Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/2006 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers. Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. April 25, 2006 b. May 9, 2006 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Carver Crossing of Maplewood (Henry Lane and Carver Avenue in South Maplewood) - 299 Senior Housing Units 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. May 22, 2006, City Council Meeting 9. Staff Presentations: a. CDRB Representation at the June 12, 2006, City Council Meeting -Items to Be Discussed Include Carver Crossing (To Be Held at Carver Elementary School). 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Schurke requested a short discussion regarding the lack of funding for clean up of open space in Maplewood to be discussed under Board Presentations as item b. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for April 11 , 2006. Board member Schurke had changes to page 2, seventh paragraph, changing the word sediment to sentiment. Chairperson Olson had changes to pages 2, 5, and 8. On page 2, second paragraph, add a paragraph indent after the word 18 months indenting the discussion about Board member Ledvina as its own paragraph. On page 5, third paragraph, Chairperson Olson asked if the second sentence could be stricken from the discussion which states The St. Paul Tourist Cabin site has a letter of intent from Central Community Housing Trust (CCHT). (Chairperson Olson could not remember if there was a letter of intent or not. As recording secretary that is what I remembered hearing at the HRA meeting but then Ms. Finwall thought that was incorrect and said staff would verify that and include the proper language.) On page 8, in the fourth paragraph, she thought this was a school board issue and did not want to cause any unnecessary grief by speaking out of turn and asked if the paragraph could read Chairperson Olson said the population of school age children in this area of Maplewood is on the decline. LInd there FRay bo a nood to close anothor schoel in Maplowood. So there would bo no neod to build new schools iA tRis aroa and ".'hiGh appoars not to l3e an issuo. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 2 Board member Ledvina asked if it was appropriate for board members to amend statements as they were made and reflected in the minutes? He thought the minutes were intended to reflect what was actually said at the meeting. If there was a different meaning or if there was an error made, that's different, but he questioned if the board members should be removing or striking text from the minutes if those were statements that were actually made? Ms. Finwall said to clarify, you as a board member could change language stating that this is what you actually meant verses what you actually said and that would be appropriate but to change the intent may not be proper. Chairperson Olson said the reason she suggested the edits is for the purpose of accuracy. Board member Ledvina said if it was not what you actually said then it should be changed but if it what was what you said and you just don't want it misinterpreted, then it should remain in the minutes for the record. Chairperson Olson said once the minutes are approved they go onto many different levels and become documents of record and she doesn't want her passionate statements to be misconstrued. Board member Schurke said Board member Ledvina brings up an interesting point. Maybe Chairperson Olson could clarify for the record what she meant to say and have it recorded in the minutes now. Chairperson Olson said she would like the items she brought up to be clarified in the minutes but if it would cause conflict they should remain as she stated during the meeting. She didn't feel it was appropriate for her to be speaking for the school board or for CCHT, which was the interpretation of comments she had heard at previous meetings. Board member Schurke moved approval of the minutes of April 11 , 2006, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Olson, Schurke, Shankar Abstention - Ledvina The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Town Center Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment (Best Buy) - 1795 County Road D (6:10 - 7:05 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Paul Anderson of WCL Associates, representing Best Buy, is proposing signage for the new Best Buy store located at 1795 County Road D. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 3 The new Best Buy store is currently under construction and is located within the Town Center Shopping Center. Best Buy is proposing three new wall signs on their building and is also proposing to reface the existing Frank's Nursery freestanding sign located along the highway. All existing signs on the current store will be removed. The city's sign code requires all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants to have a comprehensive sign plan approved by the community design review board (CDRB). Any amendments to the approved plan must be reviewed by the CDRB. Best Buy is requesting an amendment to Town Center's existing comprehensive sign plan. Chairperson Olson asked staff which of the wall signs she would recommend removing in her proposed conditions? Ms. Finwall said she would leave that up to the board and the applicant. Board member Schurke said on page 2 of the staff report, in the second paragraph it states "the draft sign code, when approved by the city council, would allow one wall sign for each street upon which the property has frontage, plus one wall sign for each clearly differentiated department." He asked what differentiated department meant? Board member Shankar said an example of a differentiated department is like a Pharmacy sign on the Target building showing different departments in the store. Ms. Finwall said correct. Board member Schurke asked how many departments Best Buy would have? Board member Shankar said he thought Best Buy would need a sign like automotive installation or something of that sort. Board member Schurke asked if there was language in the draft sign code that defines what differentiated department means? Ms. Finwall said no. Board member Schurke asked what street classification meant? He asked if Highway 694 represented a street classification? Ms. Finwall said yes. The draft sign code does not define a street in the sign code. Board member Shankar asked if the 375.4 square foot sign for Best Buy as shown on attachment 4 in the staff report exceeded the allowable square footage for a sign? Ms. Finwall said correct. The draft sign code would only allow for 150 square feet of sign for a building of this size. Board member Shankar said staff recommended one of the Best Buy signs be removed and he asked if that would be for the 375 square foot sign? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 4 Ms. Finwall said that's the size of the sign but not necessarily on that side of the building. Ms. Finwall said this is a good reality check of the proposed draft sign code for the CDRB. Chairperson Olson said she sees this is as a unique situation. Because Best Buy has one frontage and two streets and in her opinion this could justify a sign on every side of the building. Board member Shankar said there is really only one street frontage here which is County Road D. Chairperson Olson said she thinks Highway 694 counts as street frontage too. Board member Schurke said he would recommend clarification for the sign code regarding what street designation is. He doesn't necessarily see Highway 694 as street frontage, he sees this as adjacent and not as frontage. He stated his appreciation for Best Buy's very clear plans, which makes it easier for the CDRB to understand what is being proposed. By turning the building with the east facing orientation it almost drives the need for additional signage which may be an advantage for parking. He thinks this is could have too much signage and could be confusing for customers. He doesn't think it's necessary to add the landscaped masonry at the base of the sign. The clean lines of the sign coming out of the ground are fine with him. Knowing if the landscaping would be maintained is a real issue for him. He has often seen landscaping not maintained and it looks better without landscaping. The other issue is a limitation of the hours the signs could be illuminated or hours that the signs could be dimmed because he doesn't see a lot of advertising value illuminating the signs between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. that could also be electrical savings and energy conservation for Best Buy. These signs could be put on the energy management system. He asked staff if the draft sign code addresses these issues in terms of light levels? Ms. Finwall said the signs are covered in the current lighting ordinance in terms of light glare, however the city does not have a requirement as to when the signs need to be tu rned off. Board member Schurke said as the sign ordinance comes into its own he would rather see more specificity in the illumination hours. Ms. Finwall said regarding the landscaping of the pylon sign, staff was proposing a brick base around the two existing sign poles with landscaping around the brick and not in the interior of the brick. Staff's proposed condition is based on the fact that this sign is the most visible sign from County Road D. Best Buy is required to install a sidewalk along County Road 0 where pedestrians will be walking by the sign and the brick base and landscaping would help with the aesthetics of the sign. Board member Ledvina said he didn't have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 5 Mr. Jason Kraus, Property Development Manager, Best Buy, 7601 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, addressed the board. Mr. Kraus said he wanted to clarify that the sign they are proposing to reface on Highway 694 is exactly the same size of the existing panel. There must be some discrepancy in the report. He had the sign company measure the sign and according to them the 20 foot width is actually 16 feet and should be 160 square feet in size so he isn't sure how the discrepancy in the numbers occurred. He is having a problem with the front wedge or Best Buy sign at 150 square feet. This is a 45,000 square foot store and to have a 150 square foot sign would look very out of proportion. This building is placed on the site in an unusual manner and the visibility for retail space is key here. He would like to stress Best Buy would like to be able to keep the signage they are currently showing on the plan. Regarding the comment about the pylon sign on County Road D, Best Buy plans on leaving it the way it is. He knows there have been recommendations made to have brick and landscaping for the pylon sign but he appreciates the comments from the board members regarding the problem in keeping the landscaping maintained. The rest of the center is owned by Timco Realty and this Town Center sign is under their control. Board member Shankar said Best Buy opened a new store a few months ago in Oakdale on Radio Drive and he asked how large the sign is for that store? Mr. Kraus said he was not sure of the size of the Best Buy store sign in Oakdale. Board member Shankar asked if Best Buy had any other stores in the Twin Cities with signs that are 375 square feet in size? Mr. Kraus said yes most of the Best Buy store signs are 375 square feet in size. In Eagan they are currently building a Best Buy store that is 45,000 square feet like this store and it will have a sign 375 square feet in size. Board member Shankar asked if Best Buy wants to have a 375 square foot sign on the east side, why do you need the sign on the south side facing County Road D? Mr. Kraus said to catch the traffic driving east on County Road D. Board member Shankar asked why Best Buy would need the sign on the west side? Best Buy would have a pylon sign along Highway 694 that they are refacing so people coming from the frontage road would see that sign. Why would Best Buy need the sign on the west? Mr. Kraus said he noticed when driving on Highway 694 that there are a lot of trees and shrubbery on MnDOT's property and that blocks some of the visibility of Best Buy. Board member Schurke said if Best Buy had to pick from two wall signs which two elevations would Best Buy pick? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 6 Mr. Kraus said that would depend on which sign square footage the CDRB will allow Best Buy to have. He understands this is a draft sign code ordinance and it hasn't been enacted yet. He understands the fact that signage for Best Buy was not approved when the building elevations were reviewed. Now Best Buy finds out the draft sign ordinance has been complete, but theoretically Best Buy is under the existing sign code. Ms. Finwall said that is correct, however, this is a multi-tenant building, therefore it's covered by the city's comprehensive sign plan ordinance which allows the CDRB to make recommendations above or below the existing code to ensure compatibility and a comprehensive plan throughout the center. Mr. Kraus said he hopes the new Best Buy building will help dress this area up. He understands the need for additional aesthetics in this location. The existing Frank's Nursery building is coming down and the parking lot is going to be resurfaced. There is a good possibility that the owner is going to improve this site because of the need to get future tenants in here. Especially because of the new strip mall across the street. Board member Schurke said he understands the draft sign ordinance is a work in progress and he understands Ms. Finwall and the CDRB put a lot of time and effort into the sign ordinance. He asked if staff had thought of using a formula for total sign square footage and let the applicant decide how they would like to allocate this with five smaller signs or one large sign? Ms. Finwall said staff looked at that in the drafting of the sign ordinance. Some cities do that but none of those cities would allow one large 500 square foot sign. Staff felt it would be cumbersome for additional signage as years go by to ensure they are meeting the requirements. If a particular business called the city and asked if they could add an additional sign it would be a matter of researching the existing signs. Board member Schurke asked if Best Buy would be willing to be limited to certain hours that the signs could be illuminated? Mr. Kraus said Best Buy has an energy management system and he believes the sign illumination could be included in that. Board member Schurke asked if the current Best Buy signs are turned off at a certain time now? Mr. Kraus said he would have to check into that. Board member Schurke asked if Best Buy would be willing to limit the hours the signs could be illuminated? Mr. Kraus said he isn't in a position to make that decision. Board member Shankar asked Board member Schurke what hours he was suggesting Best Buy turn the signs off? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 7 Board member Schurke said in some communities such as in Arden Hills there is a sign ordinance that relates specifically to sign height which make for a more interesting way to attract customers to your business as a result of subtle changes in signage that are at street level. Rather than looking up at a sign the sign is at the level that you are driving at which gives a completely different aesthetic to the community because there are no pylon signs. Board member Schurke said he lives close to Keller Lake and when you look up at the night sky it's amazing the dome of light that keeps you from seeing the stars and the problem is getting worse every year with additional development occurring and adding to the light pollution. It would be a good goal to put these types of limitations on so that you aren't needlessly lighting the sky. He feels there is such little traffic driving by at those hours, what would the advertising benefit be to leave the sign lit? Best Buy is a destination business and most people know where the Best Buy stores are located. Mr. Kraus said Best Buy typically runs into lights being on a timer more so with wall sconces and parking lot lighting for night sky ordinances but hasn't had that restriction for lighting of the signage. There are a lot of communities that are using the night sky ordinances. There really isn't a glare problem with signage lighting because most of that light is contained behind the panels and the light is not being directed up or down. Wall sconces have light that can be directed up and down and the parking lot light can be directed down and out. Board member Schurke said the point is that there is a lot of light pollution coming from developments and signage and any lighting causes problems for people looking at the night sky. Chairperson Olson asked if Best Buy had any foot candle data on the omissions that these signs put out? Mr. Kraus said no. Chairperson Olson asked for the purpose of safety would your signage provide any additional lighting that would help with security for pedestrians walking from the Myth nightclub? Mr. Kraus said very little security if any. The street lighting and parking lot lighting would provide more light security for pedestrians. Chairperson Olson said it seems to her the CDRB discussed wall sconce lighting on the side of the building along County Road D. She asked if that had been incorporated into the plan or not? Mr. Kraus said he is not familiar with that. Mr. Paul Anderson, WCL Architects, addressed the board. He said he was at the CDRB meeting last summer when these issues were discussed. He remembered the discussion regarding the wall sconces along the south side, adjacent to the sidewalk. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 8 Mr. Anderson said there are also wall sconces along the east side, which is the front wall and a few along the back of the building on the three piers. Mr. Kraus said a main concern for Best Buy is the amount of light on the site. He said not to stereotype nightclubs but being that the Myth nightclub is across the street, Best Buy is concerned about loss prevention and would prefer the site be well lit. Chairperson Olson said customers at the Myth nightclub are also your potential clients. The club could be an asset for Best Buy located across the street, so things can work both ways. Board member Schurke asked if the wall sconces would be night sky shielded sconces? Mr. Anderson said he would have to check but he thought these were all down lights. Chairperson Olson said she too thought the wall sconces were directing the light downward. Board member Shankar said his opinion is even though the sign code may be for a sign 150 square feet in size that may be too small for a building 45,000 square feet and visually get lost. He believes this building is large enough and the front wall sign should be at least 300 square feet but should be moved higher up on the building than the 16 feet 5% inches in height. He thinks Best Buy should remove the sign on the west side facing Highway 694. He doesn't see how adding the brick on the base of the pylon sign would be a benefit. Board member Ledvina said he agreed with most of the staff recommendations. The new sign code should be used as a basis for evaluating the signs for Best Buy. He would agree with Board member Shankar that the front wall sign should be around 300 square feet but not 375.4 square feet as Best Buy proposed. The staff recommendation is for two wall signs and he doesn't have a preference which sign is removed but he feels the sign on the west side has the smallest value. He would leave that up to the applicant. Regarding the base of the pylon sign on County Road 0, because Best Buy doesn't own that sign that would be difficult to require Best Buy to make changes to the sign. A comment was made that the mall would be getting some type of remodel and maybe at that time the pylon sign with the multi-tenants listed could be updated. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 28, 2006, for a comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Town Center Shopping Center located at 1805 County Road D. Approval is subject to the following conditions (changes made to the conditions by the CDRB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a sign permit for the Best Buy store within this time-frame. 2. Best Buy signage shall be limited to: Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 9 a. Three +we wall signs. These wall signs are limited to one 300 square foot siqn on the east elevation: one 150 square foot siqn on either the north, south. or west elevations: and one 18 square foot siqn on the north elevation which advertises the mobile installations,168.2 square toot in GreG Gnd GGn be 10GGted on any WGII of the building. b. Two freestanding signs as follows: 1) 1-694: One freestanding sign limited to 180 square feet in area and 25 feet in height - Best Buy proposes to use the existing Frank's Nursery freestanding sign located along 1-694. This sign is 128 square feet in area and 25 feet in height. The following conditions to this freestanding sign must be met prior to issuance of any Best Buy sign permits on the property: G) b) €4 c) a) If the new sign face exceeds 128 square feet in area, Best Buy must submit certified engineering approval that the existing footings and wind load carrying capacity which meets building code requirements. ~ /\ dotailea 13AaSG313e 13131'1 FRUGt l3e submittea ....'hiGh sho'Ns landGGal3iA!j GFeUAa the l3aGe ef the si!jn. All existing Best Buy wall signs located on the old store must be removed once the old Best Buv store is closed. I3rier to certifiG3to of oGGupanGY of the now Best Buy store. The sign cabinet located on the existing Best Buy freestanding sign at the northeast corner of the Town Center Shopping Center site must be removed once the old Best Buv store is closed. prior to GertifiGato of oGGupanGY of tho new Bost Buy storo. 2) County Road 0: The existing Town Center Shopping Center sign will remain. This sign is approximately 25 feet in height and consists of an internally illuminated sign cabinet posted on two steel beams, and advertises four of the main tenants within the center, including Best Buy. The following Gonditions to this oxisting freest3Aaing sign must be met prior to the issuanGe of any Bost Buy sign pormits on the I3r-eperty: ~ Re'lisod olo'lations of the COl,lAty Road D sign must bo subFRittea to stGff for Gppro'tal. Tho olo'latioAG FRl,lst GROW Q four foot high, or Ri!lher, I3riGk or GonGrete masonry llAit I3Gse constructod arouna tRe oxisting stool boams. b) /\ detGiled IGndsGapo plan FRllst be subFRitted 'NhiGh shews landsGal3iA!l 3r{)und the base of the sign. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 10 3. All other tenant wall signage shall be limited to: a. Signs composed of a single line of copy shall not exceed three feet in height. b. Signs composed of two lines of copy (stacked) shall not exceed a letter height of 18 inches per line with a maximum space between lines of eight inches, for a total height of 44 inches. If more than two lines of copy are used, the total height shall not exceed 44 inches. c. There must be at lest 18 inches of margin between any sign and the end of the store front. d. All wall signs shall be composed of individual, internally-lit letters, not canister- type signs. e. Tenant wall signage is allowed on both the front and rear elevations. f. Logos are permitted on the sign fascia, but shall not exceed a height of four feet and shall follow the 18-inch spacing requirement. 4. All holes from sign mounting shall be properly patched and painted upon sign removal. 5. The shopping center identification pylon sign shall be located along County Road D and be subject to staff approval. 6. Staff may approve minor modifications to the sign plans. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. The board recommended that Best Buy remove their company sign from the sign panel of the multi-tenant building which would open space up for another tenant on the Town Center sign. b. Sign Code Interpretation - Electronic Reader Boards (7:06 - 8:10 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said city staff is requesting an interpretation of the city's sign code in regard to electronic reader board signs. An electronic reader board is a sign with a fixed or changing display composed of a series of lights that are changed through electronic means. As a planner with the City of Maplewood over the last five years one of staff's responsibilities has been sign code compliance, including the issuing of sign permits. Each year electronic reader board sign requests have increased. Most of these requests include adding electronic reader board signs to existing freestanding signs. This seems to be due to the fact that these types of signs are becoming more affordable to businesses. Plaza TV and Appliance is a new business in Maplewood that moved into an existing building at 1918 Beam Avenue last year. Plaza TV applied for a sign permit that included the addition of an electronic reader board onto the existing freestanding sign. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 11 Staff explained to the sign company that the city prohibits those types of signs based on the interpretation of the sign code. David Motz, the President of Plaza TV and Appliance discussed the matter with staff and indicated that they could program the electronic reader board sign to have a steady and constant message rather than to blink, flash, or flutter. Staff stated that this request has been made in the past, and that staff has denied the requests due to the fact that the sign still has the capability of blinking, flashing, or fluttering. Allowing such signs, in staff's opinion, would become a code enforcement issue if a new manager or owner wasn't aware of the requirement of maintaining the text or image as a steady and constant display. The city would be constantly monitoring those types of signs. Staff indicated to Mr. Motz that the only way staff could issue a sign permit for such a sign is if the city council approved a variance from the sign code. After staff notified Mr. Motz of the variance requirement he submitted a letter to the city further requesting an electronic reader board sign. Mr. Motz's rationale is that they are not looking to vary from the ordinance, only to comply with the ordinance by programming their sign to be constant and steady. Electronic reader boards are designed to advertise products sold within a business, not to advertise the business itself. Many businesses have claimed that they depend on this form of advertisement to make their businesses viable. However, these signs are specifically designed to draw attention away from a motorist or pedestrian, which is a safety hazard. They also add to the constant barrage of advertisements the public experiences on a daily basis. (The Myth nightclub was issued a sign permit during the leave of staff member Shann Finwall.) The difference between this request of Plaza TV and Appliance and the sign at the Myth nightclub is based on the definition of sign types by method of movement. The city's existing sign code defines an animated sign as a sigh which depicts action or movement. However, this definition goes on to specify that the animation term does not refer to flashing, changing or indexing. The code defines a flashing sign as an illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity. In staff's opinion, the Myth's sign is clearly a flashing sign since it has the capability of programming the lights to blink, flash, or flutter, which is prohibited in the city's sign code. An animated sign is not animated by function of its lights, but by function of its movement. An example of an animated sign would be a sign with movable parts, such as a sign depicting a person waving where the arm of a person is moving up and down on the sign. In staff's interpretation of the code the Myth's sign permit was issued in error and the Myth should be required to obtain a variance from the code in order to retain their sign. City staff recommends that the community design review board and city council offer clarification on the city's sign code pertaining to electronic reader board signs. Interpretation questions to be answered include: 1. Should businesses be allowed to install electronic reader board signs on the condition that they keep the text and images steady and constant? 2. Is a state of the art, full color LED sign considered an animated sign or a flashing and blinking sign? If considered a flashing and blinking sign, should the Myth Nightclub be required to obtain a variance to retain their sign, even though the city issued them a sign permit? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 12 3. Is the draft sign code language adequate to address these issues in the future? Chairperson Olson said she is glad this subject came up. She said she has received several complaints in the last month from Maplewood residents regarding the sign at the Myth nightclub. People initially thought the sign was going to be on a few hours a day but the sign is on all the time. She assumed the sign would only be on while the Myth was open but that is not the case. She wondered how this sign made it through the approval process by city staff. She was going to send an e-mail to city staff and then this issue came up in the CDRB packet. She thought she would wait until the discussion came up at the meeting tonight. Chairperson Olson said people driving on Highway 694 see the Myth sign and the motion of the sign and it is very distracting. People driving on White Bear Avenue see the sign as well. There are flames shooting out of people's eyes and many other motions coming from this sign which are very distracting. The sign has already been approved and it's operating so there is not much we can do about it now but she would like to require the Myth to only have still images on the sign because when the sign is in motion it is very distracting. She said the city cannot keep electronic reader board signs out of the City of Maplewood any longer. These types of signs exist in the community and the request is going to continue to come in for those types of signs. Board member Shankar said the city has the right to say electronic reader board signs are not allowed in Maplewood. Chairperson Olson said she doesn't think that is reasonable. Board member Schurke agreed with Board member Shankar. He sees electronic reader board signs as eye pollution. Board member Shankar said he can see electronic reader board signs for buildings that cater to large groups of people like Aldrich Arena, Xcel Energy Center, etc. but he doesn't feel it's necessary to have an electronic reader board for a small business such as Plaza TV and Appliance. Other appliance stores don't require electronic reader boards to conduct business. Chairperson Olson disagrees, she thinks there are two different kinds of electronic reader board signs here. The Plaza TV representatives are requesting a small electronic reader board sign similar to the electronic sign on the Premier Bank building at the corner of White Bear Avenue and Lydia Avenue. They are not requesting a color electronic reader board sign or anything fancy. She said this is an electronic reader board sign that would contain text only. Board member Schurke said staff displayed a picture of the Plaza TV sign on the overhead screen with an electronic reader board sign shown already. He asked if that was a computer generated photo or has the electronic reader board sign already been installed? Ms. Finwall said that was a computer generated photo to represent what the sign would look like with the electronic reader board beneath the Plaza TV sign. Board member Shankar said he is concerned about what an electronic reader board sign would include. He asked if there would be animation, four different colors of text, or what? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 13 Chairperson Olson said the text should be constant and steady and not blinking or fluttering and that is all we as a board should be concerned about. Board member Shankar asked as a city how do we enforce that? Chairperson Olson asked how does the city enforce anything? There is a business in Maplewood at the corner of County Road C and White Bear Avenue that has 100% paint covered windows that still say "under new ownership" that has been there for 2 years now and the city hasn't enforced any regulations on that business. Chairperson Olson said by stating the sign parameters and requiring the owners to recognize the rules there shouldn't be any problems with signs in Maplewood. Board member Shankar said an electronic reader board sign is basically a television to him. Chairperson Olson said she disagrees with that statement. It's different when you are talking about text on a sign. Board member Shankar asked if Plaza TV would have the ability to change the text on the sign and flash an image as well? Chairperson Olson said Plaza TV should be able to change the text on the sign but should not be flashing images in any way. The electronic reader board sign for Premier Bank is very similar to what Plaza TV is proposing to have. The sign at the bank has scrolling words that have a series of community announcements. Ms. Finwall said just to clarify, the electronic reader board sign associated with the bank for time and temperature and public service messages are currently allowed in the existing sign code. This is a good example of code enforcement issues with that type of sign. The bank is advertising loan rates in addition to public service announcements so they are not using the sign for all the correct reasons. There are a few electronic reader board signs in the city that were approved with special approval by the city council like Aldrich Arena and a few signs that were approved years ago prior to the sign code and one or two signs with a different interpretation of the sign code, prior to her employment with the city. Chairperson Olson said when the CDRB was discussing the sign code ordinance the board discussed allowing gas stations to have electronic signs so it would be easier to change the price on the sign as opposed to taking vinyl magnetic numbers on and off. This is the right time to allow electronic reader board signs in Maplewood. As long as the signs are not flashing and fluttering it seems to be the appropriate thing to do. Ms. Finwall said staff has allowed electronic gas pricing signs because they are steady and constant. Staff's concern with electronic reader board signs is that they advertise a product within the business and not the business itself. A good example of that is the electronic reader board at Walgreen's in St. Paul at the corner of Larpenteur Avenue and White Bear Avenue where they have sales advertised scrolling across the screen. She personally sees that as eye pollution. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 14 Mr. David Motz, President, Plaza TV and Appliance, 1918 Beam Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. He said this is a family owned business, they have two locations, the other location is in West St. Paul at South Robert Street, the previous location was at White Bear Avenue in St. Paul and they have since moved to their new location at 1918 Beam Avenue in July. Plaza TV said they want to follow the city sign code and will keep the electronic message constant or steady. They are a small business and they don't have the advertising budget that other companies have. That is why they want to have an electronic reader board sign to draw customers into their store. Mr. Motz said at the present time the West St. Paul store has a sign with the white board where you manually put magnetic letters and numbers on and off with a pole. They have had that for 10 years now. It's a real hindrance to have that kind of system. The wind blows things off the sign, the fluorescent bulbs have to be changed, the sign looks messy, and it is hard for the employees to go out and change the advertising on the sign. They are proposing to have an electronic reader board sign underneath the Plaza TV and Appliance sign, it would look more professional and is more energy efficient. Plaza TV spent a lot of money to move into this building in Maplewood and they want a decent sign out front to match their building. With the interpretation of the sign code he doesn't see why they can't have an electronic reader board sign if they follow the rules and doesn't see why they should have to apply for a variance. He said if the city informed people that if they get a permit for an electronic reader board sign and if they don't follow the city guidelines they could be fined for breaking the city ordinance. Mr. Motz said the city could place a fine such as $5,000 for breaking the rule. Most business owners aren't going to want to pay a fine like that and that would keep them from straying from the rules. It would really benefit Plaza TV if the city would grant them this electronic reader board sign. Board member Shankar asked what type of advertisement Plaza TV would have on this electronic reader board sign? Mr. Bob Sherlock, sign installer for Sign Art Company, 2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, addressed the board. He said the electronic reader board sign would advertise products for Plaza TV and Appliance. This electronic sign would be a two line message board and would allow for two lines of text. The sign has the capability in the graphics software to animate, flash, rotate and do full graphics, although this sign is not a full color display sign like the Myth nightclub sign. Because of the reduced height and the size of the face it is not real high and it does not have the square footage capability to adequately present graphics on it. This is a low watt energy efficient sign with LED pixels. These aren't electronic bulbs with sockets. The graphic software can hold the same message for 1 year. The idea was to hold a specific message for at least 1 day. Chairperson Olson asked if the electronic reader board sign would be advertising products or would it be used to state the time and temperature like Premier Bank uses their sign? Mr. Motz said at times the sign could advertise the time and temperature but the sign would be more for advertising the product and the services they could give the customer. Chairperson Olson asked if Plaza TV felt they couldn't advertise the business through window advertising or other signs like what they use at their West St. Paul location? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 15 Mr. Motz said this building is set back a ways off of Beam Avenue because of the frontage road that separates Beam Avenue and Plaza TV. Window advertising would not be effective being that there business is set back off the road. If the city allows a sign like the one at the KFC restaurant that doesn't look very professional, why wouldn't the city allow Plaza TV to have a more professional, more modern looking sign? Board member Shankar asked if the sign would be double sided? Mr. Sherlock said yes. Board member Shankar asked if the sign would have the same message on both sides of the sign? Mr. Sherlock said he would have to check on the specifics of this particular sign to see the ability of the sign. Some signs are automatically displayed with the same message on both sides and others can be programmed to read different text on each side of the sign if they have two different computer systems. Chairperson Olson asked if Plaza TV has an existing pylon sign now? Mr. Motz said they refaced the existing pylon sign from the previous business. Mr. Sherlock said the sign could be programmed to change the text message at any time as often as Mr. Motz would like. Mr. Motz said their current sign turns off at 2:00 a.m. and turns back on at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. Mr. Sherlock said he has been working with signs since 1980. Most commercial businesses will provide a photo cell on the sign with a timer combination to turn the sign off late at night and turn it back on early in the morning. Board member Shankar asked how Plaza TV felt if the city required them to only change the text once a week on Sundays? Mr. Motz said that probably wouldn't be a problem. Ms. Finwall said if the city started to allow electronic reader board signs how would the city be able to ensure the signs weren't being changed too often or what the signs are reflecting? Board member Schurke recommended disallowing electronic reader boards in the current and proposed sign code in the City of Maplewood. Board member Schurke moved to deny the use of an electronic reader board sign for Plaza TV and Appliance at 1918 Beam Avenue. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Schurke Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 16 Nay - Olson Abstention - Shankar This item will go to the city council on May 8, 2006. Chairperson Olson said she would like to discuss this topic again at the next CDRB meeting. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB could also discuss the second part of question 2 and all of question 3 shown in the staff report at a later date as well. Chairperson Olson asked if the only option Plaza TV and Appliance has is to apply for a variance for the electronic reader board sign? Ms. Finwall said yes. Chairperson Olson asked if the variance fee is $1,000 as the applicant stated in their letter? Ms. Finwall said off hand she was not sure of the exact fee for a variance. The applicant would be able to go to the city council meeting on May 8, 2006; the decision by the CDRB is only a recommendation to the city council. The city council makes the final decision. If the city council agrees with the recommendation by the CDRB the applicant has the option to apply for a variance at that time. Chairperson Olson asked staff what the options are for the Myth nightclub and the sign that has already been installed. She asked if the city can ask the Myth to take the sign down? Ms. Finwall said this is an unfortunate situation for the city to be in. The planner that gave the sign approval contacted the Myth as the sign was being installed and asked what type of messages would be shown on the screen and what types of graphics would be displayed on the screen because the city was struggling with the sign interpretation. The owners of the Myth indicated they would have some public service messages, but mostly they would advertise upcoming events at the club If the city does not enforce the sign code, the code is unenforceable. Ms. Finwall said so regardless of how the sign was approved, the city has to address this sign and should require a variance. The hardship may be that the city issued them a permit, therefore, the Myth should be allowed to keep this sign, however the city could require additional conditions such as the message has to remain constant and steady, and the sign has to be turned off at a certain time or something like that. Chairperson Olson said she is sympathetic to Plaza TV and Appliance. They were only asking for two lines of text on an electronic reader board sign compared to the Myth's huge video sign. Board member Ledvina said as far as the Myth is concerned this does not meet the requirements of the sign code so whatever actions the CDRB needs to take to correct this is appropriate. If the CDRB is going to look at the city's options we need to take the best course of action. The city can't ignore this situation. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 17 Board member Shankar said to answer question number 2 in the recommendations on page 5 of the staff report he answered yes to both questions. In his opinion a state of the art, full color LED sign is considered a flashing and blinking sign. Board member Schurke said he read the statement on page 4 of the staff report that says The city's existing sign code defines an animated sign as a sign which depicts action or movement. He understood the Sign Art representative for Plaza TV and Appliance to say the sign could have two lines of text that could depict action or movement by programming the sign that way. To him this is a sticky situation to define animation separate from flashing or fluttering. Board member Schurke said if the sign code text isn't clear enough we need to make it clear so there are no gaps in the sign code and mistakes aren't made. He asked if there is a rating requirement regarding animation on these signs? He said Chairperson Olson made a comment that flames were coming out of people's eyes on the Myth nightclub sign. Are there certain content guidelines that the applicants can follow so they don't cross the line? He said he has three young children and he wouldn't want to drive by this sign and have his children see certain things on the sign that may be offensive. Board member Schurke said to him the issue of policing these electronic reader board signs seems like it could potentially evolve into complaints from the community. What about the potential litigation the city could be exposed to in terms of car accidents as a result of a distracting sign such as the sign the Myth has. He thinks this is going to open the City of Maplewood up to potential lawsuits if someone has a car accident because of the distracting animation of the Myth sign. He asked if this was a potential problem in other cities. Chairperson Olson said she doesn't think the sign at the Myth is that crazy. She mentioned that she received comments from people regarding the Myth nightclub sign and the distraction from your peripheral vision, the content of the sign and the images that were portrayed. She isn't sure the city will have potential lawsuit issues here. She is concerned however, that the other planner approved this sign while Shann was on leave. The Myth sign is approved, it's up and working for 3 months now and we have to deal with it. Board member Ledvina said now the city has to evaluate what the best options are for dealing with the Myth sign. Now we have to find out what the city can ask the Myth to do regarding the situation. Board member Schurke moved to recommend disallowing the use of LED signs in the City of Maplewood. Board member Shankar asked if an animated sign is allowed by the sign code? Ms. Finwall said under the current sign code an animated sign is allowed and it is defined as a sign which depicts action or movement, however the definition does go on to specify the animation term does not refer to flashing, changing or indexing. The city prohibits any type of flashing or blinking. Board member Shankar said the new sign code should prohibit animated, flashing and blinking signs. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 18 Ms. Finwall said the only animated sign she knows of in Maplewood is at the Holiday store at Century Avenue and 10th. There is an auto repair business there and the sign spins around. An animated sign is a sign that spins or moves around. It's not the "movements" on the sign like an action on a television or video screen. Board member Ledvina referred to an animated sign to be like the barber shop sign where the red, white, and blue striped sign spins in a circle. Chairperson Olson recommended additional discussion regarding this section of the sign code to clear these issues up for the future. Ms. Finwall said it's imperative that the city council has the recommendation of the CDRB on the Myth sign. Chairperson Olson said this makes it difficult to work on these issues without a more clear and concise definition of the sign code from the city attorney. She thinks this discussion should be tabled because there are too many issues that are undefined. Chairperson Olson said regarding the questions on page 5 of the staff report, she answered yes to question number 1, yes to question number 2 and it is considered an animated sign or a flashing and blinking sign and they should not be allowed. Regarding question number 3, she thinks the CDRB needs to address the sign code on these issues more specifically. Board member Ledvina said you can call them big TV screens, flashing signs, animated signs, or whatever, either way they are not allowed in Maplewood. Ms. Finwall thought it was important to have a motion regarding question number 2. for the Myth nightclub. Board member Schurke moved that the existing sign code disallows LED signs and flashing and blinking signs such as the Myth night club sign. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. Chairperson Olson said when this comes back for discussion she would like to see these two issues broken down into two different categories. She doesn't see electronic reader board signs like the request from Plaza TV and Appliance in the same category as an outdoor TV screen with action and movement like the Myth sign. Ms. Finwall said because this is something new in Maplewood she believes it warrants different definitions. She will draft specific language regarding electronic reader boards and outdoor TV signs and bring this back to the CDRB at a future meeting. Chairperson Olson asked if staff could bring additional information back from the city attorney with recommendations on how to handle the Myth nightclub sign? Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 19 Board member Ledvina said he wasn't sure this was anything the CDRB could deal with. He thought this was something city staff would have to deal with. This sign at the Myth is an enforcement issue and is out of the realm of the CDRB. Chairperson Olson respectively disagreed. The CDRB is an advisory group to the city council regarding the sign code and she believes this falls into the board's view. The CDRB should make a recommendation to the city council on this issue. She didn't think she could come up with the appropriate language tonight. She asked if the city recommends the Myth remove the large electronic reader board sign? Do we recommend that the sign be relocated so it's not near the roadway? Do we ask that the sign be mounted on the building instead of as a pylon sign near the road? Ms. Finwall said if the city council decides that type of sign should not have been allowed for the Myth and that the Myth should obtain a variance the CDRB would review this item again. Chairperson Olson said because the Myth sign exists already, would the variance be approved? Ms. Finwall said a variance should be approved based on hardship and she thinks it's a hardship to have a sign this size and value approved and installed and then for the city to say you have to take it down. Chairperson Olson said it seems incredibly unfair for surrounding businesses in Maplewood to see the Myth sign exist and then the city tells applicants they can't have an electronic reader board sign with two lines of text as requested by Plaza TV. Board member Schurke said regarding the topic of electronic reader board signage, the role of the CDRB is to guard the aesthetics in the City of Maplewood. The contrast between a white board with magnetic letters and numbers on it and an electronic reader board sign both equal eye pollution to him and he would prefer not to see either of them. But the city has a history of things that were already approved. Now the city has to decide what to do now that the Myth sign has been approved and what can the city do about it now. He would prefer not to spend more time discussing electronic signs. Chairperson Olson said she would respectively disagree. She would like to see clarifications made to the existing and proposed sign code. Ms. Finwall said staff will bring proposed language back to the CDRB to help clarify these items in the proposed draft sign code because staff believes this warrants clarification and this can be discussed at a future CDRB meeting. Board member Shankar said keep in mind that any backlit static sign like the Best Buy sign is also considered an electronic sign. Chairperson Olson said if the images were "still" on the electronic sign at the Myth that might be acceptable. Right now there is a tremendous amount of movement on the Myth sign. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 20 VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Special City Council Meeting, April 18, 2006, Gladstone Redevelopment Concept Plan Chairperson Olson said the meeting was held at the Maplewood Community Center in the theatre and began around 6:30 p.m. The Maplewood residents spoke first, and then the different boards and commissions spoke. No decisions or recommendations were made by the city council. The Master Plan for 800 units was recommended, there was a report for a majority vote by three members of the PC for between 600-700 units. The Gladstone residents preferred the 400 unit plan. The city council decided they would need to have a retreat to make a final decision and weigh the information the city council received regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. b. Open space clean up discussion Board member Schurke said he is aware of at least two open space parcels that the City of Maplewood owns, both of which are in need of minor clean up. He isn't sure if there is environmental clean up needed but there is visual contamination on these properties with debris left over from when these parcels were purchased. At the April 18, 2006, Gladstone meeting AI Singer spoke about the open space in Maplewood. Board member Schurke said he was surprised there were no funds set aside for clean up of open space in Maplewood. He lives near one of the parcels at the intersection of Roselawn Avenue and Arcade Street where there is debris and he has heard complaints from Maplewood residents. The other parcel is on the east side of Maplewood and the parcel has barrels and other things on the property. He thinks it would be a good effort on the part of Maplewood to clean up those parcels. With future developments in Maplewood the city could earmark funds to save money to do maintenance on open space properties in Maplewood. He is not sure how to handle this recommendation or who it should be passed on to but he recommends funding be set aside to do this clean up. Chairperson Olson said this was a huge area of discussion for the Gladstone Redevelopment task force. She would recommend that Board member Schurke contact the Open Space Committee and Parks Commission on his own. She didn't know what the final recommendation was regarding the clean up. That was one of the reasons the issue regarding the sale of the Savanna kept coming back. One of the proposals was for funds from the sale of the Savanna could then be funneled in to create a permanent endowment for the parks and open space. That did not go over very well but this issue has been discussed several times. Ms. Finwall said the city does fund some maintenance and upkeep through the city's park access charge (PAC) which is a park charge on all new home building permits in the City of Maplewood. Community Design Review Board Minutes 4-25-2006 21 Ms. Finwall said the city council recently approved the (PAC) fee to be raised, because it had not been raised in many years. There just isn't a specific clean up fund for open space. The city's naturalist and environmental person are looking at all the options for grants regarding open space in the City of Maplewood. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will represent the CDRB at the May 8, 2006, city council meeting - Items to be discussed include the Sign Code Interpretation and Electronic Reader Boards b. Planning Commission and CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting Ms. Finwall said this item was placed on the agenda based on conversations between a planning commissioner and a board member and the overlapping of discussion items at their meetings. Chairperson Olson said this came up in the annual report to the city council. One of the items the CDRB would discuss in the upcoming year would be to review the parking regulations. Chairperson Olson said in a discussion with a planning commissioner they said they would also be discussing that. She volunteered to go to a planning commission meeting to discuss what the CDRB reviews for parking. She would like someone from the PC to discuss with the CDRB what the PC reviews for parking. Ms. Finwall wasn't sure what the final decision was at the PC meeting. The recording secretary said she thought staff was going to compile a list of items the PC had concerns about asked if city staff for the CDRB could do the same. Then the two chairpersons could have a separate meeting to discuss the items rather than trying to get a joint meeting together between the PC and the CDRB. Ms. Finwall said she would follow up on this and bring it back to the CDRB at a later date. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 9,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Joel Schurke Board member Ananth Shankar Present until 6:40 p.m. Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Hinzman moved to approve the agenda. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Hinzman, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for April 25, 2006 Chairperson Olson moved to table the approval of the minutes of April 25, 2006, until the next meeting. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes --- Hinzman, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Comforts of Home Assisted Living Facility - 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street Ms. Finwall said Mathew Frisbie of Frisbie Architects, Inc., representing Comforts of Home 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 store and an electrical contractor's office. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 2 The proposed use on the 3.025 acre lot 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. The planning commission recommended approval of the comprehensive land use plan change and conditional use permit at their May 1, 2006, meeting. The community design review board should make a recommendation on the design elements of the project including architectural, site plan, landscaping, and lighting. Ms. Finwall distributed a revised grading and drainage plan to the CDRB that staff received on May 8, 2006. Chairperson Olson said she read there was neighborhood opposition to this proposal based on the potential traffic in the area which would require the city to upgrade Hazelwood Avenue. Staff said Hazelwood Avenue was to be upgraded in 2009, she asked if that road was already on the city's long range schedule for reconstruction or was it added to the construction schedule because of this proposal? Ms. Finwall said Hazelwood Avenue was on the city's road construction calendar to be reconstructed in 2009 before this proposal came forward. Chairperson Olson asked if the sidewalk for Comforts of Home would be deferred until 2009 because of the road improvement project? Ms. Finwall said the city's engineering department felt it best to have the developer submit an escrow for the sidewalk rather than build it right away. If the city required the developer to install the sidewalk now the city may find out it did not meet the design standards and the sidewalk would have to be removed and replaced in 2009. Chairperson Olson asked if that was correct then the road assessments would not be charged to the homeowners until 2009? Ms. Finwall said that's correct as proposed in the city's capital improvement plan. Board member Shankar asked if there would be staff working in this facility such as dining staff? Ms. Finwall said there would be full time employees working at Comforts of Home. During the day there would be 5 to 6 employees and in the evening they would have about 3 employees. Board member Shankar asked if 25 parking stalls would be sufficient based on that count? Ms. Finwall said because none of the residents would have vehicles, the only parking that would be needed is for visitors and the employees. Comforts of Home said this type of parking has worked at their other locations and they are confident the parking would be sufficient for their needs at this site. The parking was discussed at length during the Planning Commission meeting on May 1, 2006. The parking reduction was included as part of the PUD which was reviewed and recommended for approval by the PC. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 3 Board member Shankar asked if the residents would be transported by a van? Where would the van park? Where would the van pick up the residents? He did not see a wide enough parking stall on the parking plan. Ms. Finwall said there is a drive aisle. In the event the transportation van picks the residents up they could park the van in front of the building. Board member Schurke asked staff about the recommendation to change the Colorado blue spruce plantings to Black hills spruce on the landscaping plan? He asked if Black hills spruce was native to Minnesota or what was the rationale for the change? Ms. Finwall said the experience in Maplewood has been that the Colorado blue spruce tree gets a fungus and doesn't last as long in Minnesota. Board member Schurke asked if the recommendation for the 6 to 8 foot high berm was primarily for noise mitigation from Highway 36? Ms. Finwall said the engineering department recommended the berm for noise mitigation, but it will also add a nice visual buffer from Highway 36 as well. Board member Schurke asked if the noise study or documentation had been done yet for this site? Ms. Finwall said that information would be required prior to issuance of a building permit. That information could come after the fact as well. The developer would also be using building materials that are for noise reduction such as thicker walls, windows, and insulation. Board member Hinzman asked about the revised grading and drainage plan and if that satisfied the staff's concern about the additional berm height along Highway 36? It appears some areas of the berm are only 3 feet in height. Ms. Finwall said the revised grading and drainage plan was received by staff on Monday, May 8, 2006, and staff has not had the opportunity to have the engineering department review this. Staff would have to verify that. Chairperson Olson said she watched the broadcast of the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, May 1, 2006, and remembered there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the berm. She asked if that information was included in the packet? Ms. Finwall said the only thing that was included in the packet was the recommendation that the berm be 6 to 8 feet in height. Board member Schurke said that recommendation is shown in the staff report on page 10, item 2. b. Board member Schurke asked if Comforts of Home owns the island for Knuckle Head Lake? The applicant shook his head no that they do not own the island for Knuckle Head Lake. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 4 Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Mathew Frisbie, Frisbie Architects, 215 North 2nd Street, Suite 204, River Falls, Wisconsin, addressed the board. Mr. Brian Winges, Owner of Comforts of Home, 2340 County Road J East, White Bear Township, addressed the board. Mr. Winges said Comforts of Home serves the needs of residents who need a lot of care. The residents would not be picked up and driven to a shopping center for example because these are people that need help with getting dressed, bathing, and sometimes assistance with eating. Family members may come and take their loved one to the doctor or out for the day, but that would be about it. The parking requirements are sufficient. Chairperson Olson asked if they would anticipate having gatherings such as a Mothers Day tea in the future? The reason she asked is because this would bring a lot of visitors and she wondered where those people would park. Mr. Winges said they do not hold large functions or parties at Comforts of Home facilities. The issue of gatherings and parking needs was addressed with the planning commission. They don't have the ability to have a large gathering here. The commons area is geared to a home- like setting; there is no large dining room or anything like that. People are welcome to visit their loved one anytime, Mothers Day, Christmas, or Thanksgiving but there is no large gatherings scheduled for people to come all on one day. This is a very acute population and it can be difficult to even get the residents mobile. Chairperson Olson asked how many employees there would be? Mr. Winges said they would have about 5 to 6 daytime employees and around 3 employees in the evening. They have what is called a universal employee where they do all the functions that are needed and move from one function to the other. They do not have a separate food staff, cleaning staff, and nursing staff. This allows them a sufficient number of employees that keep busy throughout the three shifts. Sometimes a manager stops in occasionally so that may be an additional car in the parking lot; otherwise the parking needs are very similar from location to location. Chairperson Olson said that doesn't sound like many employees to care for 42 residents; especially depending on their care needs and only having 3 staff members at night. Mr. Winges said those numbers are actually above the industry average. Some facilities only have 1 staff member for 60 residents. Chairperson Olson asked if the meals would be cooked on site or delivered to the facility? Mr. Winges said the meals would be cooked on site; they try to have home cooked style meals. Chairperson Olson asked where delivery vehicles would be making deliveries? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 5 Mr. Mark Paschke, Frisbie Architects, addressed the board. He said the drop off area would be off of Hazelwood Avenue. There is a secondary exit directly off of the kitchen and that is where most of the deliveries would occur on site. There would be two food deliveries per week. There would also be a walk-in freezer and refrigerator which would allow for less food deliveries. Chairperson Olson asked if there would be a laundry pick up and delivery service? Mr. Winges said the laundry is done in-house for the residents by the employees so there would be no laundry deliveries. The cost of the laundry service is included in the monthly living expenses. Chairperson Olson said it sounds like there would be minimal delivery trucks coming to this facility. Mr. Winges said yes, that is correct and that is another reason the Comforts of Home have built in residential neighborhoods. They have always been concerned about traffic and things of that nature. They have designed the building with that in mind and that is the way the building is staffed. The laundry is done individually. Residents have their own sheets and their own clothes. The laundry is not all dumped together and washed together. It's done individually. Board member Shankar asked if there is an outdoor space in the back of the facility? Mr. Winges said yes. Board member Shankar said it appears there is a large grade drop there. He asked if they are concerned about that? Mr. Frisbee said there is a fence and guard rail system on both levels. Mr. Paschke said that is represented as A4 in the staff report and identifies the guard rail at both levels. Mr. Winges said the residents would go outside and sit down and enjoy the weather. They would not be outside walking or hiking so it is not a problem to have a gated sitting area. Mr. Paschke said there is a third outdoor space on the front of the building on the south side for the memory care patients. Chairperson Olson asked if there is a separate locked area for the Alzheimer's patients or will their individual units be secured? Mr. Winges said there is a separate eating and activity area for the Alzheimer's patients. Depending on the number of memory or Alzheimer's patients they do have the ability to lock certain areas of the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 6 Board member Hinzman said this is a great looking facility and this is going to be a nice addition to this site. On the southeast corner of the building is a 30-inch oak tree that is about 10 feet off the building site and is proposed to be eliminated. He asked ifthere would be a way to save that tree? Mr. Frisbee said he would have to look into that. They have adjusted the building to the south to meet other requirements but they will check into the proximity of the oak tree. If there is a way to shift the building to preserve the tree they will see what they can do. Chairperson Olson said in looking at the grading and erosion control plan she was wondering if they were proposing underground drainage from the rainwater garden into the wetland? Mr. Frisbee said typically with a rainwater garden it's for pretreatment of the storm water so they catch all the sediment and at some point there would be an overflow. They would then be allowed to overflow into the wetland area so they can take a look at that. Chairperson Olson asked if it would still be permeable? Mr. Frisbee said yes. Mr. Paschke said that would be addressed through the permit with the watershed district. They want the overflow spillway taken to the wetland basin to avoid any erosion of the hillside. Board member Hinzman said the 6 to 8 foot high berm appears to be very tight on the site plan. He asked what the thoughts were regarding the engineering recommendation for the 6 to 8 foot high berm? Mr. Paschke said they are working with the Maplewood City Engineer, Michael Thompson, regarding maximizing the berm where they can. With the addition of planting the trees, the steeper you get that berm the greater the risk you have of freezing your trees out. They are doing what they can to make that work. Board member Hinzman asked if they are cutting the site down much in this location? The reason he asked is if the site is lower than the berm could be lower. Mr. Frisbee said they are matching the elevations of Hazelwood Avenue so that blends in. Hazelwood Avenue is at 919 and slopes down to 918 at the parking lot and back up to 918.75 at the first floor of the building. The northeast corner of the property has a few higher spots for a higher berm. Board member Schurke said he agrees with the comments made by Board member Hinzman that this is a very nicely designed proposal, he was happy to see such quality building materials being used. He said it appears the floor plan is flipped on the elevations. Mr. Paschke said the color rendering presented tonight is a project under construction in White Bear Lake. This plan is a mirror of the project being built in White Bear Lake so it is reversed on the plan. Chairperson Olson asked if they had building samples to show the board? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 7 Mr. Frisbee presented samples of some of the materials they would be using on this project while Mr. Paschke passed a colored board around to each of the board members representing their Hudson, Wisconsin building. Board member Schurke asked if the applicant was aware of the energy design assistance program for Xcel customers in Minnesota which they may qualify for. He said this program could save your facility a substantial amount of money. The utility rebates are based on the improvements on the buildings from an energy quality standpoint relative to a cash rebate from the utility. Perhaps the architect is already aware of this program. Mr. Frisbee said they have not been a part of that program for this proposal but he would have to take a closer look at this to see if this would qualify for it. Board member Schurke said the plans do not call out the R values for the building materials being used on this project and he asked about each of the R values. He said he noticed they are using CMU block construction. He asked if they had thought about using insulated concrete forms. That may be something to look into for the sound continuation potential for that kind of product he said. Another product that gets sound continuation is instructional insulated panel systems. Knowing there are sound issues that are being driven for residential issues he would have concerns about the aesthetics regarding the berm along Highway 36. He would like to see more of this building from Highway 36 because of the nice design features. He asked if the owner thought how the building could be converted to another use if there is no longer a market for this type of use? Mr. Paschke said the structure would be completely non-combustible construction which is the most restricted construction available. It is fully sprinklered. This type of facility allows clientele to age in place and if the care becomes more acute at some point the owner could upgrade their license and go with more of a skilled nursing facility. As far as changing the building to another residential occupancy that would be tied to the PUD and that would have to be reviewed by the city. Structurally it's an 1-2 construction class. Fire resistant ratings and safety issues are of the utmost importance in this type of a facility, especially for residents that are unable to respond to emergency situations on their own. Mr. Winges said he works with developers who said this building could be converted to office condominiums. His understanding is that this building is adaptable, it would cost some money to change things, but it could be done. Mr. Winges said they have never had a problem with filling rooms at any of their buildings. Their buildings fill up in a matter of months and they are very confident with the demand for this type of facility. Board member Schurke said he applauds the quality standard that they reach for with Comforts of Home. This stands out above a lot of other types of facilities he has toured. He said his mother is in this age bracket but she does not require this type of facility yet but this outranks any other buildings he has seen quality wise. Mr. Winges thanked him for his comments. Chairperson Olson agreed with the comments regarding the quality of the design. This building is going to fill up fast because there is a need for this type of housing. She did not notice a space dedicated for large muscle activities. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 8 Mr. Winges said there is not a lot of exercise going on because of the type of resident they care for. They don't have a need for a large exercise area. They do have daily activities which are held in the common areas. Chairperson Olson asked if a large part of their clientele use wheelchairs or walkers? Mr. Winges said there are a fair number that do. The mobility problem is not something you would find in a typical assisted living home such as Presbyterian Homes, Alterra or Sunrise. They are taking the elderly residents that those types of facilities won't accept but are not ready or don't need to move to a nursing home. He would welcome the CDRB to visit their locations to see what type of residents they care for and what their facilities look like. The residents do get light exercise. Chairperson Olson asked if there would be elevators in this facility. Mr. Winges said yes. Mr. Frisbee showed a building sample board to the board and said they would use a 40-year architectural shingle, a Hardy cement plank siding painted with two colors along with white trim, reddish toned brick, and arts and crafts style lighting. Chairperson Olson said Alzheimer patients can be very clever and she asked if they anticipate residents trying to escape from the building? Mr. Winges said they have had a lot of experience with residents trying to escape the buildings. Comforts of Home has gotten pretty good at anticipating people trying to escape and keeping a close eye on those individuals. They do their best to design the building so that it's very difficult for the patients to get out. Staff does not have the man power to continually keep a resident from trying to leave the building. It's stated in the resident's lease that if they continue to leave the facility they will have to move to more of a lock down facility such as a nursing home. Board member Schurke asked if they could review the R values for the building materials they will be using for this facility. Mr. Paschke said the walls would have R-19 walls with 6-inch steel studs and 6-inches of batting insulation, 4-inch veneer occurs at the cultured stone base that comes up 40 inches and gives a backing to apply the stone veneer, the brick sits on top of that, the roof is R-40, he wasn't sure of the E-value for the window. Mr. Frisbee said they would use Eagle windows which are high quality windows. He would have to check on the E-value of the window. MnDOT would have certain requirements on the side of the building facing Highway 36. Board member Schurke asked how the facility would be heated? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 9 Mr. Frisbee said there is a series of forced air units throughout the building, multiple zones, and a variety of smaller units rather than a larger package unit so they have more control over the buildings. The main floor has in-floor heat and forced air on the second floor and ventilation for the first floor. Board member Shankar asked if they would have one elevator as you would enter the building? Mr. Paschke said yes. Board member Shankar thought an elevator that is 3' X 6' is hardly enough room for a wheelchair to fit inside. Mr. Paschke said that is a gurney approved emergency sized elevator cab. Chairperson Olson asked what the emergency plan was for the residents in the second floor if there are no egress windows? Mr. Winges said typically he would have his operations person speak regarding the emergency plan but she was unable to attend the meeting tonight. The evacuation plan is run through the state since assisted living facilities are licensed through the State of Minnesota. They also coordinate things through the Fire Chief for emergencies as well. Board member Shankar asked if they would consider making the entire front curb handicapped zero curb rather than just a five foot section being zero curb? Mr. Frisbee said they could look at that with their civil engineer but when they get to a zero curb if the drainage for that area is not set correctly there can be ponding and icing but they could look into that. With a smaller curb cut they can control water and where it is directed a lot better. Board member Shankar said he brings the issue up because he is concerned about the resident's safety having a curb to step up or down from. He said it is safer to have a flat surface for them to walk up and off of. Mr. Frisbee said their Hudson, Wisconsin facility has four steps to enter the building so when there are deliveries at that location the people have to go up four steps to enter the building. At this facility he imagines delivery trucks would pull right up to the curb, take out their two wheeler and make the delivery. The curb actually protects the building from vehicles that would get too close to the building itself with zero curb. Board member Schurke said he didn't notice this before but the trash enclosure doorway faces the line of traffic. He asked if they could rotate it to the north and west and have it open to the south and east. This could also help save an additional parking space. Board member Paschke said perhaps the city would accept that in lieu of having the berm? Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 10 Board member Schurke said he would prefer not to see a continuous line of trees on the berm along Highway 36. The lesson he learned from a landscape architect was to plant things in an odd number and you never plant things in a straight line. Personally he thinks the Comforts of Home building is such a nice building design with quality building materials that it should be visible from Highway 36 and the landscaping berm should not be the detraction. He would prefer to have the building owner spend the money on building materials such as higher quality triple pane windows, wall systems and insulation to mitigate sound and give a better energy benefit rather than planting landscaping to use as a berm and help with freeway sound. This would also help reduce the energy cost as well. Basically if the recommendation for the berm is being driven for sound mitigation he would prefer building materials be used instead of requiring the berm. If the berm is being driven for another reason he would prefer to see the building from Highway 36 and others should be able to visually enjoy the building features. His landscape architect told him 75 feet of vegetation depth is needed to see a measurable drop in decibel level to make a difference. He lives close to the freeway and MnDOT recently put up the concrete barriers for safety. However, the freeway noise bounces off of the barriers and out to the neighboring homes making it louder than usual. He uses this as an example that certain things do not help with sound mitigation. Mr. Frisbee said on the north side of the building, directly off of Highway 36 there are no resident rooms that will open to that area so they are not going to be affected by the noise level. Board member Shankar said the finished floor elevation is 918 feet and Highway 36 is 928 feet so even if there is a 6 to 8 foot high berm you would still be 10 feet above it and see the grade along the building and see most of the building anyways. Mr. Winges said they have resident rooms along Highway 65 at their Blain location and they haven't had a complaint about the noise. His experience has been people enjoy living close to the freeway and looking out at the traffic. This building would be set back 140 feet from the property line too. Chairperson Olson said she feels this building has been very well thought out and designed and will be an asset to the community. She really likes the fact that this is a non-combustible building and she is impressed with the proposal. Board member Schurke said he isn't against the berm, he would just like to know that the berm is providing the qualities that the city is expecting of the berm from a sound buffering standpoint. If it is being required for sound reasons he would like the city to have proof that the berm is going to do what they would like the berm to do before the owner invests that kind of money in planting the 6 to 8 foot high berm. If the berm is for aesthetics he would prefer to see the building from Highway 36 rather than looking at the trees. Chairperson Olson said she doesn't think the berm is going to help mitigate sound. Board member Shankar said the building is handsome and he thinks the berm will help with some of the sound, he is not sure how much of the sound though. The berm adds an aesthetic value to the property so he views the berm as a positive thing for both sound and aesthetic value to the property. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 11 Ms. Finwall said staff received the revised grading plan on Monday, May 8, 2006, and staff hopes the revised plans are okay with the engineering staff. Since the noise complaint at the St. Paul Pioneer Press facility located across Highway 36, staff has become more educated on noise mitigation. The PVC fence was installed to help with the noise at that location and the neighbors state the noise is worse. A berm or landscaping is a much better noise buffer compared to any type of fence. A wood fence is a better noise buffer compared to a PVC fence. Staff feels the berm and landscaping will have some effect, staff is just not sure how much of an effect it will have, but aesthetically and for noise mitigation it's a good design feature. Board member Schurke said given the community concerns he would recommend that the owner hold an open house as soon as possible to invite the neighborhood into the facility when it is complete and have staff available to answer questions relating to how you operate the facility. Mr. Winges said the construction workers on site have pamphlets to hand out to people if requested and the workers can walk curious visitors around the site. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date stamped March 27, 2006, for the 42- unit, two-story, assisted living facility (Comforts of Home) to be located at the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (currently 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street). Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading and drainage plan which meets all requirements as spelled out in the April 25, 2006, engineer review, including the installation of a 6 to 8 foot high berm on the north and northwest side of the lot and the submittal of an escrow to cover the construction of a 6-foot wide sidewalk along the entire frontage of Hazelwood Street. 2) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) The Colorado blue spruce should be changed to black hills spruce. b) The landscape plan should reflect the required 6 to 8 foot high berm. The berm should be planted with the black hills spruce on the sides and top. The trees should be planted 15 feet on center (approximately 20 to 25 trees). c) Plantings should be shown in the infiltration pond and rainwater garden. The plantings should include pre-approved native seed mixtures. d) The landscape area called out on the main floor plan in front of the entry canopies (sheet A2) should be reflected on the landscape plan. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 12 e) A planting bed should be included in the interior of the loop driveway (in between the driveway and the road). f) Two additional sugar maple trees should be planted along Hazelwood Street. g) All landscaping (excluding landscaping within the infiltration basin and rainwater garden) must be irrigated. The landscape plan must reflect the location of all required underground irrigation sprinkler heads. h) All disturbed areas must be re-established with turf. i) The applicant must take all means necessary to protect the large trees on the property during construction of the facility. 3) Revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows that the height of the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet (measured from ground grade to the top of the lumen). 4) Watershed district approval. 5) Building material samples. 6) The owner shall combine the two properties into one lot for tax identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. 7) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. 5) Install wetland buffer signs which indicate that no mowing, cutting, or building is permitted within the 25-foot buffer. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 13 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. e. Signs are not approved with this design review approval. All signs must be approved by the community design review board before installation. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes - Olson, Shankar, Schurke The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 22, 2006 VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar was scheduled to be the CDRB representative at the May 8, 2006, City Council meeting. Staff notified Board member Shankar he did not need to be present because there were no CDRB items to discuss. Ms. Finwall said the city council discussed an amendment to the Noise Ordinance to make it clearer, had the first reading of the accessory structure ordinance, and the vacation of an easement. The city council also scheduled a special meeting for June 5, 2006, to make a final decision on the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. Chairperson Olson asked if staff could get the CDRB a copy of the Noise Ordinance. b. Board member Schurke recommended that city staff contact the Program Manager for the Energy Design Assistance Program for Xcel Energy to see how they could be proactive in providing applicants with information about energy conservation applications for future commercial applications. Architects don't always know these types of programs exist for owners. Board member Shankar said he would see more of an advantage to have someone like an Acoustical or Sound Engineer would come in to discuss noise mitigation with landscaping, berms, and fencing. Energy Design Assistance is valuable to some clients but he does not see with the types of applications the CDRB has been reviewing that a presentation from Xcel Energy would be applicable or beneficial. Community Design Review Board Minutes 5-09-2006 14 Chairperson Olson said some large applications like 3M have their own energy auditor but that discussion or presentation by Xcel Energy may be applicable for some applicants. (An example would be the Second Harvest proposal and their refrigeration system the CDRB recently discussed.) She agrees with Board member Shankar regarding having a noise mitigation discussion or speaker. Board member Schurke recommended that the CDRB members compile a list of topic or discussion areas they would like to have presenters come in and speak to help the board understand future application needs. He would like to hear about storm water mitigation measures, noise mitigation, light pollution, design flexibility, designing a building and the site for safety, and energy conservation issues. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Board member Shankar will be the CDRB representative at the May 22, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street and the Sign Code interpretation and Electronic Reader Boards. b. Draft Sign Code Update Ms. Finwall said she gave a presentation on the Draft Sign Code update to the city council. It did not appear the city council had many changes to the draft sign code. She said she discussed code enforcement with the city council which the city council showed a lot of interest on. More information will follow. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Carver Crossing South of Carver Avenue, west of 1-494 May 16, 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. 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. Requests To build this project, Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve: 1. The results and findings of an EAW 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). 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. 7. The design plans (architectural, site, landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission reviewed and commented on items 1-6 of the list above. (They recommended denial of the proposals on a 6-1 vote). The CDRB should review and comment on the project design plans during their meeting on May 23, 2006. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Carver Crossing South of Carver Avenue, west of 1-494 May 16, 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 EAW 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 aeproximately fifty properties the city considered, the open space committee ranked this site 20 h 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 ear1y 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 Ster1ing 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 3Q-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 Infonnation 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 44-1 093(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 Dearbom 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 concem 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 10-foot-wide city buffer requirements for these wetlands. The developer is proposing to fill the small, southerly wetland that is 8,879 square feet 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 RamseylWashington 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 properly. 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:z 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 MnOOT'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 par1<ing ordinance does not clearly define the special par1<ing requirements for a senior housing development such as this. In general, the code requires the developer provide at least two par1<ing 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 par1<ing spaces and 364 spaces on driveways (966 total spaces) for the 299 housing units. For the two condominium buildings, there would be one par1<ing space per unit in each building and 74 surface par1<ing spaces near the front of the buildings. The proposed amount of par1<ing 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 (EIS) 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. 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: (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. 15 (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) 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: 16 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. 9. 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). 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. 17 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 1 Q-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. (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. 18 (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 11,) 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, Slack 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. (3) Repair of Carver Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, tum lanes, trails, sidewalks and private driveways. 19 (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 0 and Lot 1, Block 6 as Outlot E. c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. 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. 20 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). 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. 21 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. (h) If required, show details about any proposed pond fencing including the materials, gate, height and color. 22 (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, tum 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. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. 23 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 (Black 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. d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development. 24 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. f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around 25 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. 7. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff through the sign permit process. 26 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. Comments/Questions 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. 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 - St. Paul) 2. See the e-mail message from George and Rita Marie Wright on page 69. 27 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. Criteria for Conditional Use Pennit 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: 28 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. - 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. 29 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 1995. This plan lays out a policy level framework for the management of the Mississippi River corridor. The responsibility for the administration of the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, as described in Minnesota Statutes and Executive Order 79-19, was transferred from the EQB (the Environmental Quality Board) to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1995. Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the City has been designated as "Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals: (1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. (2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources. (3) Expand public access to and enjoyment of the river. The City may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if they are compatible with these goals. In addition, Maplewood will require that building and development applications in the Critical Area have enough information to ensure that the new construction is compatible with the character of the Urban Diversified District. Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards The following are the City's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area: . The City shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. 30 . 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 Management 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 of the 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 of 2005 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 to 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 papulation projection of867 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 Tvoe Row Style Garden Homes Detached Homes Condominium Homes # Units 89 93 117 Est. Sa. 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 Comprehens;ve Plan). Weare following the guidance of the plan and are presenting a proposal that matches the existing low density classification of the site (4./ 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, 115 acres of surrounding Ramsey County open space, and an expansive stretch ofI494. . The implementation ofthe Carver Crossing of Maplewood 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 trail way 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 andtowhnomes) 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 maximlUll 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 ofI494 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 of the 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 condominilUll buildings from the highway. A nlUllber of the positive elements of this PUD that would not be fully recognized in a traditional single family development include: 35 o 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. o The proposal requires substantially less public infrastructure responsibility of the city through the use of extensive private roadways. o The proposal exceeds established wetland protection and mitigation requirements of the city and state. o The stormwater management proposal exceeds established infiltration requirements of the city and actively treats previously untreated 1494 runoff. o 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. o 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. o 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. o 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. o 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" ofthe metropolitan area. ,/ The site is insulated to the west and south by 115 +/- 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 (Dorland RdJHelghts 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 ofFish 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 of four 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 w/ added lOft. Structural Setback 37 Sinl!le Familv Detached Lots and Buildinl! 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. .~ Kurt hneider CoPar Companies Cc: City Staff 38 Attachment !--m." -',' "" " I, i !)j'm;;m '11il. ~ , :1!lI] ;),'!]] :il!J-.g" i [lJ1OlJ i lJIl ~ ~I ! Eli IP , . _J~:::'''-==_-=~-=~'-:=___---_-_~__-~-~~_B~B-"AY~ =-'= =- =- =-:: i: --:------;1 I' i~l, '12!l'. ~ I': Ii'jj! , i '_~;:l' I c-..- I . L--~j~I~- l] iii' I : r;t, '~Ii'iil I I L:i2I,~. ! r-ffi"lbd-jjC- ~r-----"" [21 "m! E3 ---_' " ,p\;,@ i~r-I!j--- ""' '" --'-~('-""~]~!~ - ____r__~____ __~~;J-==llplr~Ifr~- --- ~cUfl1illrl--- /' ~ If 1:1----- .___Ill., ,r/JJ t\'~---- -~\,~~, ,-'~/'~~i; - ,/~/~ " ,~ ------,,-- ~ "'.,i~'T~ ~! ; , ! ! j ! i"~,,,,.~_l.,,..,..,.d,,",,,,,,,,,,, i/:::~~i~?' i ~'_o is''''' ~---, , ~ I: -.., ----u--~ ..I ::l < Q. I- Z :;;: U) ~ '$ ~~ Cl ~ [3 I:Jl t:> '" &iJJ . SITE ~ '" . , !ll!l . AREA MAP :Q'GJ:r, '" ~,,--- "7---L , '"'''../ '-. ; ~ ; ~-------,-,--L.....__ ~~----- -------- i I I I ,.. .Ik i if / '/ I . / I , , " ,Ii / l I ;' -' ," / j I I i / / , ,I Ii ./ i I SITE " I' ,I,' 'I, ,I l l ,/ l 1', ;' / I, " ...1ll ~ I" I 'i f / I j " , , ,. , / ,I,' I ' t l ( 'l . , . I :;:; II .0Wo.--- : I I " "t,~;:ll- {fi1 II i I I i-- i<1 ~ : I . ,,~,ii,,~,t--____~,I I ~_.~,':-,- ---i;,< /0),'- ,'"e" ,.-'i::1 CJ i I I i , W, Ii EJ ill !__" ,-~--- -----1' [i - - !In:':, ;1 r----- .'------ --------.u----II I l~_ !';\ it;; ~ e 'i:;j II " " 8'ii? j~ i ~ L,~________~..__J_ i ,r------~----------u,j~ i~ ! Wi , !~ii I'i! I' c:_ , ill , I',! ill il[ ill " III -----; ~ i I ,>-----------~'-'-~--------! , I'I ill 11 I , ./,1 , i i /1 , '/ -' .' i i ,.. ,:'l / , , .I,! l I, I ! I ! J -' , / I , / II i ,. ... - - if ,. J i l I i'/ / " ~;,,'/ ,lot,!.' ,I,' - , i ",' / l ,I',' I i i/ i / if i .' /, ' ,1/ / /,i" " ' , -'il / -'i.l .I li / } /./ / 'II! "" jj!iI II I " , " I l , I ,.. if i 39 'fr N 1,--,,-,--,-,, ~:~*:t~~1~~j~l 01",[1 t 1[, i-+--'-I-~r',,' i " , ',',' ',,',', i i ,-'-.':;:, 'I" l a:: I] . -- -'-~i ! ! - . \ I. ,...---) i 1\'''''. 'i ! r,/ ;' ./ i I ... -'\~' i ~"j,=--L4-L~~lL.=-i, " '~,:~'S:i.i-,LLL-" 'l" z 1'---- I t. ~ __I L",,~ ! ..... --', 1 \J ,11 '----I ' :E I -11f=--i GranfView 1 I' 1---II'I--~-j __! ~," ~-~If-=::::::::I-- i 'I' ",j" II 1- -- I Ii l I /"'- il ,.'" 1 'I-i-- r'--'~-'l ( f-i-( ,/f,' -' I , J 11........--.. I \1 - l I I - ~'" If jL__.;, -r-'~j C-l'n l iTT-l , _ I ----: !! _ _)? /.1 /, ' " ,-' 1--1 J \'--1'--; ~ I ! ili 1 \ I~ I c__=--,-- J -',_ ,/ L. i Il~.l~--L-~-Ld._JIld-, CARVER AVENUE '" -/ /?/''; -_-_~ r--"Trr.'--I--r~rr- F-r--7l- .,\;;,.."T""! I ii' '/ l<,/~.r; I II!! I 1_ I t----j 11"---' , '" , ! ,I" i i ! " , J I I I I I J ,.-.... , "'! I " J 'l",=- r---"'L! f-F-:H- ;', ,'i '1 " " , .... ;--_mj(__ '1'/ e,,)j I ,\(",J ,- ,______ I " 1 ,- i \. .,~ H--- SITE '-lllt-' ~, :, FISHCR~~ \<=?~F~ /1', I/:i /",' ,,' .J,I ,. [ i " !,,- ""'JI '1/ /', ) 1.:'/:1::,' ~,/r:;!lt===':/' \ , I 'J -'Ii ., ---l J t . I,' ,,> "r- IlliT'--, j ':'/ -'J r '. ,I 'I ',- /, I I ,{' 1-.;.:.: ~=--,~ .!:.... 'J '/i ~._.-w~.;;;;.,.- '; __ ;;, ,,'~:>,~l/____ ___~: ll~--.r i " , <II II', J"' " ,il/ ,~=~--::=""=~ ,I, :J ///11 ~ I)U w---- J .' ! t- ,I .li/ i U) ...J => < Q. I- Z Oil <II ~ i i ._.._-----------~-----:-...( , SITE I \ \ os ..// i , I .J!lf I' I / I I d I ' ,"u--;7 " , , L / . ;' ;=--~IJ ~ 4',,:':_'~ ~. -)1:~ ,',,~; : 1 li_ j ,/ I ,l~-i i 1 ",\'/--, ",f "i, I 1 L----l(":~ /' I ._Ll-'----.:..---=:::.::::--=-~-!,'\\-: ;<j1rJ L'^'H /;>/1 ~ r1r"'li:,: i I I r.u Ii d S;~:- II )J'I ,~-- ~ - --:_~?"~,~"c ! ,- i,'l ,j "~I ' --', 'I ~t~~~:~fcb:~r~r I [---" i I i r-' I i, /":f/ / ~{I " ! ",~:' / /' }f.t ,/ ,. Attachment 3 I , 'j ~ => III C o ~ I i I , , , i~.~~".___ f " I , R1 -~-----,~ 1 ---'I ~----_.. j 1 1 I ------~~-_.~------------ ~ ""=<"- ~,. LAND USE MAP 40 {] N Attachment 4 I' I; " I -I-r .il: I , " I' , \ V. " ..J ;:) c( ... I- Z C( Ul ,'f'l- :\ W . '1~_ I-~, Ul " 0, ,,' .,Z- , ,":I ~ :~~ ",', " '~.'~ ", ~ ~^' "','. .' ','" ~,.' . J:' l\ , ,I, 'I' ," / 1rj~~~i:~ ,'J", '''''',-,,-, /~i'."-..,,~ ; ~ '\;.-\'" I( 0,"- J " .\, 41 \! N CARVER CROSSING - COVER SHEET --:-~ T/: J~ ,.. '['/ i 7 '/ l..ANl.&AE.Ull N.... I_UI FISH CREEK ...J :;) ~ f- "- u_.~':'..'::'.-"-",!,:'<:~'____,"" Z ~ I I I I I , I r t i I . ~ ! I i I I r l II. 'I I I .. : ~.,.# 1,( v \ I , , ,- -i-- -I PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT 42 Attachment 5 , , , , i 11 N Attachment 6 43 1I N SITE PLAN Attachment 7 j . __- -011I-'.. . == :r.:y-..:..-=-=.,,==-'T':'- --------. -..-.....----- L =="'...lft':~.:".=Il.':::=- ......_____.._..<r_ L :t,,;~_=_..:..or_...:.,,':'rd':r__ ~-=r=---ar....--=~ .. ..&.. .!!Y~"':I:r=== ~L-_..._n=.=..::.~'U.-= _\11_"__ MANIBMNC:E PRlXlRMI I. "=~=-"-=",-=-J':=~...... L_.__________ -----....-- L____________ =-'""'-"U lnf'.::..-:n.=._....... ~=~.=.'5.t_~_'f. f~..=..-::."'l,=-rr-=-~-i: ..-..-----.---- l:1i.o"'l.-:.-.~-..--- L r~..:="F_Z"":.:=_..=--"I&'.. L '5ii=...~-r-=--===--=.. "E.=.=:1fE5i..--'::'=-- ~-= or_ __ ~---_.._-...",.._. ..J !!::"'-"':'::":='"'..o;.::-'-"--' a ~ !Z < III I -.---.. ------- SII:~r . -- . ------ -, --- .... , , r W1UCO CA. TCH GRADING, EROSION PREVENTION, AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 44 \I N GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN Attachment 8 Il !--.. _~",:' ,_...<=t~~."",,,,, -:=j-- - "'-"'-- II ~_.-=--,: , !!!'--.. ~ -, ",,'.-. ,,,,,- rg;~~ i i~!!i'l~\"\o~=' 1'''[11 ; \~~: .- ^. ['" :]11: i=.; ._.~J:::':c. . o" j'bl'i1_J r ~- ~- './ - 'I'" I' --,~--. .... ~' :>/,.._.;-. I, [,- I I, .....__ .'./ .....,-~.' 'I I j' """', , '~:~<'il."i":[t i!!'<===:~...:'. ___L+: !!.,:tJ -- IV.!! " "\%:f.\; , WETLAND. .. '1\ I'., 111 ',"r~~- f! I'....." . - .....0 ~,~!"." . . . ,_" 1"'"'"! ' 1/ / "I! [..Ii",..""'" '.' ,"c'-,.," 'fil" /: '0i""~/-.\:"!,';' \:' - , 'r---,.' 'f' : : .It \<.'.?\,~" I .. . . I -...,.. --.1/,'/ _, "'" ,-. ..,.. , / J. / \'''}(~'':.~~~~'~''~l lC'?~~- > /~ ',/' 1, , .~.\:~~:~~ ~".(~' ~ \~>' '( .> 1\.' 'I .-..... <liiiiIiilI:---- I I I .,-;-- I I I I I I , r \' - I I I I I I I' '>' \ --.---\ , I , \, \ I t I . I I I i I ! ! I 1 '\ \. ,I ---,... -;'.? ~:fj:~-:>y.;~~'.~ ~'t- .,"~ ,,)". ...-"'- ;.\ .-~- ,;' I r 1 :fl i /; + UTILITY PLAN 11 N 45 Attachment 9 t I . I f I . I i I I 1 I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN . STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 'i! N 46 Attachment 10 ..J ::::> ~ too Z ~ .,. I' j \ .~ ,'/- ' \ \~<~-{-:-...:..~3:.~~.':~::t~~"~' -~. '-'_U;:~:::_"--"':~' .I+~ '1;,_+-3-;'" ~~ '1, :"'"':"'J:::,:,':.~~c~~v~~ AY,ENUE ,Ic_-,",",.'=."~' _''''"",-.'--oC:;;''-:c-tI' C\'"' --r;:;"';:7',f;~'- ""IJ~ ]I ~"," ,,~~ c_~,l:::5> J j (I'~'--{.r\'c II. ".....:;-;. '''''~ ....-- ," -' '- "'" -,,-., \> l' J 1 J ,., \ 'II . rl.,J I l:1. ';::~~ ':'" ,'t~ii"O:'"';;:;f I~":,'" 'i ,::,~',,:t,: :1'llr~~;" l\\ t;,::--:;'''':\~J'':?/--~-''"';'>{I~''''' h:! ','1/ / ->-.-,,:.:...J'IJ" [""--I I "I-\>~---'\\'\ 'fi-,,"'If:;~-"'__'< l"Ji/Jti'-1\~":.:-_-:I,~ ,}~) r-lp1 II f'~\-'\l' /" , d llli;-~, ~':-~\:-~ \,,/; "", 'J \ ,",,', I \ ) Ij" , ,II" "-"jll,"",/'; \"r J "1[.,,, 1"11" '^ I" I-- ')'1"" l~[ ,ci ~,~~,," "If'''ljl.,\'t1 't """'.'I~IL-lr-ll' '1' r< -,\";:~\\'t\l'?k ,11',\\,\ "~'I :",,-~8)}r UII~L Iii ' " , [,i,l,i< ,,~,'l ~j. ,,-:'\.', 1'~~. ;~(.' /.:>' ) 11'" I' ..'( ,,~,1.:~ \" __"- "',' 'i ,', .;; r" : 1 "~-, r" ""',,,~ \' ,41'tr~"'/$ ~\ [1\ ~J I d 'n ., .' -''to '! IJr'\"."~"~\J-' ~(I ~'\l'-L') I'I L \ '\ -:' . ' , ,I, f '> ~ 0~ .t'i;...;,iJ., _.. . ,I .,...~ -, I If (, l" ,:,f",\:'f.:it.:::""~'I,; - ,I, "''-' !, 1" :'.. ,- -'1"141 ,", I] , J', "-l \ x'" /' , :1~ l' ,':\ '" \- --".' '11~ J I ',1 ,. "[-1 II \;-..; 111 \" .... II" I 1 .. ',' '('I": ]ltt J I' .,Lt- 'i,'II 1" I';: fl".! '\"IF' "~ ,- , L_qf' \\ ",'I (. ' ,- ~'~I' f<;"'~ ~-( }~lf~~ _ 'I~ 1 ""'~I'('~~';~ -,{,k \~"r? '''''''':'1' ~~-t /;.~~>,' J' f I , I r I ! i I . ~ , ; ! 1 . , 1 MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN I MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN {r N 47 Attachment 11 I " ! ,:"'~4J.' .f:-~ "-,"\,1-: ~' ,." -;-:Tc;~~5:,~~,,':~~'~ ~ -~;:;;vEtL '..-' ,~- , ~.<,.._A" . _....~ .' ." PLAN, SHEET L-6 I " ,,,.,- ~-" - .~ .' , I I , I i( , - ,I 'tfp""'" IV , :.<:- :::::::~::::::::' I .",........ . -.:-:.:..:.:-:::.' "1 ::::::::f::::: . ':,i: WETLAND, '", -.' ", . ~ '"., ~ ""'~ if ~ 0' to' 120' 110' acAll IN f&T o -... =.--- :r: _PLUmNG DnAlL -- -- SHIlUIftI.AK1'INGDETAlL 48 \! N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 12 \- , WETlAND" / " / ./ :;.:" C / ./ ".-1 ~ 0' 10' 120' ... ..... w ...... -- -- TREE I'LAHTlMG fl[fAIL =.r-- ~l'UNTJNGDEtAl. ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN 49 11 N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 13 "., ~,~. :;~/ 1;::/" ('I' , . IJ,_,~t\j.l ~ ~, ~l)' ,/ ~';"/f~ ;~G\';y/:' /),1, "iN"'-!-J,,,., r/(/),/i~A ~'" Il'r"'d~/'" ./~,j-)P~.,~/ ) [,"/)1,(6'/1"11, ) A>~',i.( ,;~",/ ./ i ,. ;./j O'f'''' '!wil:J:::;! /ii '-'/ " I i \~,~, "liD '1/.' .) I j i IN!!! 1(,/-,c~-'il I{'i",l/I -' ./~'/1) f~ ;'7' \ ~.../ ,1,IMll /,;'.-..,,' ~/)"' ",1r.l!lWj . i:/}'it'C~,_ ( 'r~IJ:lId'i '1'~' '..i'-, I -,,~' 1 '-' ,;"/,,,," ~~'ji~,;(t/l" " f.. !t',r.'{.."," --,If,1. I l 7 I '11 '~'/lili'i"":) ,. fro ( , , / ;~fJJla'~fC7:f Mf!l?I';':'~\A'! [7.,. '1Irl'//,!!1 lJ', i .. ~ .. - - -- -.- SEE ENTRY MONUMENT PLAN, SHEET L-8 ~~IID"" - I f ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN ~--- III -- 50 11 N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 14 ~ RETANtffI WALL fILAN1"WCI -, --- i i - . - --- .. .. -=..:::::-- I. ___ --- II . ____ --- .. -- --- .. .. 'C-"':.:'\-_ . .. '="'-=-'= .. . ':..-:L~_ . . 't:'.::....-=_ - .. . -.:.::- ... --- c.._...._ .. ... o:-......:e-. . . -.:"........ w.._......w ...- ...... ~ N_ ...... 1'01. 11'..._ or.aW ......-..U.. .... H_ ....._IN. ......_...1. , I f , I ! i I I ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN r I .--. ,-- .-- "'.....:t~f'-'l '~\..\"^\\#'''' y>fl."d'~ ... INTRV MONI.NENT PLANTINIa -...r-....- ,.,.,....,@ 51 'fr N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 15 :.="IJ:.._ . -- -=--=- n_ -- -- n_ ..- --- . L-..ra=,.., n_ -- . . ==_rw n_ -- . . -- n_ -- " . --- n_ -- l-NW ':..""':L"='__ ............ ,.- " . "='~ ..- -- H' 5-MK .I I I ":',"='=-- . - . ':..-=:.- n_ -- -=-"=- w._ -- " . 'f:..,-_~_ n_ -- '=::'=-- n_ -- -- n_ -- . --- w._ ..- 'r-""':.-=-- _ . . 'ft::"8"" ,.- . . 'I:'=--= ..- -- 1 ...." '/ .....~\~,..~ 1'~1f;';:~'" .. . I , I ! i . . , . l I I , . . r I TYPICAL FOUNDATION PLANTINGS FOUNDATION PLANTING PLANS 52 11 N FRONT aevATION REAR aevATlON - WALKOUT LOT __.._______~___.__u____. , , tlf'TIOf.l<\~ i oP'rI","",,~ i ~ 'POllCI1 I OI'TlO......c """"''''A.l- "f= f'OltCl1 ."~ f...Mlq1WClM ..no>tOOM~ F_'"YItOOM ~~ ~ -~ SHITf SIDE B.EVATlON - LOOKOUT lOT SIDE aEVATlON. WALKOUT LOT INTERIOR UNIT PLAN 1G2..... ENO UNIT PLAN PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 53 Attachment 16 .........._!f.UCl.< ....... CJMI~T_"'''''''''''' c............."""'... .,.~ -,........ _.... 1! N TYPICAL ElEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION END UNIT TYP.INTERlOR UNIT .,..... CORNER UNIT _..... 18EDROOM PLAN _.... _...t. PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 54 IW Attachment 17 11 N PWU1 ..~. CWNEltS .,m t>l",,,<; ~ PlAN 13 -~. Attachment 18 ~~ .,m ~"~ f~~'~'f1li'.OOl'-1 M~ PlAN 112 -~. PlAN #4 ~.., 11 N PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 55 Attachment 19 Page 1 of5 P:\WORKS\ENG\REVlEWS\2005 Reviews\Carver Crossing (COPAR) Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Carver Crossing of Maplewood PROJECT NO: 05-07 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee & Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Dept.) Contributions: Chadd Larson & 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-Horn (engineering consultants) on all design within the proposed public right of way. It should be noted that city staffwill closely observe all construction activities- especially the phasing of site grading and monitoring of erosion and sediment control measures. Draina~e & Treatment 1. 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 I" 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-101) 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. Call out 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" event treatment 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 control/overflow 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-l03B should allow for the 1" 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 control/overflow structure. 7. The project plans shall callout normal water level (NWL) at all basins. The city will require a 10-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 1" 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 1. 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 Maplewood prepares for the project. 7. Maximum finished slope grades are 3: 1. All 3: 1 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. 11. The phased grading plan shall provide information up through housing construction. Roadways 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 of5 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-Horn (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. All 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. All 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 ofPDPB'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. II. 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 (1987), 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 API? 2 6 2006 RECEIVED TO: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood Dan S~oJ\.- Ramse;~~y 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 turn lane and Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recl'r,led paper '11th a minimum 0110% post-con!;umer 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 A venue 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 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 prQiect 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 wonld meet our requirements for stormwater 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 64 Attachment 22 Maplewood Police Department Memo To: Ken Roberts From: Lieutenant Michael Shortreed 1<111.1 #977 cc: Deputy Chief John Banick Date: April 13, 2006 Reo 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 resull. 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@cLmaolewood.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 housin9 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.com] Sent: Friday, April 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 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: Sent: To: ritamarie [imshanghai@usfamily.net] Friday, April 14, 2006 4:06 AM Ken Roberts Subject: Proposed Development-Carver Crossing Importance: High I and my neighbors hove more than some concerns about this proposed development as it involves the re- routing of Fish Creek and more invosive destruction of habitat. We have looked at the proposal and feel ethis is still far too many buildings for this location. The Mississippi River Bluff Corridor supports a unique blend of species found only here. The area has already been traumatized by the Si Iver Oaks Development which has caused erosion in our yards we had not seen before. Further, we are seeing bird species at our feeding sites that would normally be further back in the 'wooded areas' that no longer exist. We are also seeing coyote coming closer to the homes here and the deer are being squeezed into an ever diminishing habitat. I commend the effort and thoughts toward Senior Housing but the extent of this proposal is far too large and will cause far too much damage to the wildlife and habitat in this area. This area is extremely unstable for development since it is predominantly sand and lime stone. Every tree cut down, every grove of underbrush removed further de-stabilizes the area. We have lived here for over 23 years ond are fully aware of the potential for serious erosion. Respectfully, eGeorge H. Wright Rita Marie 1558 So.Pt.Douglas Rd. FREE Emotlcons for your emililll:~,~(l ~~. ~Of)() ~ ~ ~~~~~ --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mol-- Highspeed - $19.99/mol--- 5/1/2006 69 Attachment 26 March 29,2006 ',:'::CEIVED APR 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 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 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 turn 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 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 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. I 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 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. 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 Demooraohics: I am concerned that the projected amount of people living in this development is flawed. 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 difficult 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 add~ional clarification and data was made available. Specifically: . Define "exclusive' 55 or older. Must all residents be fifty-five or older? . How would qualified residents w~h 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 built 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 add~ional police, medical response personal (including add~ional 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 city. In fact, it could verv well olace additional tax burdens on the residents of Maolewood. Economic Imoact: Sewer & Water: The following is taken from the EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) document presented by the c~y. 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 expend the sanitary sewer system in the future to arees 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 peek 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 verv 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, Sterling 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 dollars will at some DOInt 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 year alone. somewhere between 10-20 acres on Sterlina Street South has been acaulred bY develocers. 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 wall 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 Map/ewood Fire Department estimates 550 new residents will require 1.3 medics per year" 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 MaDlewooc:l that these DOSltlons would ever be filled. Wrthout an up front commrtment from the City, I believe we would be placing ourselves and our iove ones at risk . I also 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 capacilv is stretched verv thin in reoards to response times and oeneral coveraae. Any additional reauirement would push these precious resources to the breakino 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 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) multipie dwellings -low density (4.4-6.3 units/acre). I find this extremely disturbing were talking about amending the Citv of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan for the sake of one sinole proposed development. In addrtion, this has the high potential to establish a very dangerous prescient that may well effect the Mure development of South 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 limrted few tracks of land of this significance. The wrong moves at this time will haunt us all for generations to come. 73 Chanaes in Zonina: Why the City of Maplewood would spent all 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-1 R) zoning classification to portions of the proposed development as well 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 w~h this project. I am strongly recommending that a full EIS (Environmental 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 hearth risks to the potential senior residents, that the project is not compliant as proposed, in areas of noise pollution. That the project could very well 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 commrtment to provide a natural style type park, usable trail system, neighborhood gathering s~e, picnic areas etc. In fact, in CoPar Development's March 17"' letter to neighbors ~ 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. What we are looking for is a comprehensive plan, w~h a citv backed commitment, to develop trails; pathways etc. that would allow 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 gelling in there car any less. In fact I believe most will still be actively employed and engaged in the same everyday trip (auto) usage as the majority ofthe 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, 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 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 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 lim~ed visibility, 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 Bonilz 75 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 28 Ken Roberts From: DAVID BRASS [ddbrass@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:30 PM To: 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@comcasl.net Sent: Monday, April 17. 2006 10:30 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: neighborhood survey reply Dear Kenneth Roberts, Here are my comments regarding the Neighborhood Survey/Carver Crossing of Maple wood 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 oflife. 2. Even if some type of limited 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: Sent: To: Servatius [servatius@comcastnet] Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:36 PM 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. Although 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 it's those of us with kids who are most dismayed at the 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 cant imagine trying, in 2 years, to manage my 5, 4, and 3 year old on the first morning my 5-year-old 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 5/1/2006 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 deny 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 banners. 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 intnusion 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. 9. 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. 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 sunrounding 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 (fanm 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 exceot 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 ft.) thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westerly Right-of-Way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in Final Certificates filed as Document No.'s 2254933 and 2256730. 81 PARCEL B: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right- of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line; thence deflecting Southwesterly 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right-of-Way line of said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of- Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. PARCEL C: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota. Commitment No. 240565 PARCEL D: The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24; being 33.00 feet either side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Northeast 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 ~ 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 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 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 sunrounding 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, nepresenting 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 except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4), Section 24, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 24 and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right- of-Way line of T.H. #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #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, mOne 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, mone or less, to the actual point of beginning. And the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty-Eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), except the North Five Hundred feet (500 ft.) thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westerly Right-of-Way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in Final Certificates filed as Document No.'s 2254933 and 2256730. 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 Southwesterly along the Westerly Right- of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line; thence deflecting Southwesterly 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right-of-Way line of said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of- Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. PARCEL C: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota. Commitment No. 240565 PARCEL D: The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24; being 33.00 feet either side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Northeast 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 tenminating. 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 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. 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 penmit 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 sunrounding 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 penmit. 2. On June 12, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use penmit. 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 penmit, 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 stonm 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 penmit 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 stonm 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 city 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 tenminating; 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 tenminating. (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-ot-ways over parts ot the property, subject to the approval ot the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June _, 2006. 91