer to prepare an EAW if the city decides that the project "has a potential for significant environmental effects." To this end, Mr. Hansen requested that the city order the preparation of an EAW in 2005. A preliminary list of concems included the effects the project could have on the wetlandS, slopes, utilities, storm water and drainage (including Fish Creek) and traffic in the area. The noise from 1-494 and its effects on the new residents is another matter that the EAW was to analyze. Staff expected that the consultant would need three to four months to prepare the EAW, In this case, however, because of the complexity of the project, revisions the developer made to the project plans (in response to staff concems) and the potential issues in the area, the EAW took almost one year to complete. The city's consultant completed the EAW and then the city had a state-mandated 30-day public comment periOd on the document. The comments the city received included questions and concems about wetlands, storm water run-off and management (including possible effects on Fish Creek), the Mississippi River Critical Corridor, traffic, noise and public utilities. The comments the city received and the consultant's responses to those comments are explained in a separate memo. Staff is recommending that the city make a negative declaration for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for this project. 2 DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed town houses, Mr. Hansen wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. The land use plan change would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3(L) (multiple dwellings -low density). (See the land use map on page 40.) The zoning map change would be from F (farm residence) and R-1(R) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). The city intends R-3(L) areas for a variety of housing including double dwellings, town houses or apartments of up to 8.5 units per gross acre. The land use plan is the city's long range guide as to how the city expects land to be used or developed. The zoning designation for a property defines how a property owner may develop or use the property. For R-1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area (when sanitary sewer is available) with a maximum density of 4.6 units per acre while the R-1 (R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on 2-acre lots. The R-3 zoning in Maplewood allows for a mix of housing styles including twin homes, town houses, condos and apartments. Land Use Plan Change Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, five apply to this proposal including: . Provide for orderly development. . Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. . Minimize the land planned for streets. . Minimize conflicts between land uses. . Provide a wide variety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: . Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. . The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. . Include a variety of housing types for all residents. . . including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, low- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. . Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: 3 . Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. . The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The applicable development policies (to implement the plan goals) include: . The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. . Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. . Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. . Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. . Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. The proposal to change the land use plan from R-1 to R-3(L) for the Carver Crossing development would meet these goals and policies. Compatibility and Density This proposal, if approved by the city, would be a large change for this area of Maplewood. It would transform a semi-rural, very low-density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban-style, mixed-use residential development with public sewer and water. This proposal is a significant departure from the existing and expected land uses in the area. However, it also is important to note that change is not necessarily a bad thing. The city does make changes to the land use plan and to the zoning map when it determines that such changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the city and when the changes would be, in the opinion of the city council, in the best interests of the city. A development such as this, if carefully planned and constructed, has the potential to be a great addition to the city. Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed town houses and condominiums would be next to 1-494 and Carver Avenue, would be on a collector street (Carver Avenue) and is between two arterial streets (Century Avenue and McKnight Road). It is important to note that developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, The Gardens, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. As proposed, the 299 units on the 72-acre site means there would be 4.1 units per gross acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single family and for double dwelling residential development (even though they are proposing a mix of housing types and styles). In addition, the proposed project density would be less than the maximum density standard 4 (10.1 units per acre) in the comprehensive plan for town houses. For comparison, the Heritage Square town houses In Legacy Village will have 220 units on 19.8 acres (an average of 11.1 units per acre), Cardinal Pointe Co-op on Hazelwood is a 108-unit, three-story building with underground parking on a 6.75-acre site (an average of 16 units per gross acre) and, when finished, the New Century development near Century and Highwood Avenues will have 178 units on 55 acres (3.23 units per acre) in single dwellings, small-lot single dwellings and town houses. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle to meet housing needs. Mississippi River Critical Area Information Since 1976, Minnesota state law has required communities with land in the metropolitan Mississippi River corridor to manage that land. The Mississippi River Critical Area covers the area of Maplewood that is west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue. The management of this area includes having a Critical Area Plan to guide development for the land within the river corridor. Maplewood adopted a critical area plan in 1979 (and updated it in 1981) to meet this requirement. The intention of this plan is to manage development to protect resources and to protect the scenic qualities of the river corridor, including the bluffs within the Mississippi River corridor. Critical Area Plan The 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan shows all the land area west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue as being in the "Mississippi River Critical Corridor." As part of this 2002 comprehensive plan update, the Metropolitan Council staff requested the City add language and information about the Mississippi River Critical Area Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. I have included much of the language from the Comprehensive Plan in the reference section of this report. For reviewing this development, the following goals and policies from the Critical Area Plan are most relevant: Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the city has been designated as an "Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals: (1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. (2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources. (3) Expand public access to and the enjoyment of the river. The city may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if they are compatible with these goals. 5 Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards The following are the six relevant policies of the city's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area the city should consider when reviewing the Carver Crossing development. . The city shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. . The city will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies. . Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The city will review these effects when approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single-family homes. . The city shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. . Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. . The city encourages the clustering of structures and the use of designs that will reduce public facility costs, which will provide more open space and will improve scenic designs. The proposed project, if built with all changes required by the city engineer and the other permitting agencies, should be consistent with these goals. Zoning Map Change The zoning map change would be from F (farm residence) and R-1 (R) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). The city code has several criteria that the city should consider when reviewing a change to the zoning map. They include: 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 the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. This proposal and zoning map change will meet these criteria. 6 Vacations There are existing easements for roadways and for drainage areas within the development site that are not compatible with the proposed design and layout of the project. The applicant's engineer is requesting that the city vacate these areas so they may record the proposed plat without any conflicts. As shown on the project plans, the developer will be dedicating new right-of-ways for the public streets (including Henry Lane) and new easements for the drainage and utility areas. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied to the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 299-unit housing development. They have requested a PUD to allow the project to have a mix of housing styles, to allow code deviations and more flexibility with site design and development details than the standard city requirements. Such flexibility includes having: 1. A variety of building setbacks. 2. The detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width). 3. Many of the units on private driveways. 4. A long dead-end street that is more than 1000 feet in length. In this case, there are no other altematives for access to the southem part of the site because of existing street layout and the existing topography, including Fish Creek. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on page 43), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. A deviation included in this PUD approval is the long dead-end street or cul-de-sac that would provide street access to the south end of the site. This long street is necessary (and the only practical altemative) because the location of 7 the existing public right-of-ways, Fish Creek and the existing topography do not allow any other alternatives for access to the area of the site south of Fish Creek. Having private driveways with reduced town house setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property and will allow for more common area around each building. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and used public streets, such a plan would require larger lots for each building with public right-of-ways and increased building setbacks with more tree removal and grading because of the right-of-way requirements and the larger setbacks. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the density of the housing in the development over the density in other town house projects. The developer is proposing a small lot for each detached townhome unit. As proposed, the detached town houses would be on lots 55 feet wide, would be about 6,875 to 7,700 square feet in area and would have access from private driveways. With a lot around each dwelling unit and building, a homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including all the common areas of the development, the private driveways, retaining walls and the ponding areas. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed site design details and code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road, the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Drive, and more recently, Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road and the Beaver Lake Townhomes near Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the condominiums and townhomes. The condominiums would sell for at least $168,000 and the town houses would sell for at least $231,000. Preliminary Plat Lot Size As proposed, the 299 units on the 73-acre site means there would be 4.1 units per acre (an average of 10,600 square feet per unit). The individual lot widths and sizes, as proposed, will vary depending on the style of the unit. They all appear to be consistent with or similar to other town house lots in Maplewood. The proposed overall project density of 4.1 units per acre is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential and low-density multiple-family development. City Engineering Department Review Michael Thompson and Erin Laberee of the Maplewood Engineering Department have reviewed the project plans. They put their comments in the memo starting on page 56. The engineers are generally satisfied with the latest project plans and they are recommending several technical and minor design changes for the project plans. Traffic and Access A concern of some of the neighbors near the site is the increase in traffic that their area would experience if the city approves the project. While staff recognizes that having a new development and new streets in the area with new neighbors driving past their homes would create changes for 8 the neighborhood, we do not anticipate a large enough traffic increase from the proposal to justify denying the request. For example, if each of the 299 housing units would generate an average of six vehicle trips per day (an average number I verified with the city's traffic consultant), there would be 1,794 more vehicles (in total) using Carver Avenue. For a 12-hour day, the 1,794 vehicle trips would mean an average of 150 vehicle trips per hour, or an average of about 2.5 additional vehicles every minute. The traffic consultant also confirmed for me that, on average, detached single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day and that town houses, whether attached or detached, usually generate about six vehicle trips per day. The difference in these numbers is because of the residents and the difference in the size of the families that live in the different units. Town houses are usually occupied by young couples starting out in life or by empty-nesters - that is, families with no children and thus fewer people in each unit. They also have found that more traditional families with children still prefer to live in detached single dwellings with more living and yard space. As such, these types of homes will create more traffic (on average) than town houses. Dan Solar of Ramsey County also reviewed the proposal. I have included his comments on pages 61 and 62. Wetlands The developer had a wetland delineation done for the property. The delineation found that there are four wetlands on the property - two Class Four wetlands near Carver Avenue, a large Class Five wetland between Henry Lane and Heights Avenue and a small (8,879 square-foot) Class Five wetland north of Fish Creek. The city requires a 25-foot-wide no-disturb buffer area around Class Four wetlands and a 10-foot- wide no-disturb buffer around Class Five wetlands. The latest project plans show a 50-foot-wide no disturb buffer around the three northerly wetlands. This exceeds the 25-foot and 1 D-foot-wide city buffer requirements for these wetlands. The developer is proposing to fill the small, southerly wetland that is 8,879 square feet and replace it with 18,871 square feet of new wetland. This replacement is 2.12 times the area of the existing wetland and exceeds the required 2 for 1 replacement ratio. The watershed district will have to approve this replacement plan. Watershed District Review On April 25, 2006, Tina Carstens of the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District reviewed the project plans. Refer to her comments in the memo on pages 63 and 64. The district did not find any major issues with the proposed plans and will be requiring a permit before the contractor may start grading the site. Tree Removal/Replacement/Preservation The applicant had a tree inventory done for the property. This survey found 1,111 significant or large trees on the property, including pines, elms, spruce, ash and oak. (See the tree plans in the project plans.) The city considers large trees as those that are eight inches in diameter or greater or pines that are at least eight feet tall. 9 Tree Preservation The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all "large" trees removed from a site be replaced one-for-one, up to 10 trees per acre. The ordinance defines a large tree as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwood, and poplar. The applicant proposes to save 644 large trees and to remove 467 large trees with the proposed grading and construction of the project site. Those they would remove would include pines, elms, spruce, locust and oak trees. Therefore, the applicant must plant at least 86 replacement trees on the site to have at least 10 trees per acre. The proposed project plans show the applicant planting 541 replacement trees as part of their overall landscape plan, including a mix of 222 deciduous or over story trees and a mix of 225 coniferous trees. The proposed number and size of the replacement trees exceeds the city's requirements. As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most of the property to prepare the site for construction and to build the storm water ponds. The proposed plans show the developer saving groups of existing trees in a few areas of the site - including along the west property line, along the south property line near condominium buildings, along the south side of Fish Creek, to the northwest of the large wetland and near the two wetlands near Carver Avenue. The code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site after the contractor has finished construction. For this 73-acre site, the code requires there be at least 730 trees on the property after the construction is complete. While city staff is encouraged by the level of interest expressed by the developer in saving and transplanting trees on the site, the devil in this will be in the details. In other words, how many and how well the trees survive will be in how the contractor handles the details of the project. The project engineer will need to prepare a detailed grading and tree plan for the entire site for city staff approval. This plan will need to show the proposed grading, the trees that will stay, those that the contractor will transplant and those that the contractor will remove. In addition, this plan should show the size and location of trees the developer would add to the site for screening purposes and where they would store the transplanted trees before the contractor puts them in their final locations. I expect that the final tree plans for this development can and will meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Trees and Screening As proposed, the developer would save, plant or transplant at least 1,185 trees on the site, plant numerous shrubs around the buildings and install five infiltration ponds/basins with landscaping on the site. The detailed plan on page 52 also shows the proposed plantings near the foundation of each unit. These will include spirea, dogwood, juniper, arborvitae and lilac. The mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether the unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 Y, story or full basement walk-out unit. While the landscape and tree plans are a good start, the developer should add more trees in three primary areas. These additional trees would be for screening along the east side of the site (near 1_ 494), along the west side of the site (near Heights Avenue) and in the front yard of the property at 2445 Carver Avenue across from the new Henry Lane. The purpose of these additional plantings is to help screen the new town houses from the freeway to the east, to help screen this site from houses to the west and to help screen the house at 2445 Carver Avenue from the new Henry Lane. The city code requires the developer or builder to install screening along a residential property line that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent opaque. This screening may be accomplished 10 with fencing, berming, tree planting or a combination of these techniques. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the existing houses and those in the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the west side of the project to help ensure that the new town houses and driveways are separated from the existing single dwellings. Staff is recommending that the developer add several Black Hills spruce and Austrian pines along the west property line to provide additional screening between this site and the adjacent properties. Landscaping The overall project landscape plans call for the planting of a variety of trees and shrubs around the buildings and foundations, driveways, parking areas and the ponding areas on the site. The plans also show the planting of trees around the edges of the parking lots and driveways and the planting of trees and shrubs in some of the parking lot islands. In addition, all yard areas near the buildings should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). The applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the ponds, infiltration basins and drainage basins. The contractor should plant the ponds with native vegetation including grasses with Forbes and plant the upland portions of the ponds with native shrubbery and trees. The project engineer also should show the planting details on the final project landscape plans. All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must have an underground irrigation system. The proposed landscaping, except for the issue of providing additional screening along the west and east sides of the site, is acceptable. Any landscaping and turf establishment within the 1-494 right- of-way should be subject to MnDOT's approval. Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials Town houses The project plans show 21 town house buildings within the site with a total of 89 units. The proposed town house buildings should be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with a stone or brick veneer near the doors and on the fronts, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there would be a mix of lookout, full basement and walkout units, and each unit would have white aluminum soffits and an attached two-car garage. (See the proposed elevations on pages 53 - 55 and the enclosed project drawings.) Staff does not have any major concems about the proposed town house elevations since this development will be on cul-de-sacs and would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the town houses would be able to see the fronts of most of the new buildings. Condominium Buildings The proposed plans show two, three-story condominium buildings on the southeast comer of the site. These two buildings would have a total of 117 units and would have three floors with living spaces above grade and an underground garage. Each building would have a mix of materials on the exteriors including vinyl siding, brick. veneer, rock face block, cement board for frieze and trim, asphalt shingles on the roof and an exterior patio. The proposed plans, however, do not clearly show the end elevations with the underground garage doors. 11 The proposed plans show there would be four different units ranging in size from 938 square feet to 1,473 square feet in these buildings. The developer has not yet proposed colors for the buildings. Staff expects the buildings to have a mix of building colors - primarily earth-toned rusts (red, brown and tan) and creams. Detached Town houses The plans show a total of 93 detached town houses. As proposed, they should be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with a stone veneer near the doors and on the fronts, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there would be a mix of look out, full basement and walkout units and each unit would have white aluminum soffits and an attached two-car garage. (See the proposed elevations on page 55 and the enclosed project drawings.) Staff does not have any major concems about the proposed detached town house elevations since this part of the development would be somewhat isolated from any nearby homes. In fact, only the buyers of the detached town houses would be able to see the fronts of most of the new buildings. Before the city issues a building permit, the builder should submit to city staff for approval revised building plans and elevations for each building type. These should show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, all elevations of all buildings, any shutters, window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. Site Lighting The city's lighting ordinance has several standards for exterior lighting. It requires all new freestanding lights be no more than 25 feet in height, the light fixtures must have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view (to avoid nuisances), and they must have fixtures that direct light downward. In addition, the maximum light illumination from any outdoor light cannot exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. The applicant has prepared a preliminary site lighting plan for the development that shows the installation of at least 29 freestanding light posts within the site to provide lighting along the new streets and driveways. In addition, the preliminary building elevations show wall lights near the doors of the units. The final plans will have to show details about the location, height and style of the freestanding poles, the fixture design on the poles and about the proposed lighting on the buildings. The final plans also will have to show that the maximum light intensity at the property lines will be .4 foot candles or less. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the special parking requirements for a senior housing development such as this. In general, the code requires the developer provide at least two parking spaces per unit with at least one of those being a garage. According to the plans from the developer, there would be 481 garage spaces, 121 off-street parking spaces and 364 spaces on driveways (966 total spaces) for the 299 housing units. For the two condominium buildings, there would be one parking space per unit in each building and 74 surface parking spaces near the front of the buildings. The proposed amount of parking should be enough for the residents and their guests. 12 It should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24-foot-wide streets, parking on one side of 28- foot-wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer is proposing to construct the new public street (Henry Lane) 32 feet wide with a concrete sidewalk on one side and the private driveways 24 to 28 feet wide. The city would not allow parking on the 24- foot-wide private driveways. The city may want to require the project engineer to show areas for proof-of-parking spaces within the development. These would be locations that the city could require the developer or the homeowners' association to add more parking if it becomes necessary. This is something that the final project plans should show. Retaining Walls The applicant is proposing to install several retaining walls within the development. These would be on the north side of the buildings along the south side of Fish Creek, on the south and west sides of Condominium Building Number 2, along the south side of Henry Lane and along the rear of the units near the southwest comer of the site. (See site and grading plans and the details on page 44 and 51.) The retaining walls will start at ground grade and extend upward to ten feet at their highest point. The city will require the developer to install a fence on the top of any retaining wall that is four feet tall or higher. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal. I have included his comments on page 65. He noted that the street and driveway names and the addressing of the units could cause confusion. He suggested that the developer work with city staff to pick names for the streets and driveways and that each unit have its own unique address. Parks Department Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed this proposal. I have included his comments on pages 66 and 67. Mr. Anderson is recommending that the city collect cash connection fees with this project, that the developer build a tot lot within the project and that the city not require any land dedication to the city. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following about the proposal: 1. The engineer will need to verify that the cul-de-sacs and the tum-arounds are large enough for proper snow removal and for emergency vehicle access. 2. All roads and driveways shall be at least 20 feet wide. 3. There shall be addresses on each unit facing the street. 4. The city requires monitored fire protection and fire alarm systems (per code) 5. A fire department lock box will be required. 6. Need to verify the location of fire hydrants with Saint Paul Water and the city fire marshal. 13 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Make a determination about the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) for this project. If the city determines that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects, then the city should require the developer to prepare an EIS. If the city determines that the project should not cause significant environmental effects, then the city should make a negative declaration (thus not requiring an EIS) and then proceed with taking action on the project applications (as listed below). B. Approve the resolution on pages 79 and 80 (Attachment 31). This resolution changes the land use plan for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood plat on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (low density multiple dwelling). The city is making this change because it will: 1. Provide for orderly development. 2. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. 3. Minimize the land planned for streets. 4. Minimize conflicts between land uses. 5. Provide a wide variety of housing types. 6. Help to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan including the following: a. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. b. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. c. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. d. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. e. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. f. Include a variety of housing types for all residents. . . including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, low- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. g. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. h. Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. 14 i. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. j. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. k. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. 7. Be consistent with the city's policies for low-density multiple-family residential use. This includes: a. It is near a minor arterial street (McKnight Road) and is on a collector street (Carver Avenue). b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be minimal traffic from this development on existing residential streets C. Approve the resolution on pages 81 - 84 (Attachment 32). This resolution changes the zoning map for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood plat on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) and R-1(R) (rural residential) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because: 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 the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this property with a mix of town houses and condominiums. D. Approve the resolution starting on page 85 (Attachment 33). This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped April 3, 2006 except where the city requires changes. These plans include not having a public street connection from the new development to Heights Avenue and only having emergency vehicle and trail access from the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: 15 (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. (4) A tot lot within the development. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated May 5, 2006, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulbs shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can tum around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Cleariy labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. (3) Cleariy labeled proof of parking spaces that would have a "green surface" or another environmentally friendly design (rather than a bituminous surface). 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. 16 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city restricts the residents in this development to those people that are aged 55 or older. This means that at least one of the owners of each unit must be at least 55 years old. g. The city council shall review this permit in one year. E. Approve the resolution on pages 90 and 91 (Attachment 34). This resolution vacates the unused easements and right-of-ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue). The city is vacating these easements and right-of-ways because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right-of-ways for their original purposes. 3. The existing easements and right-of-ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout. 4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right-of-ways with the final plat. This vacation is subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and utility easements and right-of-ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. F. Approve the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on April 3, 2006). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). 17 d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 30 locations. The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. Replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Laberee dated May 5, 2006, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3: 1. On slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner( s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10: 1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. 18 (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one-foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) The drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. c. The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half (2 l1z) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group additional new trees together. These additional planting areas shall be: (a) along 1-494 for berming and screening. (b) along the west side of the site (near Heights Avenue) to help screen the development from the existing houses to the west. (c) In the front yard of the property at 2445 Carver Avenue to help screen that house from the new Henry Lane. (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 541 trees after the site grading is done. (8) Require the developer to replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. 19 (3) Repair of Carver Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, turn lanes, trails, sidewalks and private driveways. (4) The developer enclosing any ponds or basins that will have a normal water depth of two feet or more with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The repair and restoration of the temporary Heights Avenue cul-de-sac including the installation of new curb and gutter and street pavement. (11) The pipelines in and near Henry Lane and Outlot C. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the common areas as outlots. This includes labeling Lot 1, Block 5 as Outlot D and Lot 1, Block 6 as Outlot E. c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. 20 d. Label the names of all the streets and driveways on all plans and distinguish which are public and which are private. City staff shall approve this naming plan. e. Work with city staff on the preparation of a street and driveway naming plan and the addresses for each unit. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Carver Avenue (street, curb and gutter, ditch and boulevard) after the developer constructs the sidewalks and connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, tum lanes and private driveways. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that this development will be only for seniors (those persons 55 and older) and that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. Covenants or association documents that address the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls and of the common areas. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 10. Combining all the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. 11. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 21 13. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. G. Approve the project plans date-stamped April 3, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood. This development will be on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: streets, grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated May 5, 2006. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) Submit to staff revised plans that show as many of the private driveways as possible at 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side. (3) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3: 1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3: 1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city and shall have a fence along the top. (f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (g) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas. 22 (h) If required, show details about any proposed pond fencing including the materials, gate, height and color. (4) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted and replacement trees. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (e) Show additional tree planting for screening in the following locations: (1) along the west property line of the site (near Heights Avenue). (2) Along 1-494. (3) In the front yard of the property at 2445 Carver Avenue. (5) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (a) A water service to each lot and unit. (b) The repair and restoration of Carver Avenue (including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, turn lanes, sidewalks, trails and driveways. (c) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (d) The developer or contractor shall post the streets and driveways with "no parking" signs to meet city standards. (e) The public streets and private driveways labeled on all plans. (f) The common areas labeled as Outlots on all plans. (g) Areas for proof of parking off the streets wherever possible. (h) The pipelines in and near Henry Lane and Oulot C. (i) The repair and restoration of the Heights Avenue cul-de-sac. (6) The design of the ponding areas and any rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. 23 b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The addition of eight-foot-tall trees for screening along the west side of the site (near Heights Avenue) and along 1-494. (3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding areas to break the appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (4) Shows all landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, with an underground irrigation system (code requirement). (5) The plantings proposed around the units shown on the landscape plan date- stamped April 3, 2006, shall remain on the plan. (6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit. (7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (9) The contractor shall restore with sod the Carver Avenue boulevard and the area where the contractor removes the existing Henry Lane. (10) Adding more evergreen trees (Slack Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the west property line of the site (near Heights Avenue). These trees are to be at least eight feet tall, and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows (where possible) to provide screening for the houses to the west. (11) Show the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler heads. (12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. 24 d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district and provide the city verification that all watershed district provisions are met before the city issues a building or a grading permit for the site. f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show the installation of at least 30 streetlights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. This plan shall show the height and style of all outdoor lights and that the light illumination from outdoor lights does not exceed 0.4 foot candles at all property lines. g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. h. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. i. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, outlots, the private utilities, trails, sidewalks, signs, landscaping and retaining walls. j. Combine all the existing parcels into one parcel for tax and identification purposes. The owner or contractor must submit proof of lot combination to city staff before the city will issue a grading or building permit. k. Submit revised, detailed building plans and elevations for each building type to city staff for approval. These elevations shall show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, all elevations of all buildings, any shutters, window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. I. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s). d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter. e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits onto Henry Lane and Carver Avenue and install addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. 25 f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. h. Install additional trees along the west property line of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the new town houses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, aD-percent opaque screen on the west side of the site. The location, design and materials of the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. i. Install city approved wetland buffer and conservation easement signs at the edge of the wetland buffer easements and the conservation easement. The signs shall notify that there shall be no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer areas or in the conservation easement. j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. Provide a sign and landscape plan for the entrance and island at Carver Avenue for city staff approval. The monument sign shall be no more than six feet tall and shall have materials that are consistent with and architecturally compatible with the buildings within the development. The landscaping shall be compatible with the extreme conditions of the location, and the materials shall need little or no maintenance. 26 7. This approval does not include signs. Any sign age will be reviewed by city staff through the sign permit process. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 101 properties within at least 750 feet of this site. Of the nine replies, one was in support of the project, six had comments and questions about the proposal and two were against the proposal. For 1. See the e-mail from Sue Schlomka on page 68. CommentslQuestions 1. I really don't have much to say about this proposal, pro or con. The situation is pretty clear; with property taxes in this area cranked up to record heights, what altematives does a landowner have but to sell to a developer if he or she can. I would have liked to see the Schlomka property stay farmland forever, but that's not in the cards. Now with the other Schlomka property, across the freeway, sold for development, the end is in sight for South Maplewood as long time residents know it. My own property taxes have now gone to just pennies shy of $6000, a 100% increase over 2 years. I had hoped that I would live out my life here, but that can't happen now. I hope residents of the area are ready for the day when development is proposed for my property. What other choice do I have? I hope that the Schlomka development is given lots of good thought and planning, which should be true of any development. We've heard lots recently about eminent domain. I'm totally against that program, except the original intent, schools, roads, etc. But, raising property taxes to unbearable levels is simply another name for eminent domain. The result is exactly the same, homeowners are forced from their land whether they want to go or not. (Libby - 2591 Carver Avenue) 2. See the letter from Terry Baumgart on pages 70 - 71. 3. See the letter from Mark Bonitz on pages 72 - 75. 4. See the e-mail message from Diane Brass on page 76. 5. See the e-mail message from Tim Hedin on page 77. 6. See the e-mail message from Juli Servatius on page 78. 27 Against 1. I would hope this project not be approved. There are a number of deer, turkey and other animals that call the wetland area home. The area is surrounded by major highways and existing homes which leaves no place for the animals to go. I see the wetland area will be surrounded by development, which again is not an acceptable living area. I wonder if this is being proposed as a way to keep up with the abundance of development in Woodbury. I say we keep a little land to be undeveloped and let nature be nature and not be run off! (Sirovy - 1565 Burg Avenue - SI. Paul) 2. See the e-mail message from George and Rita Marie Wright on page 69. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 73 acres Existing land use: Three single dwellings and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South West: East: Single dwellings and Carver Avenue Ramsey County open space Houses on Dorland Road and Saint Paul Henry Lane and 1-494 PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1(R) (rural single dwellings) and F (farm residence) Proposed Land Use: R-3(L) (low density multiple-family residential) Proposed Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwellings) and PUD Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 28 Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 85 through 89.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: - Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low-to- moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. - Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: - Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. 29 - The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Mississippi River Critical Corridor Information (from the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan) Maplewood hereby incorporates the goals of the 1976 designation of the Mississippi River Critical Area. On November 18, 1988, Public Law 100-69 established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the National Park System. The MNRRA was established by Congress to: (1) Protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities. (2) Encourage coordination of federal, state and local programs. (3) Provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and local govemments in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure the orderly public and private development in the area. The Secretary of the Interior approved a Comprehensive Management Plan for the MNRRA in 1 995. This plan lays out a policy level framework for the management of the Mississippi River corridor. The responsibility for the administration of the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, as described in Minnesota Statutes and Executive Order 79-19, was transferred from the EQB (the Environmental Quality Board) to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1995. Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the City has been designated as "Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals: (1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial, residential and public uses ofthe lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. (2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources. (3) Expand public access to and enjoyment of the river. The City may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if they are compatible with these goals. In addition, Maplewood will require that building and development applications in the Critical Area have enough information to ensure that the new construction is compatible with the character of the Urban Diversified District. 30 Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards The following are the City's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area: . The City shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. . Maplewood will work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on possible ordinance changes that would affect lands within the Critical Area. . The City will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies. . Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The City will review these effects when approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single-family homes. . Maplewood requires all development in the Critical Area to meet all state regulations for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). . Maplewood will notify the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) whenever the City receives a development or subdivision application for land within the Critical Area. . The City shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. . Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. . The City encourages the clustering of structures and the use of designs that will reduce public facility costs, which will provide more open space and will improve scenic designs. Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on April 3, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by June 2, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. The applicant agreed to a time extension until June 12, 2006, to allow the project engineer to make revisions to the project plans and to respond to the comments in the EAW. 31 p:sec 24-28\Carver Crossing for PC - 2006 Attachments: 1. Letter from Copar Companies dated March 31, 2006 2. Area Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Carver Crossing Cover Sheet 5. Preliminary Plat dated April 3, 2006 6. Site Plan 7. Grading and Erosion Control Plan 8. Utility Plan 9. Stormwater Manegement Plan 10. Master Landscape Plan 11. Enlarged Landscape Plan 12. Enlarged Landscape Plan 13. Enlarged Landscape Plan 14. Enlarged Landscape Plan (Henry Lane walls) 15. Foundation Planting Plans 16. Proposed Building Elevations - Row Homes 17. Proposed Building Elevations - Condo Buildings 18. Proposed Building Elevations - Detached Townhouses 19. May 5, 2006 memo from Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson 20. April 24, 2006 letter from Dan Soler 21. April 25, 2006 letter from Tina Carstens 22. April 13, 2006 memo from Lt. Shortreed 23. May 4, 2006 memo from Bruce Anderson 24. E-mail from Susan Schlomka dated April 7, 2006 25. E-mail from Rita Marie and George Wright dated April 14, 2006 26. Letter date-stamped April 12, 2006 from Terry and Linda Baumgart 27. Letter dated April 14, 2006 from Mark Bonitz 28. E-mail from Diane Brass dated April 16, 2006 29. E-mail from Tim Hedin dated April 17, 2006 30. E-mail from Juki Servatius dated April 18, 2006 31. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-1 to R-3(L)) 32. Rezoning Resolution (F and R-1 (R) to R-3) 33. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 34. Easement and Right-of-Way Vacation Resolution 35. Project Plans date-stamped April 3. 2006 (separate attachments) 36. Carver AvenuelHenry Lane Intersection Detail (separate attachment) 32 Attachment 1 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 APR 0 3 2008 RECEIVED COPAR companies March 31, 2006 Development. Finance. Investment RE: Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD Proposal. Dear City Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board Members: CoPar Companies is pleased to present the enclosed Carver Crossing of Maplewood residential development proposal for your consideration. As advised by city staff, please find the enclosed land use applications and preliminary development plans for your review: I. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application 2. Planned Unit Development Application 3. Community Design Review Board Application 4. Preliminary Plat Application Over the course of the past year, CoPar and the development team of Alliant Engineering and Rottlund Homes have worked to prepare a residential development proposal that is sensitive to the site, consistent with the guide plan ofthe city, and responsive to the findings of the voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). As a result, the 386 dwelling concept presented to the City Council in May of2005 has been refined to 299 residences that we believe work in concert with the natural features of the site. With the guidance and expertise of the city staff and input from surrounding residents we feel we have assembled a quality proposal for the newest neighborhood in Maplewood, we hope you agree. As you review the full development plan submittal please be aware of the following development summary highlights: DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY: Site Area: 72.4 Acres Total Residences: 299 Density: 4.1 homes/acre Demographics: Exclusive 55 or older proposal with a projected population increase of 564 people (Projections based on 1.1 ta 2.2 residents per home in accordance with Maplewood Comprehensive Plan demographics calculations. A comparable traditional single family home neighborhood would increase to 2.9 residents per home and an equivalent population projection af867 people). Economic Impact: The annual tax revenue impact of this project if fully built today is estimated at $272,000 of city revenue and $688,000 of school/county/state revenue. (Calculations based on an estimate of gross retails sales mean per home and League of Minnesota Cities on-line property tax calculator). 8677 Eagle Point Blvd Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-379-0500 651-379-0412 (Fax) www.CoparCompanies.com Real Estate Development, Finance & Investment. 33 Home Styles: Active Adult Housing Type Row Style Garden Homes Detached Homes Condominium Homes # Units 89 93 Il7 Est. Su, Footage 1,460+ 1,270-1,765+ 1,000-1,500+ Est. Retail Sales Mean $231,000 $378,000 $168,000 LAND USE APPLICATION NARRATIVES: Comprehensive Plan Amendment The relatively new May 2002 Comprehensive Plan of the City allows multiple dwellings in low- density areas with a planned unit development (Ref pg 30 Comprehensive Pion). Weare following the guidance of the plan and are presenting a proposal that matches the existing low density classification of the site (4.1 homes per acre), Our Comprehensive Plan amendment request is not requesting a change in density but has been recommended by city staff to provide clarity about the multiple dwelling townhome and condominium housing options we wish to provide. The Comprehensive Plan contains housing and site design guidance that we have incorporated into our proposal. Along with permitting low density multiple dwelling proposals, the Comprehensive Plan is supportive of Carver Crossing of Maplewood housing and plan elements including: . The proposal is addressing the need to provide dispersed locations of a variety of housing styles which will provides for a choice of type, location, price and ownership verses renting. . The proposal provides a mix of housing types to meet the life-cycle housing needs of Maplewood residents, especially the increase in baby boomer and active elderly housing demands outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. . The proposed buildings are of a compatible scale and design with the surrounding uses including one existing single family neighborhood, I 15 acres of surrounding Ramsey County open space, and an expansive stretch ofI494. . The implementation of the Carver Crossing of Maple wood development will encourage a positive City and neighborhood identity through the creation of a new neighborhood of quality design, construction, and regional promotion. . The proposal includes improved safety with the realignment of Henry Lane and associated turn lane improvements. . Adjoining land use conflicts are minimized through expanded wetland buffer zones, increased separation, 27 acres of mixed terrain open space, and the use of practical building scale and design techniques adjacent to 1494. . The site design protects adjacent neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion through natural buffering, separation and landscaping. . Is respecting and protecting the natural environment to the maximum practical extent as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. . The site design effectively integrates developments with open space areas while preserving and protecting the wise use and protection of the significant natural features of the site. . . The proposal provides for the clustering of structures and the use of designs that reduce public facility costs, which provide more open space and improve scenic designs. 34 . Maintains and upgrades environmental quality through the implementation of stormwater management practices that exceed local requirements and are expanded in treating existing 1494 runoff. . Provides stormwater treatment for the site and 1494 utilizing best management practices, rainwater gardens and treatment pond techniques that exceed city requirements. . Is utilizing the flexibility of a PUD development, as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan, to introduce flexibility of design including zero lot lines and private streets in developments. . Is minimizing land planned for streets by incorporating the use of private roads. . Is providing a land use and age restricted development that reduces vehicle trips and transportation impacts when compared to a traditional open age development. . Incorporates sidewalks and trails that encourage safe transit and ties this and the adjacent neighborhood together. The sidewalk plan also provides for any future regional trailway connection on Carver Avenue. The guidance of the Comprehensive Plan has been incorporated into the Carver Crossing Proposal in an effective and practical manner. Although the Comprehensive Plan identifies the possible consideration of density bonuses for a PUD development such as Carver Crossing, we are not pursuing an increase in density. We hope you agree with this plan and allow us to proceed with the variety of housing options we wish to provide through the building style clarification that this amendment request provides. Planned Unit Development The planned unit development approach with this project allows the introduction of alternative uses (multiple dwellings condominiums and towhnomes) in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The PUD approach also allows the use of creative site design, clustering of homes, and private roadways. This site design approach has allowed increased sensitivity and protection to the physical features of the site. By preserving wooded slopes, enhancing wetland protections, enhancing stormwater treatments, and providing homeowners' association control and care for substantial common areas, open spaces and landscaping within the project, the Carver Crossing PUD is respecting and protecting the unique natural environments of this 72 acre site to the maximum practical extent in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The mix of multiple dwelling housing styles allowed through this PUD process is also effectively implementing the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan by introducing a range of housing affordability and choice for the baby boomer generation housing needs. In addition, the ability for construction methods to mitigate the impacts of 1494 are enhanced through the choice of building scale and type within the site. The placement of the largest structures (active living 55+ condominiums) in the area ofthe site with the most direct 1494 topography and impacts is appropriately scaled and a compatible smart design. The attached homes also enhance the 1494 mitigation solutions to the site and will provide a clear sense of place as the improved Henry Lane serves as a frontage road separating all but the condominium buildings from the highway. A number of the positive elements of this PUD that would not be fully recognized in a traditional single family development include: 35 . A structured homeowners association governance and control of the site places added security on the long term maintenance and care of the natural features, architectural elements, and restricted demographics of the plan. · The proposal requires substantially less public infrastructure responsibility of the city through the use of extensive private roadways. . The proposal exceeds established wetland protection and mitigation requirements of the city and state. . The stormwater management proposal exceeds established infiltration requirements of the city and actively treats previously untreated 1494 runoff. . The proposal is establishing 27 acres of mixed terrain woodland and wetland open space; preserving 625 significant trees; and exceeding the minimum tree replacement requirement of the city by 500+ new trees. . The estimated demographics suggest less people per unit resulting in a reduction to the demand on public services when compared to a traditional single family development of similar scale. . The scale and construction of the multiple dwelling buildings are better suited than single family development to mitigate the 1494 impacts to the site and its residents. . The configuration of detached single family lots, townhome "lot boxes", and private roadways is allowing the consolidation of significant areas of the site under common ownership and control. Long term conservation and site preservation efforts can be implemented and effectively controlled in these areas. · The scale and characteristics of this site and the immediately surrounding land uses are unique and should be planned through the use of the PUD process without concern for precedent for other similar sites. We do not believe another similar site exists with these characteristics: ,/' The site is bordered to the east by 2,450+ lineal feet ofInterstate 494 and is within the inner ring of the major "beltway" of the metropolitan area. ,/' The site is insulated to the west and south by I 15 +/ - acres of preserved Ramsey County open space; Ramsey County open space also divides the site along Fish Creek. ,/' The site is not surrounded by existing established neighborhoods. The only immediately adjacent neighborhood (Dorlond Rd./Heights Ave) has been carefully considered in the site design and roadway configuration process. ,/' The area north of Fish Creek is planned at a density lower than 4.1 homes per acre and includes expanded building setbacks from the exiting wetlands. ,/' The site design of the area north of Fish Creek includes a consolidation of over 7 acres of wetland. This area also includes significant undisturbed open space buffer providing separation from the exiting neighborhood to the west and creating an open space wetland and ponding corridor connection to the city land area north of Carver Avenue. ,/' The changes in elevation and diverse site features from a creek to an interstate highway, or wetland to woodland to farm land, emphasize the importance of the PUD planning of the enhancements to the site. This site is truly unique. Carver Crossing of Maplewood allows land uses that effectively incorporate sensitive, practical and smart site design and is positively incorporating the natural feature and buffer characteristics 36 of the site. We hope you agree that an age restricted 55+ active adult PUD at this location is an effective implementation of the Comprehensive Plan guide plan for this unique property. Community Design Review Board Rottlund Homes is the prime builder within Carver Crossing of Maplewood. Rottlund is a regional leader in design and value. Examples of the townhome and condominium product that will be built can be viewed at a number of development sites in the region. The row style "Garden Townhomes" have been built in the Reserve in Plymouth and are under construction in The Lakes in Blaine. The condominium building is under construction in Village in the Park in St. Louis Park. We encourage you to visit these locations and/or view more details on the attached plans and the www.Rottlundhomes.com web site. The final single family style detached townhome product line and builder within Carver Crossing of Maplewood has yet to be determined. A sampling offour typical single family elevations and floor plans elevations have been by provided by Rottlund Homes as a reference to the design character and architecture the selected builder will be required to fulfill. As we interview and carry out our builder selection process for this element of the site the quality and design of these single family homes will be carefully considered. A full development landscape, site, and grading plan with site specific details are provided with this application. The existing site is a mix of wetland, woodland, and farmland. The site design has been tailored to the more open farmed portions of the site through the use of clustering and lot size/setback techniques. A summary of the existing and proposed landscape and general site plan details includes: Landscape Plan Existing: Total significant Trees on the Site: Total Significant Trees Removed: Total Significant Trees Saved: 1,111 476 635 *Significant trees is 8 inches in diameter or larger Proposed: Overstory Trees: Ornamental Trees: Coniferous Trees: Single Family Front Yard Trees: Total Proposed Trees: 222 83 225 94 624 *95 trees are required to fulfill the 10 per acre replacement ratio required by city ordinance. Our emphasis on increased landscaping of the site reflects the importance we have placed on the livability and quality environment we wish to provide. General Site Plan Setbacks: Henry Lane Setback: 20 ft. Carver Avenue Setback: 30 ft. Interstate 494 Setback: 50 ft. Heights Avenue Property Line Setback: 50 ft. Wetland Setback: 50 ft. No Disturb Buffer wI added lOft. Structural Setback 37 Sin!!:le Familv Detached Lots and Duildin!!: Pads: Minimum Lot Width: 55 ft. Front Setback: 20 ft. Side Setback: 7 Y, ft. Side Street Setback: 20 ft. Rear Setback: 20 ft. Minimum Building Pad Width: 40 ft. Minimum Building Pad Depth: 60 ft. Attached Townhome Setbacks: Typical "Lot Box" As Depicted Minimum Front Setback to Private Street: 20 ft. Minimum Side Private Street Setback: 20 ft. Condominium Setbacks: Minimum Henry Lane Setback: 20 ft. Minimum Interstate 494 Setback: 50 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 20 ft. Over the course of the past year the amount of background information, engineering data, and site plan development work associated with Carver Crossing of Maplewood has been significant. We hope you find the brief narrative and comments provided with this plan submittal to be an effective tool as you consider the many elements of our proposal. We feel strongly that Carver Crossing of Maplewood will be an asset to the community and is a high quality neighborhood development proposal making wise use of the land and adjacent public infrastructure available to it. Please do not hesitate to contact CoPar Companies concerning any aspect of the proposal as we move forward. Cc: City Staff 38 Attachment ',~-' .~ 'Ei3 :;1:; ,El'l!ilJll'j I,~ r-O ,n"lill 'j' '"""'...,, ',10, I,-~-'.gi . "",' ,li!I r"\;jI ,I ,'t!J!B'l _ ,=~=~ _ = _ ~===~ _ =_ - _ - _ -_-~= _ ~h~fnwc~ --~ i~ :~'T~ - i~I,-rT, -~ II I,~ ,~! j 'J ;' : !~'~~l"!~ I i j ~ I f____I:I~ :, ..1 ~ 'II Ii ~ F:I ~2r""'~.-J.,--- ~I fJ1. i r---tJ;,!~li fij - " k,~\t ~<i ltJ I fJL--'-~b !~-:-----~ .,-,--~ i r--..-J. ~ i, Ii, I , ,'--~~I--- 4f>\ .Jli,\" ",1-' , "'" '_I'""'i!f' ..c...., Jq:::\------- dil j-' -~~ 0': Ii 1iilO) -3---011("- '~111~; Ir -- ---- \ / JILl I I !,-'--- , ,r--- ~I'~ ~/ --""!,'~~ / ~~'~-a. ", / ,- ~/',"9i; !,~ '/~'- ~ ]," ' ''<<lj> ~-::~(V" . .. ""~';-'~'i"-; ,,::It:,,,,.., " i/ ,/ ~---- ',a, 1m! i, , I :<1' I, /, ... .. .' , , " // E:3 '" i/ / ,Ii SITE " /(. <t' ",I ~/ 'C! $; .J:'" I..' 1/; i I. I .' ' i) f,.. ~ ; , .. . (. , " ,/l I I ' ill / I " I -' " " '/ II ill I(! ,,' , , " ,r J ...I ::l c( II. I- Z Ci: III 1= ./ .' / ! I ' l ,/ i I, i.i' !,/ Ii, I .' .I I i I I I t'h.: _ I (fi:(" i I I ~'~,- ,'r~' :llj-- :-. i--------J I I 1- - - --"-i~~J~ : f1 !; Iii ~~ mil' . _. if ! ," l[jJ ! 1 l___ . '''--~--------i I {:= -= D ,I H-~: II 11[..._-- ,/L------u~~u---jl I ~E?_ ( "ii !~; fJ'l '00 ~ ~ i 111 Irl ; ,0 @lJ i~ ! ~ ,.'::::=::::.:.=--===--=====.==:=.::::------',0 IL--- " ffil , ,~Ii ~ I i II ~:-== ill'-r--=- , 11./1 1 ill jl J :', I', Kll______________~ II I', il, ! I , , / j ,I i , I! . i, I, 'j , ~ j " , , I ,', 'I,' I , .' D 'ff ,(tJ~ (\ F " @ 13 '" fGI liliill o 'I I,,' I 'I, l' .. i --.---,.-----.~_..--------------.-.-'--t----------..... ~ - / .I, i I''';' , "/1 J I' .. iV"1 I 0,1 ' /f",/' l ... I~'/ I , I' / SITE , , ( I ill / /...- 1 - I /,,",1/ 1 'J / .1 )l J l .Ii / i J/ / , i , , i .I I ... " " il'l II'!; '" (j!!>1 } il , / i, " 1.1'/ l -il " 39 \r N AREA MAP Attachment 3 ..J a Q. !z ~ I --. --'~'- --'~ ,=-"- j . 1_ ...._ ':'n~a ~ // I ~;-:Ti, ~ I rl 9:~!Bt~1imj~~~odl ~?;~~,. 'il ~,~-- """\ll,.Ji~~'-I',.1 ai, ,I T Ii l I, " , ."-o,..~,,~ ! !,' i,.,.....'" ..JJ~--- 'II > I 11::"+1-' "+t'I' -,-'-1>: iiiI'. '" ; i./ / /..:;:.;-~~ -!ic-l <' /' ',' ..' " '[ i I .j',ir , [ 'I I ,-, I 1 . I I I' I , , I ,.."., 11 .(' I t=-._--,.-~-~q~""t:f r---' , --'~1rd ~-':t: "'-'1 ///,"< i(l -'~r <\ C=1-1 r-~--1 [~l----I I '1./ l ( ,,;: ,11 (~I ~~;\ ;': ~ 'I i r--~-'--1 Ij-_____I 1 /I:f 1/.1' _/ i I 11 ii' >- W--'--'-" I JI' 'I: J l. I I L I I: "'I Ct: ,1_. _ [-r---- II----l ! !--Il/ i, i i ~" I -I 5,.---~J I: II ::::J ~ r----.---..--.j I-- 'II -j :: ',' " / ,," I' I II' 1Ilo_ II . to-.- 1'----" ["" ~I q r,,-' i ,---, 'I, / ,', -l I JLJ" Z-- r." :--1, ,i. I !III\\ I~, ! ; :..:i~".-~~~//Iil I 'I' I W ,I; i I I il,' ,l'2~,:';:;l , ' '.' --- -~" ( L I I U -".. 'eo :::---:=-'=-"""",,:-, !-'d-, CARVER AVENUE'''' -./ ,.,;, /'- '" _...:c=--- I ,1,.------<-.-----.. r-----'T---T-r-r-r-r-Ti-"-11-- --';'--1 '{ I, ~ ....> -__..r~ -~~":...... ~~f.JJi I,J ILt3:F:: . ':: ,;/;/<;/' i ....i'~';;:t-.[~A;=.} ,- II k-r:",-f,'-- ",;It 'I "" ~ ,"'. "'~ '---""1 I.: i-~-,--:,^' i \ -~'""1-'<"\.~J r-- ~___..___,_,_ ___ .< ~" ..' I, I * ~I""'{-" l_r~-':r1'~"" Ii!, I ! , \.'7--1,lr,::: SITE "~ ,'i.III-_- -1 I ~ - r' i: ~~ :::::l';~:~ , ,,' II: -___~~v'<' !!.! I~" ..: I /~<, < I,' ill _jh ~v I i ~ II, ~ 1//' L--~~ ' 'I' "", :' "",I r/~Ir-/'I, I',' . , ! I 1,/1 1::1 ~Jllr--- I~ i '-'-,j ir,;:' ,r---P1n--- -\ /, Y 1_::J".~_~ 'j ,1/(/ lu~~ ~ 'lr- ~ I ---I. { //,1,1, ~",.-~~..: ~_~__~~.r--; -'/},::Z=~-==i- I \ ! :J II:: w--- Iii i i ~ ::l III Q o ~ , " , ~ ~i! I , _____._______-;--~_________::c_----, , ' SITE I R1 .i'1 I," ,!-f i .j:i I I -------~-_____J , ,/ ;' , i ! os "',[ /I' ,f.:' , I \,1 I / - -----~- 40 {] N LAND USE MAP Attachment 4 I: ':/i7:,:.~'" f';' f"~:.T~:.>./i /' -",-c>;, 1'-" ,'I " -' .", . r~; ~-,',~'_. "ji'-l.~~ j , \',~:,F;-.~,': '~-"i:,\:(,!t,~;,~,:' :'.":(.1," ?\~':-N "j "F:)3.' J- 1\.,\" " ',__- '_, ",.~.,t:":',\":'''',,,, ",(""",.,.j \" , "',"'" ," .,. ' ,-'. " . ",~\!iI;t" r '~'( FISH CR~~Kc:-", ~ j,; /!l , , .! ~". .... r: :'-; I"~ i :..f i ~~' _. 'rj j.)'!-.,,~,/ ,(., \, . ,::' :.;:;i.j~(~!,;"~?~ -. :'1 ' "/1),',. ~:'.r ",., / .,', / ~ " '-'~I ,;'" i ','-'J,'/ I I' J!~ 'i /,,J] /J" ~ , ' :r.,) ,. I" f/'! ,I .",,'~ ..J :::l ~ I- Z <i Ul /jt('" ~ .'.'!- t- , W ':i~, 1--. Ul " fi:o. "-'I:i - ill::' "C"" "'.'\ " :>~(~': )' >, " ,~::~--<--.;.......-:..- ~~-~~~') . ,'<, -'\"".-.,,;.-- __c'~"_ I 0' 200' BCALE IN !'EET 400' B 41 11 N CARVER CROSSING - COVER SHEET I ........ . ....... .~ ~ ..J ;:) :: !- z ~ FISH CREEK , / / / / I i / / / , --iL ~ t i / , /' 'I ,j / : / / I II / ,it / f / i: / " I / I / /~'1( . , ! / i .', / ' i / I / : / / 1 ! / ' /;j 1 1 I , I J I I i I . ~ . ; . ! j , -i-- ~ PRELIMINARY PLAT I PRELIMINARY PLAT 42 Attachment 5 , , , . ! , 1I N Attachment 6 SITE PLAN 43 11 N Attachment 7 -' ~ '" ... ~ ~ --- ~--.. I. :::'::"_.~.II.-:::","=".=.. ---..---...... ---..-----... L .=u..::r==-d.I'.lII.::=r&.~=- -...._---_._.~- .. :t.-1.f;==:"'':''''r''"''&''''='=''U'='''__ ==..:0='= =-- ==--=.==rt'I;-.. .. ::-"""==t=='\.-...:n."':l' =n=== -...........----..........- ...--.....---..-- _1>1......__ ~~ 1.________._... ---- -.----...-. "==--==::=.r:-'''':-~'' ..-----.....---- ~T==!'E_=:::"==::!."":l ~~_:.=".:::JI..="&u."1.:"=--..... ="_..-:.r:--....:.r-....=:::::::...- =~-...'l"::B..__...._ ..-..-----....---- =-_""i:.-=-"'~----- .. r~..:U:"P'...r":.w=--=--"i.:r. L ~=...~-=-JA-===--:" 7'L..!!.=i!=~"~':''''''- -:..-= ..- ..- W;.:_______""::":,.......... l!l:.,...,.::-.:=......-=---..--. "i~:$,>'-1"- I- )-t.." U.I '(~' UJ, a: l- V! o z Iii! UJ l- V! I , =-.:=-=:.-=:=-- . -- . -----..- - --- _. ""Mca CA.TCH GRADING, EROSION PREVENTION, AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 44 \r N GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN Attachment 8 l h.,,--...- :.:_,.::::c.,=J:__.::.. --l'\IIll""liIiMK--- I I I J I I \ I I , , r-- \~ - I , \ , \ \ , .' .-,"" ~ \ -----.-\ , \ , I I '\ \. " t " I . I ! i ' / I i f I f I. I , , f I I I UTILITY PLAN 'fr N 45 Attachment 9 t I ',' ... :;) <l: Q. ... Z C( III i;-, , I f . ! , I ! ! . ! j , ~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN \! N 46 Attachment 10 ... ::l ct ll.. ... Z ~ t I , I i ! I i i ; ! I , 1 MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN l MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN 1! N 47 Attachment 11 d",.."_,.'j"~.",":",,,,,:,;;;:;~.~, ..}_\~,; ''':u~:,--,(' i' ;'\1/ .' "--. V" "". ":~~,t P'""'- "', "N ~ WETLAND, , ! / -..~ " '0., ~ "" if ! I r-........r-i 0' to' 110' 110' ICALI IN flIT o .... =r-- =r-- I"~~- -- -- ~I'I.NftlNOonAll ~_I'UNTINGIl[tAIL 48 1! N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 12 ri ;:'c:\ WETLAND. ..., ~':- iI.-/I 0' 10' 110' 110" ......WPBT ~~I'U.tfhNGDnAl.. =r-- :r~.w_ ~[....f't.ANTlMl)mAll ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN 49 1) N I ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 13 I . ) f!; ,~liA <i).'/I, ~ I,,, .!;i~ tl/,V'-. f",".,r/ltJ. ... If 'j f)(? C', j\;' f' , Ii ~'8\r-: \.t::7f1 '&\;j!I :/1 ".."l,JJ,<., , /( i ~,Ii":"";' A ~ t; i ifl ," ~ .'! ; 0,/ r;1\"",1~' X}; }i/~.,,~-/ ) ''-~I')n .,~.'Lj'1o- .- !f,C! ;i!CO '{ ",lit !:'(J,i/h,....,// ;// if,!:" (j......o/.:-;I ) //.1 -,~( \ J iJ I; " ( JI.-, 9" ~/' <" ..", ..lfl:~~:1t~;1: 1 i);~i:ii: ""')!R/..\,/j-Hr" .:lllgfjr Z'd/:'//i::i" .'."'/! J I! i ',:I~~?~t~~:; I . I J I i I r-.....J""i . ... .,. -- -.- - =....- - ~.:-- . . ! i I j 1 I , r I ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN ~oor-- g -- 50 11 N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 14 ~ !!!~ WALL Pl.ANTWII :--r--:. q t I - - ..---- -.--- "."="--:"'- ,. --- --- .,. --- .. =~- --- .. . '=-""1:.:'\-_ . . '="":="'=' .. . 1:--""='__ .. .. 't:'.=...-=_ - .. . ".:.:- .. II' ___ c..___ M '" _..... .-- .. .. -.:"......W ~ N. ...., ..... ~ N. ..... '1'01_ ......_ N_ ...._..U... ....._IN. ....._N. ......_N.. ,-_. ,-_. ...' y .....~"I'\' '~\..\"^~~O~..... t"~,al''''** . I f , I f I I ENLARQED LANDSCAPE PLAN I INTRV MONlA&fT PI.ANTItCIl -.. r ___ :--r-:.q 51 1! N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN . I I I . l I . ~ , l . I I I r I 1..~.-Ta 1 ; I Attachment 15 ':.==..- N,o 'C..-=.- ........ N,o ,=,:=- W&_ ..,0 . -:...~.... n_ N,o . & ==....... n_ ... - -- n_ ..,0 . --- W&_ N,o ':..-:.~-- . . ............ ,-- .. . W.=== .&- N,o . :.==..- H , . ___ 111'1&_ N,o -- -- W&_ H,o --- . . o;...-_~.. W&_ H,o '=-='=-- n_ H,o -- n_ H,o --- W&_ ",0 'L.-s.":''IIoI_ . . 'rU:""""" ,-- . . W.=== .&- H. ..' 'i ... ..~\~/>.f' I"~~;';:~" I ~r-'I'CI TYPICAL FOUND A TION PLANTINGS FOUNDATION PLANTING PLANS 52 11 N Attachment 16 FRONT ELEVATION "L.W'<._5'~ ::~~COItUft c.""..,-_""" ""'~ _.....on REAR B..EVAll0N. WALKOUT LOT DI'1lD"~l ' C.I'T1C......L l>~c..: : P01l:CH SIDE ELEV....TlON - LOOKOUT LOT SIDE ELEVATION - WALKOlJT LOT INTERIOR UNIT PLAN _..... ._..______~..___.__unn. . . , ~......L'Ol'TION.IoLi ~ i~H i -~ SlilTe J,a.lWOMl!J. f......'LY1tClOf>l END UNIT PLAN _.... 1) N PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 53 TYPICAL ELEVATION TYPICAl. ElEVATION ENO UNIT TYP.INTERIOR UNIT ....... CORNER UNIT ....... 1 BEDROOM PlAN _.... _.... PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 54 Attachment 17 11 N PlAN #1 -~, PlAN .. -~, PlAN 113 MfI'~" Attachment 18 ~"- G"-R..."e PlAN .. -~, 'fr N PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 55 Attachment 19 Page 1 of5 P:\WORKS\ENG\REVIEWS\2005 Reviews\Carver Crossing (COPAR) EOl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Carver Crossing of Maplewood PROJECT NO: 05-07 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee & Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Dept.) Contributions: Chadd Lanon & Jon Horn (Kimley-Horn & Associates) DATE: May 5, 2006 The developer, COP AR Companies, is requesting City approval of a preliminary plat and plans for a new development south of Carver Avenue and west ofI-494. The developer or project engineer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted below and shall address the concerns listed below. The developer is proposing that Henry Lane and all utilities located within be public infrastructure. It has generally been the city's policy to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and perform the construction inspection duties. In this case, the City is working with Kimley-Hom (engineering consultants) on all design within the proposed public right of way. It should be noted that city staff will closely observe all construction activities- especially the phasing of site grading and monitoring of erosion and sediment control measures. Drainage & Treatment I. The drainage structure schedule must be completed with top of structures, invert elevations and pipe slope, length, & size once the layout is finalized in order to do a detailed full review. Details of the overflow structures at the basins will also need to be provided along with the plan and profile sheets for utilities. 2. All rainwater gardens and infiltration basins (permanent dual purpose basin) shall have emergency overflow swales lined with a permanent erosion control blanket (Enkamat, NAG350, or equal) extending to the downstream receiving waters/drainage structure. The emergency overflow elevation shall be marked on the plans. The project design shall provide at least two feet of freeboard from the bottom of emergency overflows to any first floor elevations of adjacent buildings. 3. The HydroCAD model does not account drainage areas on the private street (Outlot B). The added 1" water quality flow will need to be treated on site. Please revise the model and provide calculation for the new I" infiltration volume and location of treatment. 4. Permanent dual purpose basin 101 (PDPB-IOI) should show that 29,057 cu-ft not 26,415 cu-ft of storage is required for the I" infiltration. There was an incorrect reading from the graph. The invert is currently set at an acceptable elevation that will treat this higher volume. Callout the elevation and location of the emergency overflow path on the plans. 5. Permanent dual purpose basin 102 (pDPB-I02) needs to allow for the I" eventtreatment runoff volume to be captured (18,926 cu-ft of site runoff must be captured beneath the outlet invert pipe). Callout the elevation and location of the emergency overflow path on 56 Page 2 of5 the plans. The project engineer shall provide a detail of the treatment controVoverflow structure to better show how the treatment volume is being controlled. The project plans shall show the outlet from this basin being rerouted to the central wetland via Henry Lane storm sewer instead of discharging directly into Fish Creek. 6. PDPB-103B should allow for the I" event treatment runoff volume to be captured (another 552 cu-ft must be captured beneath the outlet invert pipe). Provide a detail of the treatment controVoverflow structure. 7. The project plans shall callout normal water level (NWL) at all basins. The city will require a lO-foot safety shelf at the NWL for all basins with normal water depths of 2 feet or more. 8. The project engineer shall provide information on type of native vegetation to be planted within the basins to promote pollutant-removal capacity and higher infiltration rates. The basin landscaping design shall be subject to approval by the city's naturalist, Ginny Gaynor. 9. All stormwater entering treatment basins shall have pre-treatment to reduce sediment loading. A 3' sump in (to catch sediment loading) a drainage structure within a street immediately upstream of a basin is an option. The project plans shall have the sumps placed within the street to provide for easy maintenance access for sediment removal. 10. The project engineer shall provide information on the infiltration draw down time of all PDPB's (must be 72 hours or less) and the capacity provided for sediment storage. All treatment volumes for the I" rain event shall not include the sediment storage volume at the base of basins. Please provide more detail on the sediment loading to each basin and the storage volume allocated and how this affects the treatment storage volume. Refer to Maplewood Standard Plate No. 115 for rock infiltration sump and other requirements for infiltration basins. The contractor shall construct all PDPB' s last to avoid compaction of bottom area. 11. Provide City of Maple wood detail Plate No. 115 for basin construction. 12. The project engineer shall provide an analysis/report documenting how the design and construction of the project will meet the "no increase" in total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP). Also, provide soil boring information at each basin site to a depth of no less than 15 feet below proposed finish grade. Grading & Erosion Control I. Please incorporate within the plans a rough grading and erosion/sediment control plan that takes a phased approach to the site grading. Also, temporary sedimentation basins shall be utilized throughout the project in order to aid in the capture of sediment laden runoff during grading activities (show location on plans). Special attention shall be given to areas upstream ofFish Creek and the wetland. The contractor shall phase the 57 Page 3 of5 grading in order to minimize disturbance. Once the contractor has completed a phase, the contractor shall reestablish that area (hydoseeded/mulched and stabilized) before advancing to the next phase. 2. The construction limits shall conform to the 50' minimum buffer (100' average) from the top of the stream bank ofFish Creek. The only time the contractor shall encroach into this buffer is when they are restoring the washed out ravines or for the installation of required storm sewer connections. 3. Callout double row silt fencing (heavy-duty silt fence and a pre-fabricated silt fence backup) at the edge of the construction limits along Fish Creek. Also clearly show the location of stabilization blankets on steep slopes (3: 1 or greater). 4. Clearly detail a street-sweeping and water plan on the erosion and sediment control plan. 5. Detail the type of permanent stabilization (seeding/landscaping) will be provided in the areas within the constructions limits (on the north side of the modular retaining walls proposed for Block 5 housing)? This information shall be provided on the landscape plan. 6. The contractor shall grade the public roadway (Henry Lane) sub-grade to within a 0.2' tolerance. The city will require the developer of the contractor to verify that the grading within the public right of way is within this tolerance. The city will detail this in the developer's agreement that the City of Maple wood prepares for the project. 7. Maximum finished slope grades are 3: 1. All 3: I slopes require an erosion control blanket and the project engineer shall clearly label these locations on the project plans. 8. The engineer shall show "J-hooks" (silt fence barrier perpendicular to runoff to decrease velocity and catch sediment) on all long downhill runs and parallel to proposed silt fence and at ditches. 9. The project engineer also shall show biorolls on longer slopes in order to reduce runoff velocity and catch excess sediment. 10. The project engineer shall incorporate into the required phased grading plans, more information on stockpiling (if utilized) locations and measures of containment. Also, show rough cut and fill quantities for each phase of grading. 1 I. The phased grading plan shall provide information up through housing construction. Roadwavs I. The private roadway serving Blocks 3 and 5 housing is the only entrance/exit (24' street width) thus the private street dead-end (within Block 5 near unit 9) should callout an 58 Page 4 of 5 emergency vehicle access and a pedestrian walk to connect to the walk along Henry Street. The project engineer shall provide a detail for this area on the project plans. 2. The plans shall include details for the proposed turn lane improvements at the Henry Lane and Carver Avenue intersection. 3. Please provide additional roadway details along with a cross section of Henry Lane at the Fish Creek crossing. 4. Per MnDOT Standards, none of the proposed horizontal radii meet a 30mph design speed. The current horizontal curve radii are as follows, 152 ft, 152 ft, 200 ft, 196 ft, 142 ft, 208 ft, and 192 ft. Consider increasing these horizontal curve radii or possibly eliminating some of the curves so the streets and driveways will meet the design standards. Utilities I. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval. 2. The project engineer shall provide information on the condition of the existing 12" reinforced concrete pipe extending from the wetland to Fish Creek. 3. Kimley-Hom (the City's engineer) shall review all utility design (storm and sanitary) that connects into public utilities within the public roadway. The project engineer and contractor shall coordinate the design and connection of all utilities on the private roads to ensure they area correctly connected into the public utilities within the public right of way. Such connection shall be done to the satisfaction of the City and Kimley-Horn. 4. The public sanitary sewer shall not deviate from the public street (Henry Lane). A continuous main shall be constructed between manholes 408 and 412. 5. The developer shall dedicate a utility easement for the sanitary sewer lift station that will be near Henry Lane. Miscellaneous I. The project engineer shall provide top and bottom wall elevations on all retaining walls. AIl retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height require a building permit and shall include a fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction at the time of requesting a building permit. 2. AIl potential environmental hazards shall be disposed of properly as stated in the recommendations by Summit Envirosolutions before the city issues a grading permit. 59 Page 5 of5 The contractor must complete this disposal before the city issues a grading permit for this project. 3. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 4. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the basins, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features common to the development. The plans shall show a maintenance access route to each permanent dual purpose basin. 5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the gardens, basins, and sumps. 6. The developer shall dedicate on the plat an easement for the location of PDPB' s 101 and 104 since runoff from the public road (Henry Lane) flows into these basins. 7. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the city that details the requirements of the public improvements. 8. Developer is required to obtain all permits and approvals required for the wetland mitigation plan. 9. The developer shall review and consider dedicating a 150-foot-wide conservation easement along Fish Creek (75 feet wide minimum from either side ofFish Creek). 10. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. I 1. The project engineer shall provide cross-sections along the east side of the proposed development in the plans to better show transition grades from the development to 1-494. The city is recommending additional berming (with plantings on top) to help screen the senior development from traffic noise on 1-494. The project engineer shall show the berms in the cross-sections. 12. According to as-built drawings for the Carver Heights development (I987), the dead end street on Heights Avenue was built as a temporary cul-de-sac with extension of the road anticipated for the future. Since the proposed development will prevent the extension of Heights Avenue as a public street to the east, the city should require the developer to make the existing temporary cul-de-sac a permanent cul-de-sac. This includes reconstructing the street, adding concrete curb and gutter and possibly making storm water and drainage improvements. The contractor would make these improvements as part of the public improvements for the new development. The city will assess all the associated costs for such improvements to the developer. 60 Attachment 20 - ~ RAMSEY COUNlY Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933. (651) 266-7100. Fax (651) 266-7110 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM APR 2 6 2006 RECEIVED TO: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood Dan s~oJ\-, Ramse~'~rYty Public Works FROM: SUBJECT: Carver Crossing of Maplewood DATE: April 24, 2006 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) and preliminary plat for new residential development in south Maplewood proposed by Copar Companies. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this development. 1. The proposed construction consists of 299 housing units for seniors (55+). This is a reduction from the original proposal of 386 housing units. 2. The traffic study has identified a trip generation of 1203 trips per day. This results in about 4 trips per unit (1203/299). This number seems a little low. While it is expected that senior housing will generate less trips than standard single family housing I would expect a more conservative number to be about 6 trips/unit or 6 x 299 = 1800 trips. 3. Because the development consists of senor housing the trip generation is expected to be spread out over the entire day and not as concentrated in the peak hours. For the purpose of this analysis the County concurs with the trip genration and distribution for the am and pm peak hour as shown in the traffic study. 4. The intersection of Carver A venue at Henry Street will be critical to the operation of the transportation system as this housing gets constructed. All trips in and out of this development will be required to use this intersection. The County concurs with the recommended improvement of an eastbound right turn lane, westbound left tum lane and Minnesota's First Home Rule County print.ed on rccydeJ paper with a minimum 01' 10% po:;t-eonsumer content ~ 61 relocation of Henry Street 375 feet to the west. The county will monitor this intersection to determine if an all-way stop is warranted in the future. 5. The County concurs with the recommendation to construct a right turn lane on westbound Carver A venue at McKnight Road. 6. The recommended improvements on Carver Avenue will require plan approval from Ramsey County. The developer will be required to obtain a right of way permit for construction on County right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Cc: Chuck Ahl - City of Maplewood 62 Attachment 21 Ramsey-Washington Metro District 2665 Noel Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 (651) 792-7950 fax: (651) 792-7951 email: office@rwmwd.org website: www.rwmwd.org April 25. 2006 Mr. Chuck Ahl City of Maple wood 1902 East County Road B Maplewood. MN 55109 Dear Mr. AhL Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Carver Crossing prQject. District staff met with the pr~iect developer and engineer yesterday afternoon to review the stormwater. wetland. and erosion and sediment control plans. I have the following comments to offer: Stormwater Plan District staff was pleased to see the developer working with the City to accomplish above and beyond in the stormwater management plans. We recognize the need to reduce volumes from this site and reducing volumes achieves a great deal in water quality improvements. The developer indicated that they will be infiltrating well more than an inch of runoff from the entire site. It appears that currently the plan would meet our requirements for stormwater management with the following additional comments: 1. We request that PDPB 102 be rerouted to the central wetland on the north side of the project instead of connecting directly to the Fish Creek piping system. 2. Maintenance agreements for all the stormwater management BMPs shall be recorded with the County and include performance standards to determine if the infiltration areas are functioning as designed. 3. Planting plans for the infiltration basins and rain gardens should be submitted for reVIew. Wetland Plan The developer indicated on the plans that a wetland buffer of 50 feet will be left undisturbed with the current pIan. That does meet the requirements of the District. The wetland mitigation area is now being proposed along the south and east sides of the northern most wetlands. That location is acceptable to the District but will wait to see the wetland replacement plan to comment on the quality of the replacement. I informed the developer that the wetland replacement application should be submitted fairly soon in order to keep on the schedule they are looking for. Once a complete application is submitted to the District, I will notify the agencies about the project and provide a comment period for the wetland plan. Ultimately, the District Board approves the wetland replacement plan. 63 Erosion and Sediment Control I have not fully reviewed the erosion and sediment control plans but I did indicate to the developer that we would like special attention given to the plan especially in the areas directly adjacent to the wetlands and most importantly the creek. We may require additional infonnation be provided including narratives describing the construction sequencing and methods of erosion control during the various phases of construction. What we don't want to happen is to have the whole site open, being graded and left that way for long periods of time, especially along the edge ofFish Creek. We would like to see some selective grading occur with seeding and stabilization directly behind the grading. We will review the plans further and provide additional input to the developer and their engineers. In addition to the above items, the District discussed with the developer the need to maintain access to the creek for maintenance of stormwater management structures in the creek and the creek itself. It was also recognized that an easement the District holds over this property will have to be rewritten to include only the areas needed by the District for drainage rights. When the developer submits their grading permit application to the District, staff will complete a more thorough review with all the infonnation provided. As we usually do, staff will copy the City on any additional comments we provide to the applicant through our permitting process. Please contact me with any questions you may have on the comments provided. Sincerely, Tina Carstens Permit Program Coordinator cc: Ken Roberts, City of Maple wood Kurt Schneider, Copar Development George Abernathy, AIliant Engineering Cliff Aichinger, RWMWD Brad Lindaman, Barr Engineering 64 Attachment 22 Maplewood Police Department Memo To: Ken Roberts From: lieutenant Michael Shortreed 9",1'.1 #~77 cc: Deputy Chief John Banick Date= April 13, 2006 Re: PROJECT REVIEW - Carver Crossing After reviewing the attached proposal for Carver Crossing, I have the following comments and suggestions: 1) Although the estimated demographics suggest less people per unit when compared to a traditional single family development of similar scale should result in a reduction to the demand on public services, this may not be feasible when considering that this will be a senior population development. 2) The increased traffic congestion resulting from an increased population south of Carver Avenue may result in increased traffic complaints from the residents along Carver Avenue. 3) Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner. 4) Appropriate security and street lighting should be provided and maintained in order to assure that addresses within the development are readily recognizable and accessible. 5) Each residential unit within the development should have its own unique address as opposed to having a group of units with the same address, but a different unit number. 6) Since private roads often tend to be much narrower than public streets, on street parking is often limited as a result. It is highly encouraged that enough parking spaces be provided for the residents to have their guests park during special events such as birthdays and holidays. If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions, please contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651 )249-2605 or via email atmichael.shortreed@.ci.maolewood.mn.us. 65 Attachment 23 MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Roberts, Planner FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: May 4,2006 SUBJECT: Copar Development-Carver Crossing I have had the opportunity to walk, drive and literally smell the land proposed to be developed by Copar as Carver Crossing on at least six occasions. In addition, I had the opportunity to visit the Schlomka property a number of years ago in the mid 1990s as part of the city's open space process. First off, the property indeed offers spectacular views and a wide range of topography, vegetation and abundant wildlife. I would like to go on record with the following statements regarding the park position: 1. It is my understanding that the Copar development is focused on an over 55 year-old and/or senior development as the primary focus. I further understand that it will be a combination of housing from high-rise senior housing to single detached, townhouse and a variety of housing structures. 2. The site is surrounded by Fish Creek Regional Park (130 acres), located both east and west of 1-494. 3. In addition to the Fish Creek Regional Park, the area is served with Carver Crossing (a 27- acre open space site) located at the corner of Carver Avenue and Sterling Street. 4. In addition to the city-owned open space, private open space is owned by a private, nonprofit corporation for the ski jump property located directly east of Pleasantview Park. 5. The neighborhood is served by Pleasantview Park, a fully developed 14-acre neighborhood park at 1100 Mamie Street. Pleasantview Park includes play fields, basketball courts, picnic grills, playground area, extensive trail system, and a portion of undeveloped and seating areas that provide great vistas of downtown St. Paul. 6. The total estimated park development fee that the city would collect from this project (at $3,000 per unit) is approximately $750,000 to $800,000. 7. The area is further served by Carver Lake Park, which is a former Campfire camp owned and managed by Woodbury Parks and Recreation Department. Carver Lake Park boasts a public swimming beach on Carver Lake and provides active recreation with an expansive trail system, picnic facilities and trail system. In conclusion, it is my recommendation that the city not pursue additional land or acreage in lieu of park dedication fees. Given the fact that the proposed development is senior-oriented and is surrounded by county open space, public-private land, Pleasantview Park, city-owned open space and Carver Lake Park owned by the city of Woodbury, additional public park land is not needed. 66 My recommendation is that the city pursue park dedication fees. The developer is further requested to meet the following conditions: 1. A tot lot would be constructed for grandchildren and/or visiting children that would be a public tot lot to serve the surrounding property owners. 2. The sidewalk trail system be public and made available to the public. 3. Two areas be set aside as vista viewing points to be constructed and developed at the city's expense at a future date. 4. Trail access be afforded to Fish Creek Regional Park for the residents within the proposed development. In addition, it will be my recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission that a minimum of one-third of the park dedication fees collected be allocated south of Mailand Road in southern Maplewood. Should you have any questions regarding this request or position statement, feel free to contact me directly at ex!. 2102. kh\carver crossing.mem 67 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 24 Ken Roberts From: SUSAN SCHLOMKA [Sue859@msn.coml Sent: Friday, April 07,2006 12:36 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Mr. Roberts: We have received your request for comments on this development. My husband (Don Schlomka) and I support the project. It is an attractive well-planned development. We also support the city bringing sewer and water to the east side of 494. We have just signed, along with my in-laws to market our property (just under 7 acres combined) with United Properties. This parcel is at 1675 Sterling Street South (last house in Maplewood on the west side of Sterling). We have already purchased another home and will have extra mortgage payments, utilities, and taxes until the property is sold. Sincerely, Sue Schlomka 5/1/2006 68 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 25 Ken Roberts -- -------~~ --- ------- ----~-----~- --------- - ---- From: ritamarie [imshanghai@usfamily.net] Sent: Friday, April 14. 2006 4:06 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Proposed Development-Carver Crossing Importance: High I and my neighbo~s have mo~e than some concerns about this p~oposed development as it involves the ~e- ~outing of Fish C~eek and mo~e invasive destruction of habitat. We have looked at the p~oposal and feel .this is still fa~ too many buildings fo~ this location. The Mississippi Rive~ Bluff Co~~ido~ suppo~ts a unique blend of species found only he~e. The a~ea has al~eady been traumatized by the Silve~ Oaks Development which has caused e~osion in ou~ ya~ds we had not seen befo~e. Fu~the~, we a~e seeing bi~d species at ou~ feeding sites that would no~mally be fu~ther back in the 'wooded a~eas' that no longe~ exist. We are also seeing coyote coming c1ose~ to the homes he~e and the dee~ a~e being squeezed into an eve~ diminishing habitat. I commend the effo~t and thoughts towa~d Senio~ Housing but the extent of this p~oposal is fa~ too la~ge and will cause fa~ too much damage to the wildlife and habitat in this a~ea. This a~ea is ext~emely unstable fo~ development since it is p~edominantly sand and lime stone. Every t~ee cut down, every g~ove of unde~b~ush ~emoved fu~the~ de-stabilizes the a~ea. We have lived here fo~ ove~ 23 yea~s and a~e fully awa~e of the potential fo~ se~ious e~osion. Respectfu lIy, .Geo~ge H. W~ight Rita Ma~ie 1558 So.Pt.Douglas Rd. ~. , , ~O j FREE Emotlcons for your em alii ~~l ~~. ~O()f) ~ ~ ~~~~~ --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mol-- Highspeed - $19.99/mol--- 5/I/2006 69 Attachment 26 March 29,2006 .:CEIVED t"PR 1 2 2005 To Maplewood Planning Commission - Maplewood City Counsel COPAR companies - Alliant Engineering .................. RE: Response to New Development Proposal; Carver Crossing of Maplewood Let me start off stating that I don't have a problem with the proposed development, or the type of housing being proposed. What 1 do have a problem with is the realignment of Henry Lane. We have lived at 2445 Carver Avenue for twenty four years and have enjoyed the slow Pace of the neighborhood. I understand the need for housing and the developers need to create it. I have worked in the engineering field and know the hard work that goes into land development. I currently work in surveying and have had some design responsibilities for developments. Back To Our Problem; Our house sits directly across from the realignment of Henry Lane. We can see our house lit up like its Christmas with all the cars waiting to tum onto Carver ave. We do not want 200 to 2000 sets of head lites shinning into our windows all night. This problem should have been discovered early in the design process. maybe this was just an over site maybe not. We could understand if it were a city block with twenty or thirty homes, that planting a row of trees might eliminate problem. We are talking about 299 households. There is no way of knowing how many trips people will make out ofthis exit\entrance every night seven days a week. So planting a row of trees just isn't going to help or eliminate the problem. With that said: I'm sure your first response will be, It's a safety issue, the second response will be its a traffic flow issue. I can only state what is obvious. The development has unusable land due to the gas pipeline running through this corner of their property. I'm not sure who owns it at the present time. It also wants an attractive entrance with a nice sign so they can sell their lots faster. 1 can't blame them for that. There are safety issues, me or one of my family crossing carver just to get the mail. During the detour with the Wakota project I'm surprised we all survived and I really don't want to cross three lanes in the future. What we would like the city and the engineering firm to look at is leaving Henry Lane at Its present location and make it a controlled intersection. (four way stop) 70 There is room for a right turn lane from east bound Carver, I'm not sure about west bound. I'm sure they can make it just as attractive and still use their nice sign. This also solves the safety issue of the turn lanes. there are four driveways to the east and one to the west of the proposed Henry Lane. The visibility from these driveways are limited due to the curve under the Interstate 494 bridge and the curve in front of 2445 Carver. They are all in close proximity to the proposed turn lanes, making it more difficult and dangerous to gain entry on to Carver. The posted speed limit on Carver is 35mph. my estimate is traffic traveling at closer to 40mph. not uncommon for this road, I'm guilty of it myself. The added controlled intersection would slow traffic down a little thus making it safer. Let me state we do not like stop signs any more than the next person, but at the same time with the added traffic volume to Carver avenue. I see this as the safest alternative. With this scenario it also solves two more problems. I'm now speaking for the people not invited or unable to attend (and my family) this meeting. When the county reconstructed carver ave. approximately four years ago from the washington\ ramsey county line to McNight they had the four site to widen the shoulders ofthe road approximately four feet on the north side and three feet on the south side in our area. In the first twenty years we lived here very few people walked up or down the road, never letting their children near it, way too dangerous. With the wider shoulder on the north it now gets used as a substitute for a sidewalk with people enjoying it alot. Still not safe but better than it was. If the proposed turn lanes were to be built I don't think there will be additional room for the wider shoulders, and it would go back to being just to scary to walk down. One more problem to solve With the controlled intersection at the existing intersection a crosswalk could be installed letting people safely across Carver to access the Maplewood open space, if it ever gets developed with trails by the parks department. May I add that this may also save taxpayers\ county\ and city money in construction and maintainence costs. Bottom line simpler is better. Once again something has to be done about this problem. If you would like to stop by after dark I think I can give you a quick demonstration of how bright a set of head lites can be even at the distance we are from the road. Thank You: Terry & Linda Baumgart 71 Attachment 27 To: Kenneth Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN. 55109 April 14, 2006 Re: Comments: Neighborhood Survey - South Crossing Demoaraphics: I am concerned that the projected amount of people living in this development is fiawed. It appears this projection is largely based on the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The data represented in the Plan is at least 3-4 years old. Much has changed in those 3-4 years regarding senior focused developments. In short, it is diflicutt to believe that 299 total residences would translate to a projected population of only 564 people. Keep in mind this is being promoted as a development for 'Active Seniors". Most of the 'Active Senior" in the 55+ age range still are working; many have children still living at home etc. etc. It would be helpful is addttional clarification and data was made available. Specifically: . Define 'exclusive" 55 or older. Must all residents be fifty-five or older? . How wouid qualified residents wtth children be addressed? . Would there be a requirement that all units be owner occupied? . Would residents be allowed to rent out the units? . In similar developments what percentage are purchased by single persons? Economic Impact General: Copar represents that the annual tax revenue impact of this project if fully buitt today is estimated at $272,000 of city revenue and $688,000 of schooVcounty/state revenue. What we have not been told is the estimated real cost to the City of Maplewood, and thus the tax payers, to provide the recommended addttional police, medical response personal (including addttional squad cars, and ambulances) on a 24X7 bases. What about the cost of all the other city services needed for the development such as street maintenance etc, etc? If you factor in these the 272,000 dollars hardly appears to be a great deal for the ctty. In fact. it couid very well place additional tax burdens on the residents of Maplewood. Economic Impact: Sewer & Water: The following is taken from the EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) document presented by the city. An 8-inch sewer stub will be constructed east of the proposed lift station to accommodate potential future development on the east side of 494. This stub will be jacked from the lift station located adjacent to Henry Lane to the east side of 494.. .. .... The stub will allow the City to expand the sanitary sewer system in the future to areas not currently served by sanitary sewer. Although there are no definite plans for development on the east side of 1-494. an 8 inch sanitary sewer stub will accommodate the peak flow anticipated from potential development that may occur, as long as the development is consistent with the City's land use plan. . This easily over looked statement could very well place a substantial financial burden on the current residents of South MaDlewood located on the east side of 494. This area involves portions of Carver Avenue, sterting Street South and the entire Haller 72 woods development. As the vast majority of these sites utilize private well and septic systems the cost in either current or in future doilars will at some ooint Dlace a substantial financial burden on these residents throuah costlv assessments. Why has the city not taken a proactive stance to advise every potential resident who would be eventually affected by this? . Wrth the proposed sewer stub extending under I 494, developers have started to aggressively seek and acquire property east of I 494. In the last vear alone. somewhere between 10-20 acres on Sterllna Street South has been acauired bv develoll8rs. If we are not careful, this land rush largely driven by the proposed sewer expansion and further fueled by the proposed amendment to the City of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan, could leave us with nothing but wall to wail track developments. Public Safetv: "The Maplewood Police Department estimates that one additional officer will be required, to adequately respond to a population increase of 550 residents. The Maplewood Fire Department estimates 550 new residents will require 1.3 medics per yea" In light of this I have several concerns as these are 24X7 needs. . While both the Police & Fire departments call out for one addrtional officer and one plus addrtional medic I find nothina that auarantees the residents of South MaDlewood that these oositions would ever be filled. Wrthout an up front commrtment from the City, I believe we would be placing ourselves and our love ones at risk . I also question the validrty of these figures and believe them to be low. Given that this proposed development is being presented as Senior Housing and that the residents must be fifty-five years and older I would believe even 550 Senior residents would required more Medical intervention than say a more diverse demographic makeup found in typical developments of similar size and scope. . South Maolewood's current Police & Medic caoacrtv is stretched very thin in reoards to response times and general coverage. Anv addrtional reouirement would push these precious resources to the breaking point. In life threatening situations a second or third emergency cail to 911 for police or medical assistance in South Maplewood would find response times severely compromised as unrts would have to be dispatched from a distant station. These are cases were seconds can make the difference between life and death . Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The EAW States. the City of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan or Land Use will need to be amended. This would change the land use designation within the project area from R-1 Single dwellings (4.1 units/acre) to R-3(L) multiple dwellings -low density (4.4-6.3 units/acre). I find this extremely disturbing were talking about amending the City of Maplewood's Comorehensive Plan for the sake of one sinole orooosed develooment. In addrtion, this has the high potential to establish a very dangerous prescient that may weil effect the future development of South Maplewood as a whole. I believe the City of Maplewood has a responsibility to further explain and open for addrtional public comment this topic before any action is taken. The City of Maplewood has but a Iimrted few tracks of land of this significance. The wrong moves at this time wiil haunt us ail for generations to come. 73 Chanaes in Zonina: Why the City of Maplewood would spent ail the resources studying South Maplewood zoning less than two years ago and then do a complete about face. It has been my understanding that in the August-September 2003 timeframe the City of Maplewood approved an amendment to the city code that added a rural residential (R-1R) zoning classification to portions of the proposed deveiopment as weil as a significant portion of South Maplewood. Much of this was driven to preserve the uniqueness' and rural atmosphere of South Maplewood that is so very lacking in other Metropolitan communities. Environmental Concerns: I believe after reviewing the EAW coupled with the significance of this property in relation to the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor that further study is needed before we move forward with this project. I am strongiy recommending that a fuil EIS (Environmentai impact Study) be completed. It if also my understanding that the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy has reviewed the projects EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) and that it believes the project poses serious heaith risks to the potential senior residents, that the project is not compliant as proposed, in areas of noise poilution. That the project could very weil have a negative effect on Fish Creek and the surrounding wetlands and that as the entire project could poise numerous other environmental concerns. Parks & Recreation: I find that the once again the southern most portion of South Maplewood appears to be left out in the cold. I can find little if any commitment to provide a natural style type park, usable trail system, neighborhood gathering site, picnic areas etc. In fact, in CoPar Development's March 17th letter to neighbors it clearly states. The City has directed that CoPar will pay a park fee based on the number and type of housing units in the project. I personaily find this shameful that the City would issue such a directive without any public input prior to the decision. What we are looking for is a comprehensive plan, with a cilY backed commitment, to develop trails; pathways etc. that wouid ailow us to better utilize open spaces and truly experience the Urban Rural feeling of South Maplewood.. Traffic Concerns: The developer states that the proposed development is focused on the" Active 55+ Baby Boomers". I do not believe that the vast majority of 55+ baby boomers are going to be getting in there car any less. In fact I believe most wiil stiil be actively employed and engaged in the same everyday trip (auto) usage as the majority of the under 55+ demographics. Common sense would also dictate that after 65 or so, the actual number of trips would increase as these 65+ seniors finally have more available time to pursue outside activities and hobbies. After ail, what's to keep them in the proposed development? There is no community center, parks or other recreational resources to keep them occupied. The traffic anaiysis also did not show a significant increase in traffic on Sterling Street South. Once again I find this astonishing. Sterling Street South between Carver Avenue and Bailey Road provides the quickest and most direct route for anyone living in the proposed development needing to access 494 and/or Highway 61. Both of these highways are the main arteries to access the Twin Cities and surrounding shopping areas. Yet reading the EAW would be lead to believe that this development would have little or no impact on Sterling Street. 74 Continuing on the topic of Sterling Street South between Carver Avenue & Bailey please address what steps are City of Maplewood and the developer prepared to take to insure that the .Weight Restrictions" on the Fish Creek Bridge are adhered too and enforced. Finally, there is considerable concern that the safety of local residents and their children will continue to be compromised if traffic levels are allowed to increase on Sterling Street South. This is not you're a typical suburban residential street. It has very Iim~ed visibil~y, several schools bus stops, numerous hidden driveways, and very poor sight lines due to the heavy tree cover. Enforcement continues to be a problem as the street crosses into Washington County, as well as in to the City of Newport. Respectfully Submitted: Mark Bonitz 75 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 28 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: DAVID BRASS [ddbrass@msn.coml Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:30 PM Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Dear Ken, Thanks for your letter and updated development information mailed to us. I would like to comment on a few things. First of all, I would like to see that Dorland Road S. never becomes a through road to that development. I think it would hurt our present neighborhood tremendously and we really couldn't handle the traffic. I would like to see in writing that the current dead end street would never change. My other concern is the senior housing building. I see a lot of these being built and I do not see them fully rented. There are many similar buildings within a 5 mile radius of the proposed area now. My fear is that if these units do not rent or sell, the owner will change the "classification" to general or "open" rental/sales. I would rather see more expensive homes built in the proposed area. I also fear the quality of the building and the classification as "exclusive". The proposal says it provides a mix of housing types to meet the life cycle housing needs of Maplewood residents. How do they know these needs? Do they think the residents need an "exclusive" condominium building which they design and build for them? I also have a concern about the traffic on Carver. My kids catch a bus to school on this street in the morning. I notice a lot in the 10 minutes we stand there waiting each day. There are no sidewalks and there is barely a shoulder on this road. It is narrow and cars travel fairly fast on it. I don't think this small road could handle the increase in the traffic due to this development. There isn't room for expanding the road and Copar Companies does not discuss changing anything on Carver Avenue. I also don't think our neighborhood needs to be tied to this development with trails and sidewalks. I don't think they need to have direct access to our current neighborhood. I read that Rottlund Homes is the prime builder in this development. They are not known for their higher income, higher quality homes. I would never consider them as building "exclusive" neighborhoods. I have been through a few of their developments and have never been impressed with their quality. I would rather see a builder with a better reputation in the "quality" area. My final thought is that they are proposing to put a lot of people in a small area in South Maplewood. It is great to live down here but I don't think there's room for 299 more residences. I worry about my kids and their safety if this proposal is approved. Sincerely, Diane Brass 1355 Dorland Road S. Maplewood, MN 55119 5/1/2006 76 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 29 Ken Roberts From: hedin@comcast.net Sent: Monday, April 17, 200610:30 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: neighborhood survey reply Dear Kenneth Roberts, Here are my comments regarding the Neighborhood Survey/Carver Crossing of Maplewood Senior Housing Development. 1. The proposed development does NOT need to be linked by road or trail to the existing Dorland Road/Carver Heights/Overlook Circle neighborhood. We do not need more traffic (vehicle and foot traffic) through our neighborhood for reasons of safety, noise levels and general quality of life. 2. Even if some type oflimited use road for "emergency vehicle use only" is proposed, I need to ask: WHY? Let the ambulances that will need to make trips to the 299 new senior citizen residences travel in and out on Henry Lane. They don't need to run through my neighborhood, lights and sirens blazing. (A senior citizen development will increase emergency vehicle visits). 3. I would like these concerns addressed in a legal document stating that Dorland Road/Height will always remain a dead-end street. 4. Furthermore, traffic along Carver is already heavy. There are no sidewalks or paths. It is very unfriendly to pedestrians and unsafe for the children who need to cross the street to catch the school bus. Adding 299 more residences will create even more traffic on this already busy road, which is not safe or wise. In summary, don't mess with my neighborhood by connecting us to this PUD. Sincerely, Tim Hedin 2338 Overlook Circle Maplewood, MN 55119 5/1/2006 77 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 30 Ken Roberts From: Servatius [servatius@comcast.netl Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:36 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Neighbor's opinio on Carver Crossing Dear Mr. Roberts- By now, you've probably heard from almost all 27 families that live on Dorland Road South, Overlook Circle and Heights Ave. Maybe I'm the 27th and last one to write to you. ARhough one of our neighbors just welcomed a set of twins into their family so they are too busy to write to you. And next to them, at the end of our street, is a brand new family to our neighborhood with 3 school age children. Two new families with children who will be negatively impacted by the development. I think ifs those of us with kids who are most dismayed atthe prospect of the new development and what it will mean to our neighborhood. My children are only 3 and 2-years-old and right now our street is pretty safe for them. Should our street become an emergency route to a large group of senior citizens, I wonder how anxious I will feel about them playing outside near our street. Carver Ave is already terrifying to me. If we want to take our kids for a walk in the evening and go any further than our 3 block street, we must cross or walk alongside an already busy highway-like street. It will be worse with 500+ new drivers on the road each moming/evening. And I can't imagine trying, in 2 years, to manage my 5, 4, and 3 year old on the first morning my 5-year-01d takes the bus to kindergarten....on a little 48-inch shoulder on Carver Ave with all the new traffic whizzing by. I'm writing to ask that as the project develops/or if it develops, could more consideration be made for our families? Can you help ensure our dead end street remain a dead end street? Could a clause be added to the zoning rules or permit rules for the new development to ensure that? That's my #1 request of you. In a "previous life" some 20 years old, I worked as a radio news reporter and City Hall was my "beat." At almost every meeting a group of concerned citizens came to voice a negative opinion about a new change the city council was making to their business or residential neighborhood. In all my time covering the City, I never once saw the council members and city planners swayed in any way by citizens' opinions and concerns. It seemed the decision had truly already been made before public opinion was heard. Is that the way it works in the city of Maplewood too? Or will our views really make a different in whether or not the project goes forward and in the form it takes? Sincerely, Juli Servatius 1371 Dorland Road South Maplewood, MN 55119 5/I/2006 78 Attachment 31 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, proposed a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (multiple dwellings -low density). WHEREAS, this change applies to the site of the Carver Crossing development south of Carver Avenue and west of 1-494 in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the proposed change. 2. June 12, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. 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. The city is making this change because it will: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. c. Minimize the land planned for streets. d. Minimize conflicts between land uses. e. Provide a wide variety of housing types. f. Help to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan including the following: 1. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 2. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man- made or natural barriers. 3. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. 4. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. 5. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. 6. Include a variety of housing types for all residents. . . including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, low- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. 79 7. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 8. Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. g. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 10. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. 11. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. g. Be consistent with the city's policies for low-density multiple-family residential use. This includes: 1. It is near a minor arterial street (McKnight Road) and is on a collector street (Carver Avenue). 2. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be minimal traffic from this development on existing residential streets The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 80 Attachment 32 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, proposed a change to the zoning map from F (farm residence) and R-1(R) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties south of Carver Avenue and west of 1-494 (for the proposed Carver Crossing of Maplewood). WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: Commitment No. 242035 PARCEL A: The West One-half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota; Except the North 150 feet of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty- two (22) lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494; And also except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4), Section 24, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 24 and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right- of-Way line of TH. #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesteriy along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of TH. #393 a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line of said TH. #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of-Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said SW 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. And the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty-Eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), except the North Five Hundred feet (500 ft.) thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westeriy Right-of-Way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in Final Certificates filed as Document No.'s 2254933 and 2256730. 81 PARCEL B: That part of the Northeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Ri9ht- of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line: thence deflecting Southwesterly 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right-of-Way line of said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of- Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. PARCEL C: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota. Commitment No. 240565 PARCEL D: The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24; being 33.00 feet either side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 49 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the North line thereof a distance of 33.00 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence Northeasterly on a non-tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 43 minutes 49 seconds East with a radius of 120.00 feet, central angle of 67 degrees, 28 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 141.37 feet; thence North 67 degrees, 28 minutes 49 seconds East; tangent to last described curve a distance of 217.69 feet, more or less, to the Right of Way of Inter-State Highway No. 494 and there terminating. Commitment No. 249737 PARCEL E: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE 1/4 of NW 1/4) of Section 24, Township 28 Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (N. line SE 14 of NW 1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty eight (28), Range Twenty two (22), a distance of 325.3 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof thence West along said North line a distance of 975.93 feet to the Northwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter 82 of said Section 24 (NW comer SE 1/4 of NW 1/4); thence Southerly, along the West line of said Quarter-Quarter section line, a distance of Five Hundred (500) feet; thence East, and parallel with the North line, a distance of 974.93 feet: thence Northerly Five Hundred (500) feet to the point of beginning; except the East 150 feet of the North 290.4 feet and except the West 110 feet of the North 396 feet, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota Abstract Property, Ramsey County Commitment No. 242032 PARCEL F: The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, according to the govemment survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota 1501 Henry Lane S Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 Abstract Property, Ramsey County All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Carver Crossing of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Map/ewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the zoning map change. 2. On June 12, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change. 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 in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 83 5. The owner plans to develop this property with a mix of town houses and condominiums. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June _, 2006. 84 Attachment 33 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the area south of Carver Avenue and west of 1-494. WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the properties are: Commitment No. 242035 PARCEL A: The West One-half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota; Except the North 150 feet of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty- two (22) lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494; And also exceDt that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4), Section 24, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 24 and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right- of-Way line of T.H. #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393 a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line of said T.H. #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of-Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said SW 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. And the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty-Eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), except the North Five Hundred feet (500 fl.) thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westerly Right-of-Way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in Final Certificates filed as Document No.'s 2254933 and 2256730. PARCEL B: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: 85 Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393; thence Southwester1y along the Wester1y Right- of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwester1y along said Wester1y Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line; thence deflecting Southwester1y 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right-of-Way line of said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of- Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwester1y of the said Wester1y Right-of-Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and Wester1y from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. PARCEL C: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota. Commitment No. 240565 PARCEL D: The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24; being 33.00 feet either side of the following described center1ine: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 49 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the North line thereof a distance of 33.00 feet to the point of beginning of said center1ine; thence Northeaster1y on a non-tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 43 minutes 49 seconds East with a radius of 120.00 feet, central angle of 67 degrees, 28 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 141.37 feet; thence North 67 degrees, 28 minutes 49 seconds East; tangent to last described curve a distance of 217.69 feet, more or less, to the Right of Way of Inter-State Highway No. 494 and there terminating. Commitment No. 249737 PARCEL E: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE 1/4 of NW 1/4) of Section 24, Township 28 Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (N. line SE YO of NW 1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty eight (28), Range Twenty two (22), a distance of 325.3 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof thence West along said North line a distance of 975.93 feet to the Northwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24 (NW comer SE 1/4 of NW 1/4); thence Southerly, along the West line of said Quarter-Quarter section line, a distance of Five Hundred (500) feet; thence East, and parallel with the North line, a distance of 974.93 feet; thence Norther1y Five Hundred (500) feet to the point of beginning; except the East 150 feet of the North 290.4 feet and except the West 110 feet of the North 396 feet, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 86 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota Abstract Property, Ramsey County Commitment No. 242032 PARCEL F: The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, according to the government survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota 1501 Henry Lane S Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 Abstract Property, Ramsey County All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Carver Crossing of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On June 12, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 87 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped April 3, 2006 except where the city requires changes. These plans include not having a street connection from the new development to Heights Avenue and only having a emergency vehicle and trail access from the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. (4) A tot lot within the development. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated May 5, 2006, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can tum around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. 88 c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. (3) Clearly labeled proof of parking spaces that would have a "green surface" or another environmentally friendly design (rather than a bituminous surface). 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city restricts the residents in this development to those people that are aged 55 or older. This means that at least one of the owners of each unit must be at least 55 years old. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on June ,2006 89 Attachment 34 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, CoPar Companies applied to the cily for the vacation of the following-described parts of a public right-of-way: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF HENRY LANE That part of Henry Lane tumed back to the City of Maplewood per Document Number 1843272 and according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of Way Plat No. 62-19, Document Number 352354 and Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of Way Plat No. 62-20, Document Number 3548682, and that part of Legislative Trunk Highway 393, currently known as Trunk Highway 494 as described in Final Certificate, Document Number 1565350, all filed in the office of County Recorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast comer of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West 607.01 feet on an assumed bearing along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 52 minutes 01 seconds East 238.73 feet; thence easterly 169.04 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 184.00 feet and a central angle of 52 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds; thence South 53 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds East 42.60 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence southeasterly, southerly and southwesterly 152.16 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 72 degrees 38 minutes 56 seconds; thence southwesterly 283.33 feet along a reverse curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 7,800.93 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 520.45 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A and said line there terminating: Together with that part of said Henry Lane lying westerly, northwesterly and southeasterly of the following 60.00 foot strip. Said strip lies 30.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the hereinbefore described Point A; thence continuing South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 157.55 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East 31.51 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 194.51 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly 218.59 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 200.00 feet and a central angle of 62 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds; thence, South 79 degrees 41 minutes 11 seconds West 236.08 feet and said centerline there terminating. (in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22) WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports 90 and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed vacation. 2. On June 12, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 1. 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 24-28-22-24-0010 2. 1481 Henry Lane Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 24-28-22-31-0017 3. 1461 Henry Lane Maplewood, Minnesota PIN 24-28-22-31-0002 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of- way vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right-of-ways for their original purposes. 3. The existing easements and right-of-ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout. 4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right-of-ways with the final plat. This vacation is subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and utility easements and right-of-ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June _, 2006. 91