Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval ot Agenda 4. Approval ot Minutes a. August 21,2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) Conditional Use Permit tor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Street Right-ot-Way and Easement Vacations Preliminary Plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations August 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson September 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler September 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai October 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess? (Mr. Yarwood?) 11. Staff Presentations 12. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Grover seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for August 7, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had two punctuation corrections on page 8, last paragraph, third sentence, add a comma after the words light poles would be..and a comma after the words lights would be on.. Commissioner Dierich had a correction on page 6, fifth paragraph, second line, change pervious to impervious. On page 9, third paragraph, after Mr. Frantz add the words was in favor of it but he. Commissioner Desai moved to approve the planning commission minutes for August 7, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Pearson, Trippler Abstentions - Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Street Right-of-Way Vacation - Engstrom (Century Avenue and New Century Blvd) (7:11 -7:18 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Paul Engstrom, representing the developer of New Century, is proposing that the city vacate part of an existing street right-of-way. This excess right-of-way is on the northwest corner of Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard. Mr. Engstrom wants the city to vacate this right-of-way so the sprinkler and irrigation equipment that is now on the property in question would be on property owned by the homeowner's association and not on public property. Chairperson Fischer asked if the structure there is in compliance with the 30-foot setback? Mr. Roberts said this structure was put up without permission. The city has not had it surveyed to determine if it meets the 30-foot setback. Chairperson Fischer asked if that could be something that may need a variance? Mr. Roberts said yes potentially. Commissioner Dierich said the structure is enclosing water fixtures for the development irrigation system that have been there for many years. They just enclosed the fixtures because there were vandalism problems. She believes this structure is pretty close to the 30-foot setback. Chairperson Fischer said the fixtures by themselves would not need a variance but once you put a structure around the fixtures that may need a variance. Mr. Roberts said the applicant contacted staff and said he had a conflict with attending tonight's meeting. There were no visitors in the audience to speak regarding this item. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend approval of the resolution on page seven in the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the street right-of-way on the northwest corner of Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the right-of-way in question for street or utility purposes. 3. The properties adjacent to the right-of-way have adequate street access. This vacation is subject to the property owner granting to the county a ten-foot-wide public highway and drainage and utility easement over the east ten feet of the property in question. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -3- Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 11, 2006. b. Easement Vacation - Hillside Estates (between Linwood Avenue and Springside Drive) (7:18 -7:24 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Josh Clendenen of Delaney Company LLC is requesting the vacation of a public drainage and utility easement located on two vacant lots (Lots 2 and 3, Hillside Estates Plat - 2412 Springside Drive and 2417 Linwood Avenue). The vacation of the easement is requested in order to reconfigure the existing infiltration basin on Lot 3 to better accommodate the development of a single-family house. Mr. Clendenen will dedicate a new drainage and utility easement to the city to cover the reconfigured infiltration basin. The commission did not have any questions for staff. The applicant was not present in the audience and staff had no contact with him. There was nobody in the audience to speak regarding this item. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the drainage and utility easement vacation resolution attached in the staff report. This resolution approves Josh Clendenen's requestforthe vacation of a drainage and utility easement on Lots 2 and 3, Hillside Estates. The city should vacate the drainage and utility easement because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The vacation will allow the creation of a new filtration basin on Lot ~ ~ which will allow a single-family house to be constructed on the lot which meets the front yard setback required by city code. 3. The property owner will dedicate a new drainage and utility easement to the city. The vacation of the drainage and utility easement is approved with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for Lots 2 and 3, Hillside Estates, the applicant must submit the following to city staff for approval: a. A revised grading and drainage plan which shows all changes required by Jon Jarosch of the Maplewood engineering department in the August 16, 2006, engineering review. b. Proof that the revised drainage and utility easement has been recorded with the county. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -4- c. A tree preservation plan which shows the size and species of all trees on Lots 2 and 3, which large trees will be removed from the lots, appropriate measures needed to protect trees which will be preserved, and the location, species, and size of all required replacement trees. d. A letter of credit or cash escrow to cover 150 percent ofthe cost of all replacement trees. 2. Prior to certificate of occupancy for a new house on Lots 2 or 3, the applicant must install all required replacement trees and complete the construction of the infiltration basin as per the approved plans. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 11, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Hess was the planning commission representative at the August 14, 2006, city council meeting. Commissioner Hess was absent this evening so Mr. Roberts reported on the meeting. Although the city council meeting went very late and had to reconvene on Thursday, August 17, the only planning commission item to discuss was Carpet Court at 1685 Arcade Street, the city council approved the zoning map change for the lot to the west and then denied the building setback variance which meant the project did not pass approval of the city council. Commissioner Trippler said if the applicant purchased 42Y:z feet of land from the adjoining land owner and got that land rezoned with the city that would take care of the problem. Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure if the applicant had tried to purchase additional land for this proposal or not. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -s- b. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the August 28,2006, city council meeting. Planning Commission items to discuss include the Easement Vacation for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street, the CUP for the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center at 2099 White Bear Avenue, CUP Revision for Hill-Murray School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue, and the Cottagewood Town Houses at 2666 Highwood Avenue. c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the September 11, 2006, city council meeting. Planning Commission items to discuss include the Street right-of-way vacation for Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard and the Easement Vacation on Hillside Estates between Linwood Avenue and Springside Drive. d. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the September 25, 2006, city council meeting. At this time it is unknown what items will be discussed. e. Lorraine Fischer said she read an article in the Maplewood Review regarding the Gladstone area and the original developer who made a presentation to the HRA for the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site was not the same developer that had been mentioned in the article. She asked what happened to the plan that the original developer Central Community Housing Trust (CCHT) proposed to the HRA? Mr. Roberts said when CCHT made a presentation to the city council CCHT was not well received by the city council and interim city manager so the developer decided not to pursue the proposal. Chairperson Fischer said the article referred to money for a grant from the Metropolitan Council, has that been submitted and if it has been submitted, has the city heard anything back yet? Mr. Roberts said the application for grant money has been submitted and the city has not heard anything back and that the grant review process usually takes many months. f. Dale spoke regarding the preliminary plan for Carver Crossing. The statement regarding the Mississippi River Critical Area states in the last paragraph the designated areas within the site have qualifying bluff lines that have been full evaluated. Although there are clearly slopes of 18 percent or greater within the site, additional criteria necessary to establish bluff lines is defined as defined by city ordinance are not met. Qualifying areas require direct drainage to protected water (Fish Creek) must be greater than 200 feet in length (top to bottom), or greater than 500 feet in width. (side to side). Do all of those conditions not exist at that bluff? Mr. Roberts said that is correct. There are some bluffs on the very west end of the site that might meet the criteria but don't drain to a protected water area, it drains down the hill into St. Paul. The bluffs that are steep that go to Fish Creek don't meet the ordinance height and length requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -6- Commissioner Trippler said the bluff that faces west isn't considered at all, why is that? Mr. Roberts said correct because it drains to a protected water area and it doesn't meet the criteria. Commissioner Trippler said when you look on the map it looks like the drainage could go into Fish Creek. Mr. Roberts said staff will check further on that with the Watershed District. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the CoPar letter on page 2 it says Community feedback and planning commission recommendations made it clear that a PUD is appropriate but an alternative multiple dwelling proposal is not acceptable or should the comprehensive plan be changed. It meets the comprehensive plan. He said this seems inconsistent to him. Mr. Roberts said the feedback the applicant got back from the planning commission for the proposal for 299 units with some detached town homes, attached town homes, 2 condo buildings, and six and eight unit buildings was fairly negative and the planning commission recommended denial of that proposal. Because that project had attached units it needed a comprehensive plan amendment. The developer has reduced the number of units from 299 to 191 with a plan for detached units and the comprehensive plan has it shown as single family. Thus as the plan is proposed, it does not need an amendment to the comprehensive plan because they are detached units similar to single family homes. Reducing the number of units was to reduce the traffic impact, no multi-family homes, and the developer doesn't think he can get the four votes from the city council that would be needed for a comprehensive plan amendment. They tried to redesign the project so that it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan thus the plan we have now. Commissioner Trippler asked if the current zoning was R-E? Mr. Roberts said the zoning is mixed, the north half is farm and the south half is R-1 (R). Commissioner Trippler asked if the R-1 (R) zoning was in existence when the comprehensive plan was last approved? Mr. Roberts said no the R-1 (R) zoning came in after. Chairperson Fischer said the fear was there was no sewer connection there and plans were beginning to come forward regarding future development. It was recognized that the soils may not support individual sewer systems. Commissioner Trippler said he is happy that passed and he thinks the south leg of Maplewood is uniquely different and should remain unique. He thinks when we make the revisions to the comprehensive plan that some areas that are now designated R-1 will be R-1(R). Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -7- Mr. Roberts said that is one of the inconsistencies between the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan has 25 land use categories where the zoning ordinance only has 14 categories. In some ways the comprehensive plan is more comprehensive because it has more categories but in other ways it is less because we treat all single family as single family on the land use maps. Mr. Roberts said one thing to keep in mind with this site however, is looking at the R-1 (R) ordinance one thing that was discussed was the availability of sanitary sewer. It is the public works department's opinion that sanitary sewer is available to this site. It is available at Carver Avenue and at the end of Heights Avenue at the temporary cul-de-sac to the west of the project. They have also redesigned this project so it no longer needs a lift station, which makes public works happy. The sewer at Heights Avenue is deep enough so that almost all the new sewage from this project can go to the west and to into the cul-de-sac and tie into the existing sewer. The developer is making the argument that sewer is available here and they have the right to hook up to it. The developer thinks the city expected to extend the sewer here at some point because of the locations where the sewer connection ended. Commissioner Trippler said this is going to be a referendum whether the city wants to retain the character of south Maplewood or whether we want to pave it over. Commissioner Dierich asked what a jack pit is? Mr. Roberts said that is a place they can set up equipment to jack the pipe under the freeway. He hasn't talked to Chuck Ahl about this but when there was talk of a lift station in the earlier project Mr. Ahl was considering with the public improvements for this project if this goes forward to look at extending the sewer under the freeway at the same time because of the timing of the work being done. Mr. Ahl didn't want the new development to be built and then come back two years later disturbing new and current residents with a sewer project. If the developer's engineers have set it up that there is room to do the work in the future with the jack pit there may not need be a need to extend the sewer at this time. But staff will have to clarify that with the engineering staff. That was one of the fears for the people living along Sterling. If this project went forward and the city putthe sewer in under the freeway; that would almost force new development on that side of 1-494. Staff doesn't know if that is still the case with this project or not or if the sewer can be done at a later point. Commissioner Dierich asked staff to briefly explain what the developer is proposing for the park dedication piece? Mr. Roberts said as he recalled the developer made two proposals. To meet the park dedication requirements for the project the builder would pay a park dedication fee of $3,000 per building, that would amount to $600,000 for the city with the understanding that the city would guarantee $250,000 of that money would be spent south of Carver Avenue on the project and if that was the case, the developer would be willing to add an additional $250,000 for such things as trails, a scenic overlook, a bird watching location or tot lot focused within that development. The other alternative is dedicating 10 to 15 acres of land that they would deed to the city or to Ramsey County for additional park land and pay no money. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -8- Mr. Roberts said in most cities when a land dedication is made it is 10% of a project site which in this case would be 7.2 acres. A lot of the land here would not be utilized anyway. Bruce Anderson, the Park and Recreation Director said he would prefer option 1 and have the money. He doesn't see a need for additional park land in that part of Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler asked how staff sees the process of revising the comprehensive plan? Mr. Roberts said he believes that either the Community Development budget or the Public Works Department budget put the request in for money to hire a consultant to assist with the comprehensive plan in the 2007 budget. The comprehensive plan has to be worked on in 2007 because it is due to the met council in 2008 and staff told that to the city management through the budget request. Mr. Roberts said he worked here during the last two revisions of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan had been worked on by a consultant, the help of city staff and with some assistance from the planning commission. The comprehensive plan was due in 2000 but it took until 2002 to complete and it was adopted. Because staff was doing most of the work it was about a 3 year process. Commissioner Trippler said he would like to make a suggestion. Serving on the environmental committee the committee felt that in order to get projects done faster they selected sub committees to work on individual projects. These sub committees consisted of two or three environmental committee members and they met two or three times a week with staff and/or the watershed district. He asked ifthe commission thoughtthis could also work forthe process of revising the comprehensive plan? There could be a sub committee of three or four members that want to work on the comprehensive plan. Those committee members could work with staff when there wasn't a planning commission meeting. This would be a way to assist with the process of revising the comprehensive plan. Chairperson Fischer said one of the revisions to the comprehensive plan was more of a housekeeping process and was not as time consuming as if you were doing a total overhaul to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Roberts said the first comprehensive plan was a major overhaul and the last revision that took place was more of a housekeeping issue. He said one thing the commission may want to think about is what are the issues the commission has with the current comprehensive plan? Start identifying things you think should be changed such as text, maps, or information. A lot of the goals and policies still work but things like adding an R-1 (R) category could be looked at. There are some things the Met Council will require be updated such as the population estimates, transportation, sewer flows, etc. but a lot of that information the city gets from the met council. The city will not be doing major projections and studies because as the city is more built out, in theory there should be less change. More importantly is if the city council makes a final decision regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Area that would be a major change to the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Trippler said since 2002 the city has improved the GIS and mapping capabilities so he was thinking this would be a good time to go through the land use maps and zoning maps and make sure they all coincide and all the neighborhoods are geographically correct. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-06 -g- Mr. Roberts said one example where there is an inconsistency is where Carpet Court is proposed. There are different zonings there but yet the whole site is planned business commercial. Should the land stay the way it is or should the land eventually be all commercial, that is something the planning commission should be thinking of. Commissioner Trippler said there have been a lot of areas that have developed in Maplewood since the last comprehensive plan in 2002. Mr. Roberts said the recommendation for a sub committee is a good idea. Any assistance city staff can get they are not afraid to take it. Chairperson Fischer said the original comprehensive plan was done by the planning commission as a whole, they thought about a sub committee but they found out there was strong feelings by members about that. The revisions to the comprehensive plan was time consuming but that was the first time around writing the comprehensive plan and now it would not require as much time or require the verbiage, goals and objectives. Commissioner Trippler said the sub committee for the environmental commission came before the environmental commission as a whole and discussed the issues at hand and discussed what was talked about. Just because you have a sub committee working on something doesn't mean the sub committee is going to make decisions, they would just expedite the process so we can get to the decision process faster. He said he was only making a "suggestion" for a sub committee. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Confirmation that the Monday, September 4, 2006, PC meeting has been rescheduled to Wednesday, September 6, 2006. This planning commission meeting will be to discuss Carver Crossing. Chairperson Fischer said she would be absent for the September 6, 2006, planning commission meeting. Tushar Desai will be the Acting Chairperson and Commissioner Dierich said she would arrive late to the meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Carver Crossing South of Carver Avenue, west of 1-494 August 29, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted revised plans to the city for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He has prepared a site plan that now shows 191 detached town houses. This latest plan replaces an earlier plan that showed 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 28 - 36 and the maps on pages 37 - 52. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Mr. Hansen has not yet applied for design approval for this latest proposal. He will do so (including the architectural, final landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings after the city council acts on his current requests. However, based on comments from the applicant and the city's experiences with other town house projects, I expect each town house to have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors. In addition, each town house would have a two-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project 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. 2. The vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within the development. 3. 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 on page 40 and in the project plans.) BACKGROUND In 1992, the city considered parts of the subject property in the inventory of possible properties to buy for open space. Of the approximately fifty properties the city considered, the open space committee ranked this site 20th overall and first out of 15 in the neighborhood. The city, however, was unable to negotiate a purchase of any of the property with a willing seller. As such, the city did not buy any of this property for open space and instead bought two parcels north of Carver Avenue for open space. 1 On March 14, 2005, the city council reviewed an early concept plan for this property. That plan showed 386 units of senior housing on the property. After some discussion by the council, the applicant asked the city to table their request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal. On May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed a second concept plan prepared by CoPar Companies for the Schlomka property south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane. This plan showed 376 housing units in at least four styles of homes on about 73 acres. The council also authorized the preparation of an EAW for the development area. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the results of the EAW and to consider a 299-unit housing proposal for this site. After much testimony and discussion, the planning commission recommended that the city council: 1. Make a negative declaration about the need for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for the project. 2. Deny the proposed land use plan change from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (low-density multiple dwelling). 3. Deny the proposed zoning map change from F (farm residence) and R-1 (R) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). 4. Deny the proposed PUD for a 299-unit senior housing development. 5. Deny the request to vacate the unused easements and right-of-ways within the proposed project site. 6. Deny the proposed preliminary plat that would have created the lots for the proposed PUD. The planning commission cited concerns about noise affecting the future residents, traffic counts and flow in the area, the proposed project density, the idea of having senior housing in the location, storm water runoff and impacts on wildlife as reasons for recommending denial of the proposed 299-unit development plan. After the planning commission meeting, the developer decided to withdraw their application for the 299-unit senior housing development for the site and redesign the proposal to try to address the concerns of the neighbors, planning commission and city. On June 12, 2006, the city council reviewed and discussed the EAW and its findings for the proposed 299-unit Carver Crossing development. The council, after taking much testimony and because of the questions they had about the EAW, tabled their decision on the matter until July 10, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the city council continued their review and discussion of the EAW for Carver Crossing. The council, on a 3-2 vote, adopted a resolution approving a negative declaration (that the project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects) and that the city would not require an EIS for the proposed development. (I have included the June 29, 2006 staff report for this meeting as a separate attachment for additional information.) 2 DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map The land use plan, as set by the city council in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, is the city's long-range guide and expectation 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. The city has designated the entire site on the land use maps R-1 (single-dwelling residential). (See the land use map on page 38.) The city intends R-1 areas for developments with single dwellings (no attached units) of up to 4.1 units per gross acre. The zoning map shows the designations of F (farm residence) (between Carver Avenue and Fish Creek) and R-1 (R) (south of Fish Creek) for the site. For areas the city has zoned F or R-1, the city allows 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. The R-1 (R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on two-acre or larger lots (where sewer is not available). As adopted by the city council in 2003, the intent of the R-1 (R) zoning district was "to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R-1 (R) code also states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely." I will discuss the location and availability of public utilities later in this report. Land Use Plan 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. 3 . 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 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 proposed development, with 191 detached town houses, would meet these goals and policies. Compatibility and Density This proposal, if approved by the city, would be a change for this area of Maplewood. It would transform a semi-rural, very low-density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban-style residential development with public sewer and water. This proposal is a departure from the former land uses on the property but would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and would be in keeping with the types of housing 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, to the zoning map and to the approved use of a property 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 detached town houses 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 town homes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood 4 with a mix of single dwellings and town homes. There are other examples of this mix in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, The Gardens, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. As proposed, the 191 units on the 73-acre site means there would be about 2.64 units per gross acre. This is consistent with (and in fact much lower than) the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single family and for double-dwelling residential development. In addition, the proposed project density would be less than the maximum density standard (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. Zoning Map The city has zoned the project site F (farm residence) and R-1 (R). For areas the city has zoned F or R-1, the city allows 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. The R-1 (R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on two acre or larger lots (where sewer is not available). The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a PUD as an overlay designation for the proposal. The PUD would serve as the zoning approval for this request. As adopted by the city council in 2003, the intent of the R-1 (R) zoning district was "to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R-1 (R) code also states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely." In this case, both municipal sanitary sewer and water are readily available to the site - from Carver Avenue on the north and from Heights Avenue on the west. Heights Avenue was constructed with a temporary cul-de-sac and public utilities so that a future developer could easily extend the street and the public utilities to the east (into what is now the Carver Crossing site). The project engineer, as part of this proposal, has designed the project so most of the sanitary sewer will flow to the west to Heights Avenue. As such, there no longer is a need for a sanitary sewer lift station along Henry Lane. It is clear that the location and depth of the existing public utilities make the installation of public utilities in this development possible and feasible. Mississippi River Critical Area Information Since 1976, Minnesota state law has required communities with land in the metropolitan Mississippi River Corridor to manage that land. The Mississippi River Critical Area covers the area of Maplewood that is west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue. The management of this area includes having a Critical Area Plan to guide development for the land within the river corridor. Maplewood adopted a critical area plan in 1979 (and updated it in 1981) to meet this requirement. The intention of this plan is to manage development to protect resources and to protect the scenic qualities of the river corridor, including the bluffs within the Mississippi River Corridor. 5 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 ofthe 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 the proposals are compatible with these goals. 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. 6 The proposed project, if built with all changes required by the city engineer and the other permitting agencies, should be consistent with, and in some cases, exceed the standards established by these goals and policies. Vacations There are existing easements for roadways, driveways 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 191-unit housing development. They have requested a PUD to allow the project to have 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 alternatives for access to the southern part of the site because of existing street layout and the existing topography, including Fish Creek. 7 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 pages 40-52), 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 alternative) because the location of 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 separate lot for each detached townhome unit. As proposed, the detached town houses would be on lots 55 feet wide (at the front setback line) and would range from about 5,800 square feet to 12,400 square feet in area (with most lots being between 6,500 square feet and 8,000 square feet). The lots would have access from Henry Lane and from private driveways. With a lot around each dwelling unit and building, a homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including all the common areas of the development, the private driveways, retaining walls and the ponding areas. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed site design details and code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road, the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Drive, and more recently, Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road and the Beaver Lake Townhomes near Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue. For this proposal, the developer expects each of the townhomes to sell for at least $250,000. Preliminary Plat Lot Size As proposed, the 191 units on the 73-acre site means there would be 2.64 units per acre (an average of 16,420 square feet per unit). The individual lot widths and sizes, as proposed, will vary depending on the topography of the lot and the style of the unit. As I noted above, they all appear to be consistent in size and layout (if not larger) with other town house lots in Maplewood. The proposed overall project density of 2.64 units per acre is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential and low-density multiple-family development. 8 City Engineering Department Review Michael Thompson of the Maplewood Engineering Department has reviewed the project plans. He put his comments in the memo starting on page 71. The city engineers are generally satisfied with the latest project plans and they are recommending several technical and minor design changes for the project plans. Traffic and Access A concern of some of the neighbors near the site is the increase in traffic that their area would experience if the city approves the project. While staff recognizes that having a new development and new streets in the area with new neighbors driving past their homes would create changes for 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 191 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 1,146 more vehicles (in total) using Carver Avenue. For a 12-hour day, the 1,146 vehicle trips would mean an average of 96 vehicle trips per hour, or an average of about two 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. As part of the redesign of the development, the project engineer has moved the proposed location of the new Henry Lane about 112 feet to the west. (See the detail on page 52.) The proposed location would put Henry Lane in alignment with the property line that is between the properties at 2431 and 2445 Carver Avenue. This change should help prevent the headlights from northbound vehicles on Henry Lane from shining into the houses on the north side of Carver Avenue. Dan Soler of Ramsey County also reviewed the proposal. I have included his comments on pages 81 and 82. For additional information about traffic, I have included the following section from the EAW responses prepared by city staff and city consultants: 9. Traffic. As part of the initial analysis, the trip generation for typical single-family detached homes and senior adult housing - detached homes were compared to estimate the reduction in trips for a senior development. This comparison showed that a reduction in trips between 47 and 65 percent for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and the daily trip generation would be likely. That is the reason a 50 percent reduction was used to estimate the trip generation in the EAW. Additional dialog with Washington County staff has occurred since the completion of the EAW, and based on their comments as well as the comments received by Ramsey County, the apartment trip generation was modified. The original 50 percent reduction was reduced 9 to a 25 percent reduction for the apartment trip generation. This modification was made to help ensure that the traffic impacts were conservatively assessed. Additional concerns from the Planning Commission resulted in another revision to the traffic analysis. This revision assumes no reduction in trips for the apartment trip generation portion of the senior housing development. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect this increase in traffic. The site trip distribution map caused some confusion because some of the percent distributions were not listed on the figure. This figure has been updated. The previous analysis assumed that 30 percent of the traffic would travel south to the interchange of TH 61 and 1-494. This traffic was split between Point Douglas Road and Sterling Street. Fifteen percent of the site traffic was distributed to the north via Carver Avenue to Century Boulevard. After further discussion with Washington County, the percentage of site trips using Point Douglas and Carver Avenue were decreased by 5 percent each. The 10 percent of trips that used those roads were rerouted to the south on Sterling Street to obtain access to the TH 61 and 1-494 interchange. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect the impacts of the changes in the site traffic trip distributions. The updated analysis is included at the end of the Response to Comments section. The traffic analysis using a more conservative trip generation number and an increased trip distribution tolfrom Sterling Street did not significantly change the traffic results. There was no significant change in the level-of-service values at any of the intersections included in the original analysis. The delay on the southbound approach to Sterling Street did not increase and remained similar to the no-build conditions. Therefore, the mitigation measures presented in the original EAW are still recommended and no further mitigation measures are recommended. The recommended traffic mitigation measures include having traffic turn lanes on Carver Avenue at the new Henry Lane and the addition of a right turn lane for westbound Carver Avenue at McKnight Road. 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 25-foot-wide no- disturb buffer around the northerly wetlands. This meets 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 17,758 square feet of new wetland. This replacement is 2 times the area of the existing wetland and meets the required 2 for 1 replacement ratio. The watershed district will have to approve this replacement plan. 10 Watershed District Review On August 25, 2006, Tina Carstens of the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District reviewed the project plans. Refer to her comments in the e-mail on pages 78 and 79. The district did not find any major issues with the proposed plans and will be requiring a permit before the contractor may start grading the site. Tree Removal/Replacement/Preservation The applicant had a tree inventory done for the property. This survey found 1,111 significant or large trees on the property, including pines, elms, spruce, ash and oak. (See the tree plans in the project plans.) The city considers large trees as those that are eight inches in diameter or greater or pines that are at least eight feet tall. Tree Preservation The city's current 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 646 large trees and to remove 465 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 77 replacement trees on the site to have at least 10 trees per acre. The proposed project plans show the applicant planting 546 replacement trees as part of their overall landscape plan, including a mix of 147 deciduous or over story trees and a mix of 188 coniferous trees. The proposed number and size of the replacement trees exceeds the city's current ordinance 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, near the southwest corner of the site, along the south side of Fish Creek, to the northwest of the large wetland and near the two wetlands near Carver Avenue. The current city 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 Landscaping As proposed, the developer would save, plant or transplant at least 1,192 trees on the site (including in the yards of each unit and along Henry Lane) and install seven rain gardens and six infiltration 11 ponds/basins with landscaping. The detailed landscape plans in the project plan set show more details about the tree planting and seeding for the north one-half and the south one-half of the site. I expect 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:i story, look out or full basement walkout unit. In addition, all yard areas near the buildings should be sodded (except for any 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 change the Colorado blue spruce to another species of evergreen tree and must 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 tree plan and landscaping, except for the issue of providing additional trees for screening on the property at 2431 Carver Avenue, is acceptable. Any landscaping and turf establishment within the 1-494 right-of-way should be subject to MnDOT's approval. Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials The plans show 191 detached town houses. As I noted earlier in the report, the applicant has not yet applied to the city for design approval. I expect, based on my conversations with the developer that the proposed town houses will be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They could 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 aluminum soffits and an attached two-car garage. Staff does not currently have any major concerns about the elevations of the proposed town houses since this 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 city should require the developer or the builder(s) to submit their building plans to the city for review and approval by the community design review board (CDRB). This submittal should include 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 details about any brick or stone accents that the town houses might have. 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. 12 The applicant has not yet prepared a site lighting plan for the development. The city should require the developer to submit such a plan to the city with their CDRB application. Such a plan shall show the installation of at least 25 freestanding Iightposts within the site to provide lighting along the new streets and driveways (primarily at the intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sacs). The plans also will have to show details about the location, height and style of the freestanding poles, the fixture design on the poles and about the proposed lighting on the buildings. The final plans also will have to show that the maximum light intensity at the property lines will be .4 foot candles or less. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the parking requirements for a housing development such as this. In general, the code requires the developer provide at least two parking spaces per unit with at least one of those being a garage. According to the plans from the developer, there would be 382 garage spaces (two spaces per unit) and 382 spaces on driveways (764 total spaces) for the 191 housing units. 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 would be 24 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 west side of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue, north side of the buildings along the south side of Fish Creek, along the east side of Henry Lane near the proposed ponding area and along the rear of the units near the southwest corner of the site. (See site and grading plans and the details on page 41 and 42.) The retaining walls will start at ground grade and extend upward to 14 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. Soil Borings The grading plans shows the project engineer having taken 30 soil borings throughout the project site - including the locations of the proposed retaining walls, basins and driveways. The city's engineer will be reviewing the results of the borings and the report from the project engineer. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal. I have included his comments on page 80. He noted that: 13 1. The developer should provide the appropriate security and street lighting and that each unit should have its own unique address. 2. 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. 3. Parking within town house developments can become an issue for residents and their guests. The city should encourage the developer to provide enough parking for all to use, especially during special events. 4. Construction site thefts are an on-going problem in the metro area and the contractors should plan and provide site security during the construction. Parks Department Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed this proposal. Mr. Anderson is recommending that the city collect cash dedication 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. The city's parks commission reviewed this matter during their meeting on August 21, 2006. 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 turn-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. Need to verify the proper placement of fire hydrants with Saint Paul Water and the city fire marshal. CONCLUSION The latest PUD plans have 108 fewer units (191 versus 299) for the site than plans the EAW analyzed and that the developer submitted for review earlier this year. While many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the right to develop and use his land. The city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to develop his land with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. In the last year and one-half since the city first reviewed the developer's initial concept plan for the property, they have significantly revised plans and reduced the number of units on the property. The applicant has invested more than one year in time with meetings, plan preparation, revisions and analysis (including the EAW) to prepare the latest plans. The current proposal balances the city's interest in preserving many of the natural features on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should strive for with every development. 14 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 91 <Attachment 28). This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a 191-unit 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 August 8, 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. (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 Michael Thompson's memo dated August 25, 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 turn 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. 15 (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): 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 council shall review this permit in one year. B. Approve the resolution on pages 96 and 97 (Attachment 29). 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. 16 C. Approve the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on August 8, 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 25 locations. The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. Replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson dated August 25, 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. 17 (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10: 1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one-foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) The drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. c. The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half (2 'h) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group additional new trees together including in the front yard of the property at 2431 Carver Avenue to help reduce head light glare from Henry Lane (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 552 trees. (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: 18 (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, turn lanes, trails, sidewalks and private driveways. (4) The developer enclosing any ponds or basins that will have a normal water depth of two feet or more with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The repair and restoration of the temporary Heights Avenue cul-de-sac including the installation of new curb and gutter and street pavement. (11) The pipelines in and near Henry Lane and Outlot B. (12) The restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the completion of the new Henry Lane. (13) The driveway on Outlot D as a public street. 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. 19 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. 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. f. Label Outlot D as a public street with a public right-of-way. 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, turn lanes and private driveways. d. Provide for restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the construction of the new Henry Lane. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure 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. 20 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 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 101 properties within at least 750 feet of this site. Of the seven replies, none supported the project, two had comments and questions about the proposal and five were against the proposal. For None Comments/Questions 1. See the e-mail from Kathy Urban on page 89. 2. See the e-mail message from Don and Peggy Telin on page 90. Against 1. I still think they are trying to put too many units in this area. I would rather see single-family homes with a few town homes. I also do not want to see the approval of the oversized emergency outlet "Trail" from Dorland Road/Heights Avenue. I think this will only lead to a permanent road to this development which is not necessary. I also think the land dedication/cash dedication discussion is selfish. I think CoPar is trying to do the minimum amount possible to satisfy the earlier complaints they heard. Overall, I think this new proposal is still unacceptable. This area cannot support 191 homes. If you multiply this by the proposed number of people living in the homes, the additional population of 554 at a minimum. I would like to see a new proposal with a smaller amount of homes. (Brass -1355 Dorland Road South) 2. See the letter from Terry Baumgart on pages 83 - 84. 3. See the letter from Mark Bonitz on pages 85 - 88. 4. No way should this be done with the same companies involved in taking out and soil removal. It should be done by an outside company only!! I do believe too many units with even single family homes. Wildlife, too much too fast, deer? Most important - we need businesses and jobs - no jobs, no homes. (Gearin - 2575 Carver Avenue) 5. The PUD lot size should be within the existing code parameters. The actual units per acre is already well above the code when using real density figures (53 actual useable acres of property). 191 divided by 53 acres equals 3.6 units per acre (net). Basing PUD density on 73 acres is not logical or reasonable, even if the city code allows. The buildable acres equal 53. The proposed park dedication fee of $834,000 based on 191 units should be used within Carver Crossing and the adjacent open space if the proposal is approved by the city council. The city should monitor and assure that all EAW, watershed and other agency issues and requirements are complied with precisely. The city should require a bond and enforce a completion date so construction does not linger forever. Allowing this development, in my opinion, is not a prudent decision. Future issues and problems, when the developer is long gone, will be left to the City at the city and citizens' expense. (Erb - 2354 Heights Avenue) 22 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 73 acres Existing land use: Vacant (formerly had 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) 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 Permit Approval Section 44-1 097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 91 through 95.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of 23 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. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Summary 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. The project with 299 units did 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 concerns 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 concerns) and the potential issues in the area, the EAW took almost one year to complete. The city's consultant completed the EAW and then the city had a state-mandated 30-day public comment period on the document. The comments the city received included questions and concerns 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. In this case, staff recommended that the city make a negative declaration for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for this project. The city council, on July 10, 2006, voted to not require an EIS for the Carver Crossing development. 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: 24 - 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 ensure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Mississippi River Critical Corridor Information (from the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan) Maplewood hereby incorporates the goals of the 1976 designation of the Mississippi River Critical Area. On November 18, 1988, Public Law 100-69 established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the National Park System. The MNRRA was established by Congress to: (1) Protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities. (2) Encourage coordination of federal, state and local programs. (3) Provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and local governments 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: 25 (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. . 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. 26 Application Date The city received the complete applications and the revised plans for this development on August 8, 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 September 29, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 24-28\Carver Crossing for PC (2) - 2006 Attachments: 1. Letter from Copar Companies dated August 7, 2006 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Area Map 5. Preliminary Plat dated August 8, 2006 6. Site Plan 7. Grading and Erosion Control Plan 8. Stormwater Management Plan 9. Utility Plan 10. Tree Preservation Plan 11. Open Space Plan 12. Master Landscape Plan 13. Enlarged Landscape Plan (North one-half) 14. Landscape Plan Details 15. Enlarged Landscape Plan (South one-half) 16. Landscape Plan Details 17. Carver Avenue/Henry Lane Intersection Detail 18. June 29, 2006 EAW memo from Chuck Ahl 19. August 25. 2006 memo from Michael Thompson 20. August 23, 2006 letter from Kimley-Horn and Associates 21. August 25, 2006 e-mail from Tina Carstens 22. August 22, 2006 memo from Lt. Shortreed 23. August 24, 2006 letter from Dan Soler 24. Letter dated August 22, 2006 from Terry and Linda Baumgart 25. Letter dated August 24, 2006 from Mark Bonitz 26. E-mail from Kathy and Rick Urban dated August 23, 2006 27. E-mail from Peggy Telin dated August 25, 2006 28. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 29. Easement and Right-of-Way Vacation Resolution 30. Project Plans date-stamped August 8, 2006 (separate attachments) 27 Attachment 1 August 7, 2006 COPAR companies Development. Finance. Investment Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning Commission C/O Ken Roberts, City Planner 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 ~ Re: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Revised Development Plan Submittal AUG 0 8 2006 Dear Mayor Longrie, Council Members, and Members of the Planning Commis~,C r, V E 0 CoPar Development is pleased to present the revised Carver Crossing of Maplewood development plans for your consideration. Our development team has worked diligently to revise the development proposal from its original 386 home city authorized EA W concept to a 191 home proposal that is consistent with the R-I Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of the city. We feel strongly that the revised proposal is reasonably exercising our rights to develop while being sensitive to the diverse site conditions and considerate of the public input gathered throughout the past 19 months. We respectfully request that the City of Maplewood review our revised proposal and approve the following actions as they relate to the development plans: I. Conditional Use Permit / PUD approval 2. Preliminary Plat Outlined below are a number of development plan highlights intended to assist you in answering questions that may arise as you review our plans. Site Background: The Carver Crossing property is an assembly ofland acquired by CoPar from four different previous owners. The predominant surrounding land uses include Interstate Highway 494 and vast amounts (100+ acres) of Ramsey County open space. Surrounding land uses also include the 1986 Carver Heights development (Dorland Road); some isolated homes on Carver A venue; and approximately 26 acres of city owned "Grandview" land acquired by the city in 1995/1996 which was changed from a Land Use Plan designation ofR-1 (single dwellings) to OS (open space) upon acquisition. Historical land use activities on the property include four residential homes, numerous out buildings, limited fann related activities, and excavation, boat and material storage. CoPar has carried out building demolition and site clean-up activities to prepare the property for development. Substantial numbers oftires, debris, outdoor storage and discarded materials have 8677 Eagle Point Blvd Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-379-0500 651-379-0412 (Fax) www.CoparCompanies.com Real Estate Development, Finance & Investment. 28 been removed from the property. In the process of site investigation and clean-up a small amount of soil contamination was identified and is depicted in Figure 1 from Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. Approximately 2,000 yards of contaminated soils are being removed from these areas in accordance with the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up (VIe) and Brownfield's Programs. Weare proud of our efforts to correct the blighted conditions that existed on the property. The most recent site related activities and background include the conclusion of the city managed Environmental Assessment Worksheet and findings of a negative declaration concerning the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Among the many valuable pieces of information gleaned from the EA W site research and findings it has been determined that the entire site can be reasonably developed without a potential for significant environmental effects. Citv Land Use Plan: The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the entire site as a Single Dwelling (R-I) development area eligible for development at a density of 4.1 homes per acre. Maintaining clear consistency with the single dwelling development directive identified in the Comprehensive Plan is the basis for the plan revisions that have occurred since the conclusion of the EA W process. Community feedback and Planning Commission recommendations made it clear that a PUD is appropriate, but an alternative multiple dwelling proposal is not acceptable nor should the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be changed. The revised proposal has removed all multiple dwelling and attached townhome housing options from consideration and the development contract with the previously identified builder has expired. The EA W has accounted for the uniqueness of the site and the plan revision process has resulted in a development proposal that is exercising the minimum development rights afforded to the property. The site is not identified by the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan as a Residential Estate 30,000 or 40,000 sq. ft. (re-30, re-40) development area; Open Space (OS) preservation area; or Park (P) development location. The proposed density is consistent with the minimum density allowed in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (Ref city ordinance Sec. 12-250. Effect on Density) and is clustering home sites in a manner that emphasizes open space accessibility to all current and future residents. The amount of open space in this plan has actually increased from that the multiple family and townhome plans depicted in the EA W. The attached Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps were obtained from the official city web site and plainly identify the development designations of the site. PUD Development Overview: The development site is 72.3 acres in size with a development density that has been reduced from 4.1 to 2.64 homes per acre. The development plan is proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) resulting in the designation of27.87 acres of privately owned woodland, wetland and upland open space. The 191 proposed lots average approximately 7,600 sq. ft. and each will support a 2,400 sq. ft. or larger building pad site. The lot designs and layout will result in a full range of single dwelling size and elevation alternatives. Homes will be built by a select and qualified builder or pool of builders that has yet to be determined. 29 The incorporation of PUD development techniques has enhanced the development proposal by allowing 38.5% of the site to remain open with a diverse and mixed terrain upland, woodland, and wetland presence that could not otherwise be attained. Open spaces and rain garden or other site features have been integrated into the site plan and are directly adjacent to over 97% of the homes. The PUD will also allow consistent and enhanced natural feature protection through the managed open space ownership of the homeowners association. The open spaces within this development accompanied by the large expanse of Ramsey County open space and sizable city open space to the north will continue to allow the natural areas in the area to be a dominating feature of south Maplewood. The open space plan is identified on sheet C-8 of the development plans and comprises approximately 3.03 acres of woodland, 17.64 acres of upland/grassland, and 7.2 acres of wetland. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan is highlighted on the attached Exhibit A and can be reviewed in detail on sheet C-6 of the development plan submittal. A total of 6 Permanent Dual Purpose Basins (PDPB's) and 7 rain gardens have been designed for the site. The total infiltration volume proposed has increased from the plans presented in the EA W to 106,150 Cubic Feet. The stormwater management plan provides infiltration for rainfall events of at least 2.5", and vastly exceeds the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area requirements, the Watershed District, and the City standards for water quality treatment. Stormwater management as it relates to Fish Creek and the slopes and natural features of the site have been a strong factor in the design of this development plan and set a precedent for other such developments to attain. The stormwater plan and PDPB design elements in our proposal have not been considered solely for their function as effective stormwater control. The design specifications also include detailed native seeding specifications to enhance the form and appeal of the area. Specified in detail within the landscape plan are native seeding specifications, application rates, and cover requirements that will perform the dual purpose of stormwater treatment and landscape enhancement. Estimated earthwork has increased from 217,000 yards to 290,000 yards. The additional amount of excavation can be attributed to the increased number of water treatment basins and is therefore the result of an increase to the protection of Fish Creek through additional water quality treatment. As discussed in the stormwater plan summary, water quality treatment has been a precedent setting element to the design ofthis development and has been a primary consideration in the proposal. Additional earthwork can also be attributed to increased berm and landscape related efforts. As was concluded in the EA W, the amount of earthwork associated with the project is not unusual when considering the size of the property. It is reasonable to make the same conclusion with this revised earthwork and stormwater plan. To put the level of earthwork into perspective, 290,000 yards is equivalent to an average of +/- 3.3 ft. depth of excavation taken over the limits of the site improvements. The increase of73,000 yards is equivalent to +/- 9 inches of additional cut from the depth of excavation in the EA W. 30 Park Dedication: The park dedication fee in effect during the presentation of the original development concept to the City Council and during the subsequent plan and EA W preparation period was doubled by the city on February 13,2006. The current park dedication fee for a new single family home is $3,060. In accordance with this recent fee adjustment, the park fee obligations of the revised plan are estimated as $584,460. Though the amount of the fee was equivalent to $292,230 prior to this change, CoPar is prepared to pay the new park dedication fee as has been advised by the city parks department staff and parks commission. As the development planning process has evolved interested parties have voiced concerns about the lack of public park and trail improvement in the area. Although this site is not identified by city planning documents as Park or Open Space, CoPar has devised two options to help address issue: Cash Dedication Option: CoPar proposes the city investment of $250,000 of the $584,460 city park dedication fee directly into the 191 home development for the purpose of public trail and public park/overlook improvements. CoPar will match this direct investment of park fees with an additional dollar for dollar or like-kind park/trail improvement valued up to $250,000. This dollar for dollar match is conditioned on maintaining the continuity of the current 2.64 single family home per acre development plan. Implementation of this proposal can occur upon plan approval and would result in a positive park improvement impact to the city of $834,460 with $500,000 invested directly into south Maplewood. Park enhancement opportunities we envision within the development include both active and passive recreation activities. An extensive sidewalk/trail plan incorporating the upland, woodland and wetland features of the site, nature walk interpretive signage, Fish Creek and other prominent site vista stations, birding, nesting, and other related habitat improvements, observation and bird feeding stations, and even raptor nesting platforms are a few of the enhancements we envision could be of great benefit to the public and the environment. Land Dedication Option: Understanding that there has been a desire by interested parties to purchase portions ofthe property or otherwise pursue pubic ownership we have also prepared a park land dedication proposal that could be implemented without objection. Illustrated on Exhibit B is a park land dedication proposal as follows: I. Dedication of a 2.98 acre park and overlook area adjacent to Ramsey County open space to the south and west; 2. Dedication of a 2.82 acre woodland park area adjacent to Ramsey county open space to the west and north; 3. Dedication ofa 20 ft trail corridor (.17 acre) adjacent to Ramsey County open space to connect the overlook and woodland park locations; and 31 4. Dedication of a 4.59 trail corridor connecting to the Henry Lane roundabout. The public dedication ofthe combined 10.56 acres ofland area (14.6% of the property) described above would be in lieu ofthe $584,460 fee. City acceptance of these site areas would provide a tremendous park development opportunity to the city. The site density would be reduced in these areas with the removal of four (4) very desirable home sites; however, we feel the removal of these homes would be necessary to allow improved park development and access. The incorporation of a public road plan may also be required with this option. In addition to the above land dedication CoPar is also willing to dedicate a north/south regional trail corridor through the site extending from Carver A venue to the Ramsey County land area to the south. This additional land area is approximately 4.25 acres and when combined with the 10.56 acre dedication proposal above equates to a park land dedication of 20% of the property; double the land area dedication that would customarily be required to satisfy city ordinance. Interested parties have expressed a desire for regional trail connections through this site and we believe they could be accommodated with this additional land area proposal. CoPar will not be accepting of alternative park land dedication or acreage configurations in lieu of the park dedication fee but is willing to accommodate the above proposal should the city wish to accept park land in lieu of fees. No part of the development property is identified by the city Land Use Plan as park or open space and Copar feels no obligation to involuntarily dedicate park land within the site. Recognizing the cities budgetary constraints in immediately improving the 14.8 acres of public park land in this proposal, CoPar would include the equivalent of $250,000 in resources to enhance and develop a public park and trail way plan for these city park areas. These additional resources would be contributed conditioned on the continued continuity of the current development plan and in a manner consistent with the phasing of the development. Landscape: There are I, III significant trees on the property. Significant trees are defined by city ordinance and are individually identified on the tree survey contained within the development set as sheet C- 7. The revised layout has resulted in the preservation of 646 significant trees and resulted in a reduced tree impact when compared to the development plan in the EA W. The reduced tree impact was attained through the use of specific site design efforts and the reduction of density from 197 to 191 homes. A total of 723 trees (IO/per acre) are required by ordinance to be maintained and or placed on the site. In conjunction with the preservation of the 646 significant trees, city ordinance would require the planting of an additional 77 trees. The landscape plan is exceeding the ordinance requirement and proposing to plant 546 mixed variety trees. The landscape plan has been designed by a registered Landscape Architect and is incorporating not only diverse tree varieties but also pond seed mixes focused on native and emergent wetland fringe and native prairie grasses. 32 Wetlands: Wetland impacts remain unchanged from the EA W proposal. The site contains 319,076 sq. ft. of wetland of which only 8,879 sq. ft. or 2.78% will be impacted. In accordance with the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act the impacted wetland is being replaced with a slightly larger new wetland accompanied by an additional 146,662 sq. ft. of qualifying public value credit improvements. The wetland replacement plan vastly exceeds the criteria established by the Wetland Conservation Act and is depicted along with the stormwater management plan on sheet C-6 of the development proposal. The Watershed District has approved ofthe wetland sequencing and replacement plan. The development proposal has also accounted for city and watershed district wetland classification and building setback regulations. The average building setbacks surrounding all wetlands exceed 50 ft. and the 25 ft. no disturb area and added lOft. structural buffer setbacks have been met as depicted on the Site Plan on sheet C-3 of the development proposal. Noise: As the EA W identified, the development site is impacted by noise levels generated by Interstate 494. As the plan revisions have taken shape the outdoor spaces have been actively planned as they relate to these noise impacts. As depicted on Exhibit C, the highest noise measurement area (70 dBA) is no longer impacting any homes and the daytime noise area (65 dBA) which previously impacted 137 homes is now touching 28 home sites. Homes have also been strategically located to further limit and shield noise exposure to the rear yard recreation areas. The site layout and planning process has reasonably balanced the development potential of the property with the noise impacts that have been forced upon it. As advised by city staff, site grading, berming and landscape have been adjusted to help mitigate noise impacts. The cross section depicted on Exhibit D & E demonstrates the substantial grade and topography differences and the grading and landscape enhancements that also help mitigate these noise impacts. The north end of the site depicted in Section "E" is 17 feet lower than the grade of 1694; the mid section of the site depicted in Section "D" is 24 feet lower than the grade ofI694; the proposed roundabout area depicted in Section "COO is 18 ft. lower than the grade of 1694; the southern portions of the site are buffered by increased setbacks, topography changes, ponding, and landscape and depicted in Section "BOO as 6 Yz feet lower than the grade of 1694; and Section "A" is 26 feet higher than the grade of 1694. Although a limited number of homes remain in the daytime noise area the site design is taking practical and reasonable steps to accommodate the impact, including the designation of approximately 6 acres of the site within the daytime noise area as open space. Public Utilities & Roads: Sewer and water utilities are available to the entire development site from both Carver A venue and Heights Avenue and are proposed to be extended throughout the site as public infrastructure. The plan no longer requires a lift station as it has been determined that the revised design and density can be fully accommodated with existing available connections. Removal of the lift 33 station is a significant long term maintenance and cost savings to the city. We are pleased with the added efficiencies of the utility design. The extension of utility connection points east under Interstate 494 has been affiliated with this project but is not being requested or required by CoPar. As an alternative, future jacking pit and utility extension under Interstate 494 could potentially be accommodated from the East side of the interstate as the benefiting property owners request it. We believe the removal of the lift station allows the location of any future "jacking pit" or 1494 boring activity to be accomplished in a less exact fashion that can be more easily accommodated from either side of the highway. We'd suggest making that investment when the residents and property owners to the east request it. As proposed, all roads within the development that are providing direct driveway access to homeowners are private. The road identified as Henry Lane continues to be public road that intersects with Carver Avenue. The intersection with Carver Avenue, however, has been adjusted an additional 112 ft. west to avoid aligning with homes on the north side of Carver Avenue. Henry Lane is also slightly shorter in length than the existing Henry Lane and is terminated through the use of a roundabout. It has been suggested that the long term maintenance and care of the proposed private roadways may be cause for concern and that public roadway should be considered throughout the project. We have evaluated the potential of accommodating public roadways and can construct the road plan to a public standard within the current 50 ft. wide street outlot(s) by adding an additional two feet of road width. At the direction of the city we are willing to assume the additional development cost, dedicate the appropriate right-of-way, and construct public roads throughout the development should the Planning Commission and City Council prefer public roads. Traffic: Traffic from Maplewood and neighboring communities is a concern throughout the region and is caused by both existing residential developments as well as new. Carver Crossing will increase traffic in the area in a manner that has been analyzed and accepted in the EA W. The revised proposal has decreased in density and lessened the traffic impact. The revised proposal has also adjusted the alignment of the Henry Lane intersection an additional 112 feet west to reasonably accommodate headlight glare concerns expressed by a neighboring property owner to the north. CoPar will cooperate with the construction of Henry Lane turn lanes and Carver/McKnight intersection improvements. Although once planned by the city, a full road connection is not proposed to the temporary cul-de-sac in the Dorland Rd. /Heights Ave. neighborhood to the west. An oversized emergency outlet "trail" to this temporary cul-de-sac continues to be identified and will be designed with appropriate barriers as required by the city. The barriers will prevent everyday use of the trail as a vehicular access and will allow emergency vehicle through traffic as needed. 34 Fish Creek: Fish Creek is a positive amenity adjacent to this project and is being protected to a great extent through the blighted site clean-up, soils contamination removal, and stormwater controls that are a part of the development. The plan revision has emphasized the enhanced protection of the creek by dedicating additional open space along the full north and south sides of the creek as it runs through the project area. Plan revisions have also been able to preserve added trees along the creek, incorporate an expanded conservation easement area, and incorporate permanent erosion control and grading restoration activities to stop the degradation of the area. Three isolated bluff locations exist along the south side of Fish creek and are depicted on the attached Exhibit F. Identified are the 30 ft. shoreland bluff setbacks accompanied by building pad options that exist in satisfaction of the shoreland ordinance requirements. As can be seen in Exhibit G, the building site setbacks from the creek range from 91 to 300+ feet. The minimum Fish Creek setback of 50 ft. has been doubled in all but one location. Restoration activities in these areas are including the use of retaining wall work, plantings, and erosion control measures. Existing conditions include several "ravine" and washout locations that will be permanently corrected and protected with the implementation of the grading and stormwater controls of this development. The Watershed District has managed historical erosion problems associated with Fish Creek through extensive structural improvements to the creek from this site west all the way to the Mississippi River. Alterations to the creek have included the installation of an underground stormwater pipe that ranges from 36 to 48 inches in size and is intended to channel and re-route water flow. The water entrance to this structure is located at the spillway and small pool area depicted on our plans and is being moved further east to 1494 with additional Watershed District construction and pipe installation activities scheduled to commence work in the coming week(s). To assist the Watershed District in its efforts to maintain the Creek we have formalized two permanent access points from the north and south to these areas of Ramsey County property. There is no question Fish Creek has been subject to washouts and erosion. If developments upstream from Carver Crossing implemented the same stormwater management techniques as our development we feel confident that long term solutions to the erosion and quality of the creek would be fully resolved. Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor: The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCAlMRCAC) area as defined by State Statute is depicted in Exhibit H. Regulations pertaining to this area of the site are being met with the revised proposal in the same manner they were met within the EA W. The development plans have fully considered the Environmental Protection and Critical Area ordinance requirements of the city. The proposed development has the potential of greatly increasing public access to and along Fish Creek; is being designed and will be constructed and maintained to the maximum extent practical as it relates to erosion, alterations, and slopes; is removing site contamination and pollution, is not impacting the views of protected waters, and is vastly exceeding stormwater ponding and phosphorous removal requirements outlined by ordinance. 35 The plan no longer requires critical area plan amendments from the Mn/DNR as the Comprehensive Plan is no longer being amended. The potential for MRCAC designated areas within the site to have qualifying bluffiines has been fully evaluated. Though there are clearly slopes of 18% or greater within the site, the additional criteria necessary to establish a bluffiine as defined in city ordinance are not met. Qualifying areas require direct drainage to protected water (Fish Creek); must be greater than 200 feet in length (top to bottom) or greater than 500 feet in width (side to side). Depicted on Exhibit I is a summarized slope analysis depicting dimension lines that demonstrate the lack of slope length or direct drainage. Demographic & Fiscal Impact: The 191 homes proposed in Carver Crossing of Maplewood will be open to all qualified buyers and maintained as minimum maintenance single family homes. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan estimates 2.9 people per unit live in a single dwelling and 2.2 people per unit live in a townhome. Using these household estimates as an approximate range, the projected population of Carver Crossing at full development should be within 420 to 554 people. Due to the style of housing offered the demographics are expected to comprise of downsizing baby boomers, empty nesters and professionals. A conservative estimated gross retail sales mean of the homes in Carver Crossing is $378,000. The League of Minnesota Cities tax calculator estimates annual Carver Crossing tax revenue at $925,600. The city share of this yearly tax revenue is estimated at $261,000; the annual school and county share ofthis tax revenue is estimated at $664,000. Conclusion: We hope you agree that the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development proposal represents a practical and reasonable implementation of the cities R-l single dwelling land use development plan for the property. We feel that the level of work that has been incorporated in the concepts, EA W, and plan development and revision process have resulted in a very high quality proposal for your consideration. Without undue delay we hope to receive your approval and construct this development in a manner that enhances the open spaces, recreational opportunities, and awareness of the desirable neighborhood elements available to people in south Maplewood. Please do not hesitate to contact CoPar Development with any questions as you review this proposal. We look forward to meeting with yourselves and the Planning Commission in September. 36 --~~,- " \ " " \ , \ \ I \ \ , " Attachment 2 ... :l ~ 1- Z ~ ~ ~"'.:::.-:....----'-'-:... -:...--':'::! " .. 'IL.;;;:-=iC-::.,"s~-=-~=:;i.-;::.-:::.-::-_.::..-:::.-:;.;o::.6:).. P1easantview Park ~=~~'o~==-~~~I , OPEN SPACE w :l z '~J ~ ,F! " z " w " U II 1':.=":-:-1 " , " " " " ,]I ~ :l III ~ --. ... :l : 1- z ~ SITE ~,,~, I! NEWPORT LOCATION MAP \r N 37 Attachment 3 c cC lil .... :z: !2 z ll: (,) ::Ii I i OPEN SPACE -- ii " II I, I' I " I I SITE SITE 'I ..::-l~~ SITE " !I "'~ ... f ... z ~ SITE ,f---;.: .-.i~ ~--:"''".::..:-=-..$.:''"'':::::''''-''-~'''''''::''~;-V ~ 38 {] N LAND USE MAP Attachment 4 " n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (]l~.l \ I ! ... ~ ~ z ~ D '/J 0 D '" 0 Cl C> rJ .. ,.., 0 0 - D G o SITE \) o lJ ~ Q CI [jJ 'D .!:!l ~ OPEN SPACE o AREA MAP 39 11 N -~~~, ...~~"' ~." I CARVER AVENUE - ~---==~"""l!r~:,;rr' or:={ I ,~ II -.....,- I I . ! I \ : II ~ 1 II I . '.U\ . { 'Ii dl I,! /( -\, 1'1' ~~' '!!~ :u,l."..'~ ,:' /; ~i l'; -. ~- I 1 I .,~, .. " ; :,! \" . ,," ) l ~.;.~" .. / -I-~! , ". ' ", n-:~'" -~~~...~ ,I - ~ : ~l;o,: "~~'~f.'/ , :____1: ':~ " :;-----~o~~1~/'-~/-~,~,1J'- I /" ~_____~,.. I I. .. "t!. -- I I ,,-',.........,' [: .. iu, =l! i /' ....~\ ',?rt. '~/ "I"" \ I! ,/ I ,..,----,--------. r_:j' _'.' L' '\ '\ ~-)'!/ ~7.' f(" 1"," .. j 1/",' 1/1 -,I" ,---t-", (/ /V.!' 1.:- ..' I / -'If ''-... ! 'f ' ",I -:. IL__~ --i-~-;" ,'.. /....... I "<;. -.../ " ~ I. 'I . n'i/lI --I '/,1 I. 1/ ",I / / I " I "/ ./ 1 /-r-r- - ,1 i / /I J / , ~ I~ / , , / II!! Ii! / 1 / I: / :' 1 / !: '- -/-//: i . I I /' / . / / / / / / I / .........~...'i '~\..\~\~,... f>'?-:t;.,oI'cottl "" LOT~.!:o. I~- "'''-= ~ ~ """""-"" 1.-:;.~ I ~~.6.A= IIIU'''' Il~ I 1-- ---- _-..uc --..... --- -.....,---- ----------.......- ---- ---- ------ .J ;:) :: I- z C II) , ,I \,; " 1.' I ""''I I /"/ .... 'L"',r; 'I': - ,... - .'~. ;----,.; , /I Ii! " I': ,Y".. ,'. f ,', ,,1,' /.,::: .:' ,. ,i,' , t: /__/j;;Ot' ,jI ,'j /1 1, \ .,., 1\[ _~.l.~,,:, _~ I .' I I , , ~ .. _ 100' _ -."" PLAT OPEN SPACE PRELIMINARY PLAT 40 Attachment 5 / I -; / / / ! / /1 / / / I I I i iil 8 :lI ~ i ~ j : ~: ~ q. ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ !II!! ~ I~ ~ .. ~ ...,-~~... 7-_"'_ . -II' -. -- - -- -.. - - -- ,".,.. C-2 -- 30fl 11 N vli::;"?' . , I , , , I g / it , " I III ; ~ ... ::I a. 9 ... . ~ ~ Q ! . ti Q S ~ " u Q I . ... i z I a. ~ I . ~ I ::I a. , to. I~ 51 0 ,'" ~i ~ '" z ~ h1< '" CJ ~ '" I~ ~ ~ . ::l ~ U ~~_""_ONl.y_.fU. ___1IIl.~"'T_-.L.or....,.~ _Tlf'C. __1O._..._........T __or-.-I'DIl____. 2.CCN!-..sCQlOCll[ll:CUMI.___M'I 5Wl.MIK..PNlfllOl_ J. AU.~_GUnEII_-"_'UI.._1U._CIlY - .....___1l0....._sm.l._,_..l',IIY --- II. CQI-...c;TtIl.........NUl\oPlFlllCl.OCA1IOHS_ILnA_or ~uru___JU_RlCII...~_ _nnc__>S.""'..TOncSTNtTor.. _ _cDN____1D.YHOlrt__or ...,---..----......... ".""'T_U7I'UIlI:_._ 7. _"'*"'S1IlfEI'N.....-_. L .....__unmfllll_SWJ.': 1'IIOlK'I!D. 00__ _____-....IllIOl'_.._lllQ!__ -- CARVER AVENUIi. . r I · \ rm- ____.NII:In..~_., -..u ~ -- :I----'!':'-~~-- I =A - ~;tI..~. .;~,.:~~. I '\' , '-- . ~lj\ " .....~; - -- 'I'~J I~ ---/. <to. I -! I ~ I 1~1="..,____..~., .J ~" i t(.' <---- eJ I I ,~~- =,=,-....:::.1 ..~J.j i L. i I , I lei ~ fl. 0 I...! It: E)'C z iJ j . . Ill:: 8, I ern: DATA- ....., I.OIIlIllRJI4_CCfM:>CO~ ....., 1.OIIl'1IRJ1'_CCfM:>CO~ ....., Ul'ISl_U_DEJllQllO~ ...... I.OIIlIllRJ.-__ ....., I.OIIllllRJ27_DEPOCO_ , \ TOTAL IN'T'9 CIEI'ACICD_ ..1<N1'1 lII1JI. l11U1ln ".0"" ..,'/ .,,; ~\p..:p ':;\,.\,,^\\" ooilO" CJ ~v of" c-otte."~ '\ ~o" f ~ , IS'L ,,'To. '. " 'fl~'. ',,~ _$111_ 7:UII; _~ IJ4UtlTS/AC TOTAL PARI(IlD .... ""lIF - . -- ...l ~ ~ I- Z < III I I I , I / I , I / i Ii /. !/ ;71 " + OPEN SPACE SITE PLAN 41 Attachment 6 _0..,\ ......, I ;/ I // .~/ , j ,I , I I I I - .........CIN_ 7-~CUIJfI'~" 7-_erTY_ --~ _D~ ~n_ "'" *- . ~ J-Jl-ot 1".'11" ",.,1 C-3 4 of 13 11 N Attachment 7 ---.w~~.. T. _....-.-..--..,__.......-... -....-..--.--....- -.-------..... ---.......------... .. ==",..::r=.":"'.::.!:':.::-:l..-:':=:'" -...-----.-........-. .. ....---..-........-.-..- _.,bIr.....-......._or..",ICIIIl:__ ~-=~~_-=.~TO .. ~!PL..-=:::=~=- " ~~..-=~~---..._- ,:.~:'-_:;~>"~) ~ ~~ ~~~,rr.: <:~-L~V,>';.> :J :;;;~=:=::=.."":'y ,., :':<:;,;;;:':\:' 8 .. ;;:;;;;;~;z.,;-=... ?,;~~t0::1 \ {I \ '~~~>:~~:.:: I ~l:~[ ~ _ :~: f/<~ "-''C:.:.'l'==,:<..r.:.~~==-.::....''1f ,'I h, \- '- L IJ\.lI;![ JIll f ' 1'f~-l.irE~.Jil:C- ~.\<?\rtt-'~--~--- \fii~"I.'~~1.- =./11' =1IIIIf-......-...---- f',1 '...,-4" l' II ~'I ; \1" )~\I \ ~"l ~ \ '" III, .. ii...;:.L....~.::r,::=':=..":.- 11' \'~ "' I' I \-:,;, II' :., , \' . ,. ..:-' s,J' ' , I I' t. =-..IN,'''''''=''':t.=''::''-''=='~. ,....1,,~ ).,.~.,,_,'J b, ~ 11\ \.. ~ ~;'7:,.~';:-~;=--::.. ,~<t"~:?-:J', <-:..- ~:\~;,".. ."Il\\,'\' .. ~-;;;;:;..~-=:.:'*~.:-_ i.M.~~:',','" .,~'/1:~:~.;'-~:~,~,:J i~' -...--- '~-~""~~~ .' Y:-~T' ,i --.u.FIC8I.,".:~:,;:.i-"\ : "t,: ,-' ~-:",,="=,~.:.':':...~,r:.=:-'.. \-(,iJ_\ !:!;::.......:~=........::-_..__, \1t>::\~,::-,_., ...,.....'. ~ .-,--, =n.. . e~ -- =-.:=-==--=.:~- SIL~~ -- - -- L '.-_-'c. ~ GRADING, EROSION PREVENTION, AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 42 1r N GRADING, EROSION CONTROL PLAN Attachment 8 1_.,[ L ! ~~....u_ -- -- - ........ -' - , .... ..,.. J - - ~ . _ UII I UII ,h I I ..---- .. .. .. "._ - - - 11."".' =-~~~.u::..~::rT.,~ ::-. :-~" --=n'e".:-=.~...!!:!P =..~~-.:IficF'=-=h~ WF'I1 ~ IliI=PI .........."....It.........l1ON -.-....... ---- -,,---..- - ....--- ._~_...- -.--.'- - ,---- 1OI'....~1"IICNElm... 1aI'AL~ .-uI!D17,711 ............P'IC). :,: CI,lft..:,.-N>> , ,; I~ ,:.,C,:- 'f., " , j'lt '~:',:)t~r ~\ '\P."', \So ' ~ :r;::>.. "f)A"'> '~ .- :t- c=:J ~ ~ c:=:=J .- -- ..':-'-' ri\\;. ',"-,'1 '" , . OPEN SPACE ",,', \ ' --- --- -- ..-...... ..I a 0- ,~ II- %. l:' ... ,I, ~ '"CJIIP8TE \ ... I, 'WIQ II) :>.~..,_;.._i I I ,I , ,\' ::,'j ;.',' ,;.':. ~ ill ill ~ ~ " ~ ! I ':I iln uU i STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 43 - ----.. ...-.....- >--....- ,( -. -. -- - -. . ~ w_ ,'.,.. -.. C-6 70fl 11 N Attachment 9 ..J ::l cC a- t- z C III i; I c. i -,.'_.'~- J .J ~~~;_~_A!_~;~:;';J,r~ !' i,,~l il'~ " '~" i~it i. ,Ie '.! i;j\-, r'~' Cc( ,Ii, '-I dl(! . I, I "I L_"-,,0 "_ u_ ~I C:~l: a:: I ,. 'I '1; ~J '~Q:J ~I 'Z :3 i '-; ~>Ii ,~/",' Q! 1 ,;::/"~,, .. ~2, Ir'II'--"'_~- //r ..,..2';~,,~ L."::~ -;11WI.J . ~ _~ _._ fI i' . . .'W',,o:".'r .. I' ,~", l,.I ./11" '.:e;.^~".".' i.JI'~r-,~i;:-- 'I..'~ .....tJ'T. ;', lill/I';~"llr' . ~......_. I.'I.~_"-~\.' " I .. _ .. c"5" \~,,-\._~~ ll\!\ . , (/~;" '\'\.S~" ,::,--' 1\\ . . _.;.~ /" ~~?~~ l-t~'V& ":;"[9',... " , \ ,-\ I. OPEN SPACE '"it .. ~~I ~.'\'..~ " ~ ,,:s. " :'\, ~ I' ~ ,1- " "r " I , - ~~" ~'" " o \:. I. OPEN SPACE 44 11 N UTILITY PLAN Attachment 10 , L" l .i}- ,""" " ..' CARVER AVENUE --")c~v..~....... ~"'':'''ij' :--=-,-,-:,;~~"~ -,~:...:.. !~.;::.....,,: "'ti ;,,' iY/, , ,'-' ~.'''. . ,leI"' -~._-. ~_ 'L"v"1' 71/ . .............. I 1"1\ l ~' ,t ' 1 . ,j '" 'I.. .. I " , ',1 l " ~ 1,\ ".j,,\ I - ",. ~,ti'_; ':41'.' __ ___ 'lit!,. .ii\1 '\"1' \'I'~\o^'~'. -- ... ),,:"IIo,~' 11-1' '" ~ "/,1' 'll , -II.' -\.", , >-, \ ~)'!. ~ J 11 1/>' - .......-..-,' ~U' It::.r \ ~,1:?- I"'~ .1 1:1,'1/ -- ....../111'-- ~:;.:"~..\;~~- L. '<.- ((\l'ri' >If-flt; e,gT - _u _ 01" .' '~'~. ce.,_ . .~, 'L...:.i.! i~, / :! ;1 ce-.,''" \ 'II r! '/1 I' "t :::-.= ~' ..y"~( , 'rlJ~?{:~/ ~. . ~r ". -t. '.' / . '1L'i/-f././! i..J : ~8W 'lIP .J :7-- . ",,"~~'~,... >/y i1!;r I /j I~l ,( --. NIT NORm g,!~:~J/S-' " ~r/t/I,,/)j) , ' )f.. I.,,' , / #1/ 'i'. .''}' 10.1' ! -' ! )'i'1l M'~.;:i;(< ,II , , , . ,})!i Jt///.1. if J-r'., ' ! ! ;lINI! !//I1I\'[:' ", \.f it . ..:1.':</1 Ik/ I,/,','l. '..J ,(', "\."'." ,J,l/! /('1/ %/1;,\:";/1,,,, ..,,1,./1 ill I ;",v"'\"':!~~~i'^' '1'7/ '1/1 /ll~,-e- _" I '.1 ,:~7 tFq~I~.'~.,~....'~ , :~4!!,li0tlJ:' 'i.''':,.J1 / ,!t',l;jf1~I" ,J .A"I'~':~ ~ /' r~:fl/!' ';\2:~: ~ 'fi/il .f I / '.:i'" ~ / ../"Z........".'./ 'I'J~..:!....'.t!........'..'.i!... . I (.:,:.;: l~/ 1/:-::; ;'-.'> /i.1 I /"(/""> l.i.V Ii. / il;';' , '" ~r~I'/l!~~k ~! . V);! IV i71'., i ~ ~ t1!.;,!i;1/*T'~j : i~ ~ ~ ~{/#/l:ft~/-,---3. ill~O ~ V,'Y:/A' 1/01/ /~if '-7:f ~!!U I 7'" ,I II/)~V"; ./ ~...---~ ~ i3 1:1 i'll'1.,',1 'It r>-~ R f I!! 7 I #/ I f" ( . { (..--.- =--_ ~//... Ii //f:i,1ir~ ';', ,- -- II /ll i1,i1'1' \ \\~----- 't,~;~YJ{/;~ilf;;J;f,.~~; ~ ~ C-8 \. 1IEI! (KltIANCEo ...._._mY7U_ _fll 1IC1IIl&OT.....tIM'IKIH_..._lIlID~. -.....cIDOIlII'IlIICN."W101NlSNIIMJI!. 12.1'lO'IlIL__ONlIlL 1'1lII!!II!~a..a.AIiWI _~_lU!Jl: 1.m _~__ ._<_-..-m) "'I~TMD_. 71 ....--~.:;:,._~ .. -..---- TREE PRESERVATION PLAN . , 45 ~ N TREE PRESERVATION PLAN ...I ~ if I- Z < III -SA"VEJIl ....{Etu(~~. :\~" I - ~,'i' .KI"' :;1 ~~ <.i'I, " f1\'I, ' i!'11 . "il'r ;'1\-' .' ".,1 " " -1 II:t"W:t.n. ____P\IIOfCIIIIIl'IlCf'CltTtlJlC -""... .......I'I&IC-'-GP:-_r _____ JIlICIlIOml~.U1IJT1'IMDlIKT ___'-______ ~snlACKUIC _______I'fiOI'OIIDNGIlT_CIf'_'*'VC8l1llUC --~- ~~ ---- ~....- _..___..__ ~ UWlliI __ _, DU........-_ e:2Z'ZT.LZJ _n:ACIl:PS_'., r--.----.--., ---y--- I..._,._...,';"___..l (MIlOllIIo\- r aGIl"WI) Of1Il..t.CI....... l , ! , .J<l , .,,1' "" 1- , , ,- L..AtD .I.AI=&A -~- 0I'IM1I'IIlCt:~ luiIC, Z7.I1/IC t ;II J , , :i I i\ ~~ ' \iY C1 '" 'l'~' ~'f" ' , .-/" '. i I I I , , I ; j I I j I , 1'0000R&YIROIIL.Y PRELIMINARY NOT 'OA COKITAUCTJON 11/ I ' OPEN PLAN OPEN SPACE r-........rI r _ __ ..... -.."" .. SPACE ~ OPEN SPACE PLAN 46 Attachment 11 ..-.:1' """ ---/I !/ I~~ I ~< , 4' I , I / / , / / I ; --l----~L , / / I I I I , ;' I I j I -l I iil 5 l ~ . ~ ,,~ Ii 8 3 " ~. ~ ~: ~ i!; 1< ~ I it ~ ~ ! ill 2 ~ B ~ ,,!" - '1---- 0-___ -- . -- - __ 1oM_ ..., ,~.... .- _It C-Q 10 of 13 11 N Attachment 12 PROPC..a:::::r"". TFEE DATAl flIII1IIlITOlIl1mS 1.7 """""AL'fMD 20 =r=..r=.n YMD ftlED \f, 101'Al.l'JlOPOSEDmD """'i4i . ."0" ~"i~~RVER~"A~~'~""" --" L '- -< '!l~,j I " _ r _ ,,'- " Ii:;' ~ I, I ,; II l~ i . [" '1"1' tl "j l" i r I I I' ~ _ \ , :"':1, Ill!',! ~ ,I' I".! : 1'1 I,d)...- 'I ~ L I "";~:f':'; 1-]"1, I!dli ,'. 1" ,1'1' e:'.1 ii, CI'';''~11.] '0,\1"".1' :~; __r,:' ~ ". I 0''-;''/ zl'l ft.'II~. . ..JIll lIl:i':I' -"'::::"; O~L )', I -I "'f-::-'Olr'J - I ".j I - I r ..,~ I I \ T I I - 1 ',1'I\:I~" 'I' ' 1\ I "I. - I " pi \ < I '\ ',\ \'0,. f . - ':\. '.' 'I " " '\, ., ;>~, N, II'" ......1. . V>), I nEE SUMMARY, TOT~,=~~TO . TOTALIlGMflCAIfTElQSI'INCl1llEES TO............ nrTAlI'llllPOlilD11lED TOTAl. M\lWIII Of' TIlEES QCEEDlND OIlOltWlCE KQUlIlEM[HT -'II '" ... ... ~ PR;;'"' ""'" 0 'o,";~/MIN"'Y . o...,,,,,,~y - - ~i ",.:.c .',~' ,:><:./..~~.~ ~-~. ~ MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN 47 IE ... ::II ~ ~ " t: 8; ! ~. El ! z . ~ 3 ~ Ii! i I ~Ij I 1111 ~ - ,-~ QDn_.... J-"""'c:rrr_ _If -. -- - -~ . . -,- ,..... -" 1.-1 110113 1I N Attachment 13 1t ,-,':"1< _ " , \ L .....t... ,A, \ ,/ \ \," ". > ~,,>> ~. .~:~~".'~v ,-- \ "'-, j, /- ""-, v~,~_ ' />~'~<:~t~f!~ <C, [''' ',',' ~/I'>"', :-,' 6 I} '-, " ' -"',-,;/ - ...--- ...-....- { -- .. -- .. -- -... - ,.... ... _II L-2 1 of 13 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN ._ ,...< n'{ ." ....w.\N[>.~. 1"\'.~0o'''''''' ~o,.f . ... - ..... .... -- .... 48 \r N ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN (NORTH ONE-HALF) r;"'~".~;i ~. )IL;, ...~-,."' ;, ,",",;'. ' ,:::,,::, ~-- :.;,," i;':',::':':' II'? : $\11 : 0:,') , N~'" ~;:;:~..:X:' .' ---!;'-''''~:Y:':'-'- ('.i_'::.-;.:-;...... , . ~".""l' . ! " , . "-,- /,--,-' : ~, ... ... ... ...... - -... SEED PLANTING NOTES: .~ ;.N!II;w.s -> _ ~ <<IIlIUIDRlfIlIII'IOMta.lWNINllWlllNll~ ~T~~~&lllAA~:'~-': ....lPIJIII~1.2.lOlNIUIII:iIIlIM-.mSEEDlNew.'illNll(. IU.alSIIDGIAMo\l'MfHlIIII/DCJI'T'I'I'I:S(lQl,c:amnmWUOI'II!E) IU.CtIATAIl#lft11F2'1ON1l'EllIICIIIIIIIIN-48IDA1SIlFSIIIINl MUHIIlOl.UlTHDI.DIC.lfDKND1l)IlUl'Il"____, 1VIIt1llIlll/llO'l'woec_"",~IfIi1ll.l..QlOMOf'H'IIllIO-SUll. taDlCaWJ..N'I'UIDflllllUAPlLlll_.u.yZOOlll ~JO-I'IIIIZI~ IflOIll:lIEDCIHOlI.DUlI.m:~_IW.UlflSOI ........- ,lll.l.1Iol.1IIC'SllDlUIIBlONMlI'IIlJal1'SH,aU.K ClJmnIIIl'O.ClI'~_""1IC_ ~_MIIOaA'IlOM(WCM). _lO._....~l'tIl'IDl.1l)... .......oarI'MaF:J ItCHES. M:1lII1O.1IlMDIIm0ll1WClD1'tlU.OWIlio ~~1HDll'IICKEDu.llI"'CUl.1I-NC:I<EItOll _SUIlID_iJI'-.rulNI,_NlD ~._lO~A~Y _irTNGOf''llClIl'mFlIII-.s1IIm. ........ IMtAllrMDUIiIJlIr:n.JII4AllI'.lfClSKllLKNDIUlID, IInInUZIDAMlllDA.UllED'lHNMRXlI'4IllTAlMCCMltlS .....ACIIIWD. IIaUllMSlW.LClNlllIIIlNllU.llDI'ECISlO 'lttDI~fN[CClIfIMl:fOll8tW.L__1IMIMl! lO'IIlI_.....______/Olt~. ~~~.===._r_=1I0CClJllS. ..::~.T/lIlEIUIIlOrllNI)_1tC IUallIa _ __.. __ WTUflD 'oWliIEIIlJIDN- ~~~ -=-~lO~~~ACIlI IUD'UIIlflfl.25lOlNIUIlIElIOflECllYI'l.DI:SUIlH:lCCMMilli:. lIM.CH-MlM_IIII/IlO1''M'l:J(WCIllClllllNDWUOI'lU) IlULCHJIIAlWIl1FllllNPlltACIII:_4oIHOI..NOI'SUDIlC. IILtal SHOWl..... *NIHlllEIllOlIW'lt _a.oatll _'I'. MnRlOlIII,Il;IarsPa:3114nlRlWil'IJIlftMJ.Q1DIlr61Mll1Q-SUD. __8tW.L."""'UID_-'lll_MV:aoOlt ~20-""'~ IMlMlIIIllIG!IIlI.UUIIJZI~_IIIWIHIClI' ........- AU.1MM....UllDONMll'IIOm:l'tIMU.. CIllff1IDlIl.(#__".,1llI:_ ....~ASIOCIdKlIf(WCM). ~lO.""""''''~1ONClI.lOA ......IIII'IIIClI'J lNCIG. 'lClllIlO.IIlINI:MEDClltlWDP'CIU.OWlNO :""~1HDlMaClDllIIlCACIL1I-l'IlICICICll _IUIlBlMDSfIt'lM1DllMlL-.ulIIIONtD ~.IlEllDSiIflJ1ll~Al.tM:IIM..Y _Sl'NGOI'fHI:PICIND~1IfIL ........ ~~~~~-=. NM~IIDIIDIIllSIW.LCllNftIIl...<rIJ.llISI'ICr.IlO 1tCII~lHECONIIliJIICImI.SlW.LlI!NIIMfr_ 1OlNI_-...s~~_~~. "llClNINC'IOfl-"'IVMl-'~-, IlDIIllIC,tJC,.Alte::DWn'.IIJIOIII:~_OCCIMI. IIV-_"'." __llMIoMDEN MIM NJ IS USlDI'OltSUlllllI'CltllNIIIIEIDNlDS. TlISN'PUD1OSEIllTYPE lWa_wrDClII,IIUl.CHM'I._ANDIClHOOM-.u.ASoIIU. CRHIII~ClGIIIMG.......1'tM. =j,~~~":~usl'O-' =:~~FllllM"""I-a'JaaOll lIlLCtllllDED..../fIlHElliQ'I~2'lON1l'1ltllCM. IlULCIl tt__CIlIIUl'l'_,.1iU.CH,NlIIM:_1IIUI..QI,011 CUM_ IIUl.CH _"'IlOUIlS~-.o. ESIIIlID -... no ........ -.uHNll MClIUUImNG -1O~"~arNKSfNe~lHE .................. __1'MJN01O_,.1llIfII-....1IUIIIlID, IlPIIlNJDDAND-.utCD'-7OlICVIlIIrAlMl_. MllI'ACNlWD. .....-...CClNI'OIIM..oIIU.--.::TS1O ....~ MOClH1'MCftIIlttWJ._NrrlWMGt: lOJllE__IlIla.DlaFllllMDlllSIlII~IlIUIJIl.lDIf. L~ru-~.===:~.:&.:;OcwIIS. lfGfNO' *XXX NEW LOCATJOH fOR. RELOCATED TREES. NUWIEIlS CORRESPOND WITH ME mSOVATlON ItLAH ~ ~ LANDscAPE M; NUW8ER .1 FImN1' YAltD RED TO . PROVIO[J) IN THIS AREA- AUTUMN ILAZE WAPI..[, 'ALJ.GOLD. ASH, SKYUNE HONffiOCUST. REDMOND UNOEN NORTHERN PIN OAk, lUCK HIlLS SPRI.ICE, OR NORWA'" PINE LANDSCAPE AREA. NUW8ER 2 FItONT YARD TREES 10 . PROVlOm IN THIS Nl(A- NORThWOOOS RED IMrLE. SUt.MT SEEDLESS ASH, PAPER BIRCH. UTTl.D..EAf' UNDEH. SWAllP WHITE OAK,. OR COlOJWlO aut. SPtWCE ~ PLANTING NOTES: -_l'IlIOItlOlIUIlUfftlOlDlOlIIl:iOMICllNP!.DUV__sm: -- IlSl'ALL.OIllll. LlaC 1llIfI'1ll.<rIJ.alll, SEIllMCl-..1MM. fKGIWl(.<rIJ. -- SWII:OIIWAl11l.<rIJ.PI.Na"lIWDMI.l.ClC.QlDNIl'IicllIIlllllSllltJ.AllllN1IJM[ O'aNUtSlCPlIISiNTAlNI-..a<<ALLSIMllCPfIllIIIlO~ :t:=..m~~~~~~~.:.= _1lJIl:II:_0II.......,..1IQlML.. 1GlM.L""'l"lIEP'IH_lWlOWOOIIuuu::tIMlOl.Nl_SAUCUlt#ALL llIUSlIDlAI!Dl'lIIOMPUflfIEllSANDIIALLPElIDlIM.IIDL ,..."..-..ttWJ.CDNSISfor_SII.Il:JLaMlYllll'SlII.zal'fllf....._ "'.. .... COMPl.!IILVGIlIWHlUNJ.WIIllKI'OltAPEIIOOOIONl!WM_1lT1HI! DIm: OIf.llCCU'tlllC(. "'JlLlIIEPUoCDIDfrIl'IIOIPlLV (AI PrIllll'ECllOH 0If _. =r.~~~0II~1OAlX:II"WICIt#flC-.q lNIawtCllSIlrl'NXN!1iJM1lalDM31H1ElIlOIfI'lOlW.III::r_l'UNT~ -......- ALL IMlDML SIW.L alMPlV -.nt lHE lAlUI' BlI1lON 0I1H!.~ STNCWID AlII: ItJRSElI'YSlOQC.M&IQIftNJSOCWlONOINll1lS11MlEll NJ.1I'lUflIlIHCSSlW..L.'MW'l'III_IIlllWNCIl!PE1I'lUlIJW'.~Y"'" II ItlMWIIERNlD 1lIWlM.......... - AND _.<rIJ.1'IANf w.mlIIlS AND 100 UNIL_M:CCPWa. _1ifNOfXlS\'1O_AU._1O~1IISUl1lNll_ -- QoU. __ SWI: GIC AT 1II'-<f.5+-OClD2 AND AlII: LllCQINO..u. uraRMaIHl UfIJIaRlDSIW.L__lOUfIJI1D0I.N<<l1HlCOUllSl~1NI'/J011K, IlEPAIItNrr_lOlII'UIU,sm:SIlIJCI\JIIU,m:..IlE!I.UJlG~ -- ~'IEJISlotU.QlQN'MIHGIENrllM.ClllIYIUICmlIt. SJ__atIIMlIOIfllllDQOIIlJIIIiLI ~lXII'IIIIACIOItiMUJ.__ PUlIBl!SSOI'lIIIISI'OltIlUWltlNOI'WWWflYPIIIIllD. MD'NIlI....AI.L......SIJlIfACDNClIIDICJI\I!ALLDlllllIIDIJl..1lNllPJlCll -- SPPlYIlDIGNAfIl NmlL\TIDN~""1IIII:WlClN1"Wl 'IlII101l1 CCMMIlI PUt SOO___AlDS. SOO_......MrM'lO.ON_lI2DICS. UK _OII__IIQl.W.CC\OIIClN,lI'MIHQ.C. LANOSCA SCH U .. .. -...- ...- -- -.-'-.,. .- " M -- ...- ........ --- . . ~- ...- ........ -- . ~ ~..-~~o__ ...- ........ , ~ -- ...- =-- --""""'" , ~ M_ ...- =-- -- , .. -- ...- ........ -- , M -- ...- ........ _.~--- " .. ==- ...- =-- -- -- " ~ -- -- .- -- -- .. .. --- -- --- " .. -- -- .- -- -- " . -- -- -- . .. -- -- .- -- ---- -- . . --~ r_ -- .- . .. - r_ -- A........._ __ .- =r"'- -~ -- :':u~ IOwmNO DlTAlL LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS ~_I'WmNG on.... 49 Attachment 14 r- COPAR com.e~.!!! ALLlANT ENGINEERING ,........,.,.. ~ 1!M'Il- - -~- - -,,, 'I)' I' j w {:il~ :ijl fll h I ! lL ~ III ::> III !z ... '" ... 9 ~ ~ Q Q ~o ~ 8 Q iI!. ... ~;:; z ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ Q ... o .~:Ii ... c>.~ ~ i! ~~ ~ ril tl r'" ~ ~ d ~ ~ I~ ~ .. Q ~ z ... - 7-7_CUOII'~. 7____ QfI' COJIImIn; -.. -.. ..- - -- ~ ~ ~,- ,.... -" L-2 12 of 13 Attachment 15 OPEN SPACE / , izl) 'B! "','., ii i i ./ ,... ./ " il,'.I ".)'" 'P~'..ij -...... ,I /1 I / ' / ' I" ! ii, " ;"';';' I /' 1/ I /: .......! ".,'. " r'.H.I_ . ........-r __ ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN ....~.~ ~~'P-"i ~\..\,,^\~~.,c>I ?~1fol'ooo#> ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN (SOUTH ONE-HALF) 50 \r N Attachment 16 'I' . ., , 'L 0 - 1,+" - i. ..,-f-~ ~ - # ~ - (------ i,"\~ /- '// j {: - \. ('(j' J' i /;' - t Ii . , '-M~~_ /', I :, '~i / I I I' \ t" .. " . 7 J I .. i'~ : : .. :':,l/fJ. 1: : ,~ ,:: '~f! ~: "'>7'" ,~tI )' , " i I I.,.~ ~" ,l t "J - .ii li'l .1",..../ ""I( \ l:jJ,iYi' ';/ <J,"I, ./ If ; , .' // f'1 (\.~; /;" ,I;' " "'j "/ C-""';' ~i , "V" '.' I /f" / &%Z' '<1' .::/ /1/" l/v : IE ~;:;lfgJl;,~#Ecji//--#~t:l : : .. \.'If 1/ . ;Ir . I,/l IjfhklG [I'! ' -" / -,. 'j' /" w i~i/~ ~i7( ~ WI ."'IIIT . . I " 55 .. OJ LEGEND: .XXX .., _TH EZJ.....,.... ......'.... ..........-. ......... O"",i ....1 I'~"\\\'" ....\ p.~ ", \~Iy\N\~\.....uc,"I\O>l o\,\Y, I' co>lS' \ >10' fO F="l,'. " L..::.-=J LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE .. 'A ~1WR --............ __. '-'a" .~ '..flLGOU) ASH ~ ,... 'FaIgaIcI" ~~ ~~ """.~'::'~"_' A~_ .....""'" .... - ~^=- ... ............... ,... 1\IbnlIm' .,.,....,. SUMI' ASH _ " . AadnuI "",~"OIlIOG ~ ....... ~ ~ 2.15- ... -- 2 -- 2.1-" -- aI -- :::l ....... -- III -- 2.11- ... -- "" -- Z 1.5." -- W -- ::I ....... -- IL -- 9 1.6.... ==-=-- W ....... -- ... ~ -- ....... -- ... e -- > . I'''' -- .. t: -- e ~ z ~ ... -.... g :::l -- ~ -- ~ e ~ ... -- OJ W ~... -- .. z .. z -- IL .. j z ~... -- <( ... j -- ::I ~ IL ~ IL " ... .... e 0 .... z W 2"..... -- !ZS <( IL -- ~ CI -III -.- Z ~i S III 14- 1fI'.. CCINJ'. u_ Ei !;:2 e 2.- cu.. CDNT -.- IL ~ n_ . . ~ ~Q ~ 1 M. COHI'. (.) i5~ <( e It: :J z w 1 M.. CONI'. 2 CI W "'2 It: t Q\LCONl'. ~ ~'" ::J j 55 w <( It: Z ION- ctINf. (.) lillil IL w u. III . ~IQ ..-n .........- "'.- ..... ......-... "'*' ...... denMbi CClUllWlOSPOUClt ......,....- """",,,I'IHE -- """"'.... -- " _,..__u 'IIIn'lII MMDE 1M:I: IJLAC a.UMP .,..... NIou" ...........,.- ...........SpI.ndar' ...... -- Spna n/fIpoftIoI ~ .............. ....... .... "'--' .......... ..... mil .- -- ..... ........ c.. ~ 'lCcwl r..... 5ID.l.A Ol!: ORO ~Yl.l.Y H. ..... DI Ora' MI)OH ME IWLLY H..,....... Me' .. ~EW LOCATIO~ FOR RELOCATED TREES. ~UMBERS CORRESPO~D WITH TREE PRESERVATION PLAN LANDSCAPE AREA NUWBER1 FRONT YAlID TR[ES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- AUruMN BWE lW'lE. FoW.OO\.O ASH. SKYUNE HONEYLOCUST. REDIIONO UNDEH NORTHERN PIN OAK. BlACK HILLS SPRUCE. OR NORWAY PIN[ l.f.NDSCAPE AREA NUU'ER 2. nlDNT YARD TREES TO BE' PROVIOl:D IN THIS AREA- NORTHWOODS REO IIAPU. SU....IT SEEOUSS .lStt. PAPER BIRCH. UTTLELEAf' UNDEM. SWAMP WHITE OAK. OR c:oLOlWlO BLUE SPIlUCE lANDSCAPE AREA NU11IERS FllONT YARD TR[ES TO IE PROVIDED IN THIS />SIU,- SUGAlt ....PLE. PATIIORE ASH. PriER IIRCN. IOUUVARD UNOEN. REO OAK. OR AUSTRIAN PINE .......... 7-7-01 QJINT sulMmM. 7-21-01 CIIY COMWIN11 ..... " _If OAT< ...... SCAll JOt NO.- .. .. J-.J'_ 1- ... 040111 L-3 13 of 13 51 1! N LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS , ::<'.4 .,' '-.-.-,,'-'--'--- --z,l-f 1.{5 "1t-\ ;, \ Attachment 17 ii' rv If I:.':;;'" I" l- .:~ ~': (./ " g-J ~o~ #04'1(1. 0 .._ ~f1'I;"fI'\ ~:.#"(~;r>~';; T 112' ~e_dVii~~~{;" .!~~1F ,-\.._..,e__ (.,T' I Hi /1 .,f '" ,",~, ",...-50-;-\) <, It! / '.-" ': i'&!.' ..\~,,, ~ 1_'.4 li!\:.'~'U-' :~I /.-') \f>,',r~!\, ,., , 'I ' , . \ .' ~ 'E~j .x .l?82.95 ,{;.' . \;;t" ;; ,. }i',:J'-~' - --( '.... -' ij\ I" ';~'~i. . r '" ~ " . ~ '.~ , t/ ~' 1'-'-- Ir /'''-I! i1 t !\: ,ii ;",) />:, r\ , <.-., l/ /' " ."~ \." ,..-" ~!-.- 52 -W;-'r':~ i'.' ,. i 892L17 ,. ~u/rP ,., ,-.: " ~- . " ,...:i';S , ~, '.,' 7_/":' L:.l;f ..\-- " '-~,I. . " :. :'"')" -:;\ Attachment 18 AGENDA REPORT DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Ken Roberts, Planner Carver Crossing (formerty CoPar Development) - City Project 05-07 - Resolution for Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) June 29,2006 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION On March 14, 2005, the Maplewood City Council authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development of the former Schlomka property. The CoPar Development Company has proposed a housing development for the site that they are calling Carver Crossing. One of the City's consultants, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. (KHA), completed the EAW and staff routed and distributed the document for public comment. The City received several comments about the EAWand staff distributed responses to those comments to the city council for the June 12, 2006 meeting. (Please refer to that document for reference). Staff is recommending that the city review the comments and responses in the context of applicability toward the final development plan. Based on comments and responses to the EAW and at the Public Hearing at the May 15, 2006, planning commission meeting, the developer is revising the development proposal to a project with a lesser number of units and thus a lower density. Staff is recommending that the city council proceed with a finding of fact about the EAW. Staff believes that the development impacts reviewed by the EAW and the entire EAW process represent the "worst-case" scenario for possible impacts. It is important to note that a revised development proposal by the applicant will need to implement all the findings of this process and will most likely have a lesser impact on the site and the area than those identified in the EAW. Finally, staff is recommending approval of the negative declaration. Background The City Council ordered the EAW for this project area due to concerns about the possible impacts that the originally proposed 386-unit development might have on the area. At the time of the order for the EAW, staff suggested that the EAW might provide significant findings that could require a substantial revision to the project plans. The EAW found significant issues with the first site development plans, and the developer has been cooperative in revising their project plans to address the environmental concems. The long preparation time (over 1 year) for the EAWand development plan process is due to the EAW findings and because of developer revisions to the project plans. The findings in the EAW required the developer to reduce the original unit count from 386 units to the current analyzed plan of 299 units. The 299 units are consistent with the lowest development level provided within the Maplewood Land Use Plan at 4.1 units per acre. The developer is now considering revising the project plans to further reduce the number of units on the site to a number under 200 units. The City can complete the EAW analysis at the higher unit count (299 units) with all the findings kept in place. On June 12, 2006, the City Council started their review of the EAW. After two hours of testimony and questions, the council tabled action on the EAW until July 10, 2006. The council requested staff get more information about a series of questions that were raised during the council meeting. We have prepared a list of those questions and the answers to them and have attached that additional information to this report. 53 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Two Background on EAW Process The City Council reviewed the EAW comments and responses at the June 12, 2006, meeting, and they raised several questions about the EAW and to the responses provided by staff. There are several main items for discussion on the site: . Woodlands: The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland in the 73+ acre site. The project proposes to change 15.4 acres of these woodlands. Woodland impacts will be mitigated according to city ordinance up to 10 trees per acre. A total of 215 new trees will be required to be planted. . Wetlands: The project includes four wetland complexes covering 7.32 acres of the site. This is the major issue that required significant revisions to the original site plan. The current proposal only impacts 0.2 acres which will be mitigated on site with 0.43 acres of new wetland. Additionally, the developer has proposed features that will provide for Mure enhancement of the existing wetlands which have been degraded by area construction activity, namely from the 1-494 freeway. This change provides for a much improved site plan. . Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and public water are readily available to this site from Carver Avenue and extensions of these utilities were constructed in previous years in Dorland Road and Heights Avenue. The city has been planning for sewer extensions for this property since the mid- 1980s. Staff is recommending that any development of this parcel connect to the sanitary sewer system to avoid environmental impacts to the Fish Creek system due to failing septic systems. A lift station may be necessary to pump some of the sewage from this site to the Carver Avenue system. The city needs to study the sanitary sewer plans for the area to determine the location and sizing of this lift station. The area to the east of this site (on the southeast side of 1-494) is currently unsewered. The city has planned this area as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to have sanitary sewer at some point in the next 5-30 years. The proposed lift station within the Carver Crossing Development will help provide sanitary sewer service to this area. As part of the construction of the lift station, there is a need to install a crossing pipe under 1-494 to the eastem side of the freeway. The construction of this is necessary at this time as part of this development to avoid major disruption of the Carver Crossing site and to Henry Lane when the homes and roadways are in place. This will provide sanitary sewer to the eastern side of the freeway. This sewer extension is disturbing to some of the existing residents of this area, many of whom have large lots and septic systems. There are property owners on the east side of 1-494 that have expressed an interest in developing their property, and the sewer extension will provide them the ability to develop. This sewer extension under the freeway has the potential to be a very controversial issue. From an engineering standpoint, iflwhen the city approves the Carver Crossing development, a lift station is required. As part of that project, the lift station must have the sewer pipe constructed under the freeway as part of the construction to avoid huge costs and disruption in the Mure. . Traffic: The EAW reviewed traffic generation and effects from a proposed development that was going to be for those 55 and older. Such a development should create less traffic than one open to persons of all ages. The consultant has analyzed the site both with and without traffic reductions, and the conclusions on the necessary improvements are the same for both. The engineer's analysis concludes that some tum lanes and expansion are required on Carver Avenue at the entrance and at the McKnight-Garver intersection. All other impacts are within acceptable 54 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Three standards, except the Bailey Road-Sterling Street intersection, which is currently failing. This intersection is within Newport (Washington County) and should be scheduled for improvement. The traffic from this development does not have significant impact on that intersection. A property owner on the north side of Carver Avenue expressed a concern about the proposed location of Henry Lane as it could affect his house and property. The developer is exploring relocating Henry Lane to the west to lessen or avoid the possible impacts. . Storm water issues: The developer is proposing to have this project meet the highest level of retention and treatment applied within the City of Maplewood. A majority of the site will exceed the infiltration of flows for over 90% of the storms within the area. This will provide infiltration of storm events of up to 2.5 inches of rainfall. Current standards within other developments, such as Legacy Village, provided for infiltration of only the 1.O-inch storm event. The impacts on Fish Creek on the receiving water bodies have been reduced to a minimal to negligible amount. This critical issue related to impacts of phosphorus and suspended solids is part of the City's current plan to meet the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements placed on Maplewood (along with 29 other communities in Minnesota) to reduce drainage for quantity and quality to pre-1988 levels. The analysis of this site shows that drainage within the development should meet this requirement with the increased standards. . Noise: This site is now impacted by freeway noise and many locations within the property exceed the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise standard. This is fairly common for suburban developments located next to or near major roadways. The proposed mitigation is to provide climate-controlled units and increased wall insulation. In addition, any outside common areas need to be located on the wes1 side of buildings (away from the freeway). The developer also is considering constructing a berm along 1-494 as part of the final site design. These elements should reduce future residents' exposure to traffic noise and provide the City with a reasonable response to the freeway noise issue. As part of the developer revisions, they are considering implementing berms with trees and other noise mitigation measures to further address this issue. . Wildlife Concems: This site has wildlife noted in many areas. The developer has considered providing numerous areas of protection under the current proposal. Obviously much of the wildlife in the area has relocated to this site due to other development in the area. Some of the wildlife species in the urban area have exploded due to the removal of many of the natural predators. The City and Ramsey County have needed to harvest numerous deer from this area due to over- population. Due to the exis1ence of many acres of open space in this area and their general mobility, the wildlife experts do not believe that development of this parcel will have significant impacts on the urban wildlife of the area. . Parks and Open Space Issues: There has been a proposal from area residents that suggests retention of this property as open space/parks area. The Parks Directors from Maplewood and from Ramsey County indicate that there is significant park/open space in the area. These include county open space adjacent to the south and west sides of the site, the county-owned open space along Fish Creek and a city-owned open space immediately north of Carver Avenue. Staff is not recommending any revisions to open space borders or the addition of park land in the area. 55 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Four EAW and Development Process Schedule City Council Received EAW/Authorizes Publishing March 13,2006 Planning Commission Received EAW March 20, 2006 Neighborhood Meeting (6:00-8:00 PM @ Fire Station) March 30, 2006 EAW Comment Deadline April 12, 2006 Planning Commission Received Response to Comments May 15, 2006 Development Plans to Planning Commission/Public Hearing May 15,2006 City Council Determines Need for EIS June 12, 2006/July 10, 2006 Staff revised the Findings of Fact document for the proposed Carver Crossing project in Maplewood to reflect the comments/concems raised at the May 15, 2006, planning commission meeting. Additionally, staff added clarifying language to the document to explain that their action does not constitute "approval" of the project, but rather a determination that the project would not result in significant impacts, and that the EAW adequately discloses impacts and defines mitigation for future permits/approvals. The proposed action defined in the Findings document is consistent with what was proposed in the EAW, with slight modifications to reflect specific mitigative measures. There is reference in the document that the developer is currently exploring a site plan that would reduce the number of units within the project and thus the density on the site. However, staff did not amend the EAW analysis to reflect that potential change. In other words, staff did the environmental review based on a "worst- case' development scenario of 299 housing units. To help further clarify the issues and concems about the EAW and the possible affects from development, staff prepared a list of questions raised at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting and a response to each of those questions. This additional information is attached to this memo. EAW Requirements on Timeline The requirements on the City Council as the Regulatory Govemmental Unit (RGU) provided by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) are that a decision on the EAW by the RGU is required within 30 days of the conclusion of the comment period, which ended on April 12, 2006. A 30-day extension is allowed due to "insufficient information,' which has been applied to this process. Therefore, the City Council is required to make a determination on the project. There is not enough information to require the more detailed information required as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EAW process has identified significant decision and development changes that the developer will now have to make part of any future development plan for the site. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution that finds that the EAW adequately addresses the environmental impacts of development of this parcel, applies the findings to any future development proposals for the site, and finds that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted. The Planning Commission, while not providing a positive recommendation on the development plan, recommended on May 15, 2006, that the city council make the negative declaration finding on the EAW. 56 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Five RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution. This resolution approves the negative declaration on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Development, City Project 05-07. P:sec24-28/calVer crossing EAW report (2) - june 2006 Attachmenls: 1. Resolution on Negative Declaration 2. Questions and Responses from June 12, 2006 meeting 3. MRCAC Map 57 RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION CalVer Crossing of Maplewood Project City of Maplewood, Minnesota WHEREAS, CoPar Development LLC is the proposer of the Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project; a senior housing development with up to 299 units on approximately 70 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the general boundaries of the Carver Crossing project can be described as about 702 acres of land to the west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.0500; and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1300; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board distribution list; and WHEREAS, the notification of the EAW was published in the Minnesota EQB Monitor on March 13,2006; and WHEREAS, the public review and comment period remained open until April 12, 2006; and WHEREAS, a public informational meeting was held for the project on March 30, 2006, in the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, the comments on the EAW were received and responded to; and WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact/Response to Comments document was reviewed at the May 15, 2006, City of Maplewood Planning Commission meeting: and WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact/Response to Comments document reviewed by the Planning Commission has been revised to reflect clarification/revisions to specific impact analyses; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood Planning Commission recommended a Negative Declaration determination for the proposed action evaluated in the EAW; and WHEREAS, the proposed project under evaluation in this EAW reflects a worst case level of analysis in terms of density of residential development; and WHEREAS, the record considered by the City Council for purposes of its decision herein consists of the EAW, related reports and analysis, the comments received thereon, and the responses to such comments, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part of this decision; and WHEREAS, the proposed development will undergo subsequent reviews and required approvals associated with permits identified in this document; and 58 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood will work with the developer to determine the feasibility and the effectiveness of additional noise mitigation to the west of 1-494; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, acting with respect to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Project of Maplewood, that it finds and concludes the following: 1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700; and 2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained; and 3. The Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit A (attached) are made; and 4. Based on criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, and the Findings of Fact, the Project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects; and 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the City of Maplewood therefore makes a "Negative Declaration". The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on July 10, 2006. 59 Response to Carver Crossing EA W Questions/Concerns from June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting A number of questions were raised at the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting about the Carver Crossing EAW and the draft Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision document. The following is a summary of the questions along with a response to each question. Mavor LOD2rie Q: Is this project within the Mississippi River Critical Area? A: Yes, a portion ofthe site is contained within the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA). A figure illustrating the MRCA boundaries as it relates to the proposed site is attached for reference. The state has confirmed these boundaries and they are different from those included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. As staff assumed that the entire project was assumed to be within the Critical Area boundaries during the EA W evaluation, the project's consisteney with the Policies and Guals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan were applied to the entire project area. Q: If so, who has to be involved, as far as governmental agencies and/or entities, when it comes to development within the Mississippi River Critical Area? A: The Approval/Permit table included on Page 31 of the Findings Document identifies required actions by the MnlDNR, Metropolitan Council. and the City of Maplewood. Q: Did the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnIDNR) specifically address those issues of the EA W with regard to the things they would have to review? A: The MnlDNR requested that they be included in the Approval/Permit table included on Page 31 of the Findings Document. Q: How many projected trees are to be removed from the site in the "worst case" scenario? A: The EA W identifies that up to 467 significant trees on the project site would be removed. Marv Dierich (Presentinl! Planninl! Commission Summary) Q: Should we even develop this area? A: The EA Wand Findings Document summarize the current land use and zoning for the project site. The existing land use plan designation gnides the site for R-l (single dweUing) development. The developer relied on this designation when purehllslng the property and when developing project plans for the site. Since the property is now privately owned, the owner/developer has rights to use and develop the property, subject to the approval of the city and aU other necessary agencies. 60 Q: Is development a foregone conclusion? A: The City's comprehensive plan guides for residential development on the project site. The proposed development will require various City approvals before it can proceed to construction. Q: Do we have the infrastructure to support it and do we have the density? A: The traffic analysis conducted as part of the EA W identifies roadway improvements to accommodate the proposed development. In tenns of sanitary, water, and stonn sewer improvements, the EA W defines the required utility improvements to accommodate the proposed development. The City has been planning for the extension of sanitary sewer to this site for many yean. The sewer is readily available in Carver Avenue and in Heights Avenue to serve this area. The Findings Document (page 28) presents the findings ofthe revised traffic analysis to reOect comments made by the Planning Commission. Q: Sewer extension issues: septic failure character of neighborhoods the prevention of subdivision infrastructure to protect the environmentally sensitive land A: See response above. The City has been planning a sanitary sewer extension for this site. Q: Should we (the City) overturn what was just decided on 3 years ago regarding the land use and zoning? A: The EA W process defines the current land use and zoning designations for the project site, in relation to what the developer is proposing. The City's land use plan currently gnides the site for R-I residential development (which allows up to 4.1 units/acre). The EA W indicates that the City would need to amend the land use designation to R-3(L) for the 299-unit development plan, and that the City would require a CUP for a PUD. The proposed development also could require a change to the zoning map, from R-IR (Rural Residential) and F (Fann Residence) to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential). City stafT has reviewed the criteria defined in the City code about zoning changes. The proposed zoning map change would meet the criteria listed in the City Code. As indicated in the Findings Document (page 4). the project proposer is currently evaluating revised site plans that would reduce the density of development on the project site. The developer has indicated that the revised project plans would meet the density and land use standards of the R-I (single dwellings) land use designation. The negative declaration finding does not mean that the city has approved a project or development. H the city detennines that a zoning or land use amendment is required for the project. the city wiD require the developer to go through the appropriate local 61 approval processes. The city council may and does change the land use and zoning designations for properties when the council decides that the proposed changes would meet city policies and standards and when such changes would be in the public interest. The city reviews and considers each change proposal on a case-by-case basis. Q: Will the neighborhood character be changed? A: The city has guided the land in question for residential development. Hence, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation. The EA Wand Findings Document discloses that the proposed project would change the existing character of the parcel, from a semi-rural, low-density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban-style. mixed-use residential development with public sewer and water. Such a development would be consistent with many of the recently constructed residential developments in this part of Maplewood, including the single-family subdivision adjacent to the site to the west. Q: Is this an environmentally sensitive enough area to warrant more study through the environmental impact statement (EIS) process? A: The Findings Document goes through the four criteria that the city is to be review as the Responsible Goverumental Unit (RGU) in making that determination. The recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission and City staff, based on the findings of the EA W, is that the proposed project would not warrant study through an EIS. Q: The proposal to remove 467 existing trees was a big deal to the Planning Commission. There have been a lot of questions about what sizelkinds of trees would be included in the mitigation. A: The Findings Document provides additional infonoation pertaining to the tree replacement plan ~iated with the proposed project. The project's landseaping plan identif"res the specific type and size of trees proposed on the site. The new deciduous trees would be at least two and one-half inches in diameter and would be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples and other native species. The new coniferous trees would be at least eight feet taU and a mix of Austrian pine. Black Hills spruce and other species. Q: Concerns over wetland issues, i.e. Fish Creek. Can we improve the wetland through the development process? A: The EA Wand Findings Document provides infonoation pertaining to wetlands on site, the potential impact (0.2 acre), proposed mitigation (0.43 acre) and overaU wetland enhalkements ~iated with the project (e.g. rain gardens). Q: Soils are a major concern. How stable are the Fish Creek watershed banks? What is the conservation easement on that land? What is the conservation easement on the Mississippi River overlay area? 62 A: The EA Wand Findings Document summarizes the soils on the project site, as well as mitigation measures. The Findings Document (Page 16) references the developer's commitment to conduct a geotechnical investigation on the site. As referenced in the Findings Document (page 9), the developer has agreed to provide a ISO-foot-wide conservation easement along Fish Creek. The goals and policies set forth as part of the Mississippi River Critical Area do not specif"lcally callout a requirement for a conservation easement. The Findings Document (page 14) summarizes each ofthese goals and policies and the proposed projects compatibility with them. Q: Traffic/noise consumed about 1/3 of the Planning Commission discussion. EAW noise/traffic statistics were based on a 1999 study. The Planning Commission did not feel that those issues were appropriately addressed because of the outdated data. The area where traffic was going is a concern. 80"10 of traffic going down Sterling is going to a failed intersection in another county (Washington.) Carver Avenue is not suitable for any load of traffic. It is a difficult area with no place for infrastructure improvements. The Planning Commission still feels that this needs to be addressed. A: The Findings Document (Page 28) presents the results of the revised traffic analysis. No additional mitigation measures are required based on the revised analysis. Q: No park land dedication. Where is the parkland money to be spent in south Maplewood? A: The Findings Document (page 18) presents infonnation pertaining to a process of recommending park dedication fees for the proposed project. The EA W lEIS is not the tool the city should use to explore the parkland issue. The time to review and explore the parkland and open space use and dedication question is when the city receives a revised devdopment plan for the property. Q: Excavation of217,000 cubic yards of soil is an issue. A: The excavation of 217,000 cubic yards orsoil is not unusual for this type of residential development project - especially considering the size of the project site (about 72 acres). The disturbance of 217,000 cubic yards over 70 acres results in an average excavation depth ofless than 2 feet. Q: Polluted soils are an issue (a former dump was referenced). The Planning Commission asked for additional information on that. A: The EA W (Item 9) presents a summary of past land uses on the project site, findings from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (phase I ESAs), and commitment to complete Phase I ESAs where appropriate. The Findings Document (Page 6) provides a summary of findings/recommendations from the Phase II ESAs completed on the project. 63 Q: Air quality on 1-494, as well as the Sterling AvenuelBailey intersection was raised. A: Tbe air quality analysis section of tbe EA W (Item 22) indicates tbat given tbe projected traffic from the proposed development, there would be negligible air quality impacts. Q: Visual effects to the area. (The developer has since addressed these issues by removing the condominiums. ) A: The visual impacts associated with the proposed project (worst case) are addressed in Item 26 of the EA W. Additional visual mitigation is presented in tbe Findings Document (page 29). Additionally, with the potential removal ofthe two condominium buildings on site, this would eliminate the concern abont their visual impact. Tbe project engineer also bas revised the confJgDration of Benry Lane at Carver Avenue to reduce potential visual impacts to the property north of Carver Avenue (near the proposed intersection). Q: Impact on neighborhood - additional traffic, views, noise (tree loss), soil stabilization. A: See responses to questions above. Gret! Cooeland Q: If the City Council were to defer their decision tonight, is public comment at some future meeting precluded, or are we in the same situation where people can continue to bring forth information? I'm wondering if there's any constraint there. (The question was addressed to and answered by Jon Larsen ofEQB.) A: Jon Larsen responded to this question at the meeting. The City Council could allow public comment at a future meeting if they desire; however, this would not legally be required. Q: Is this about a project or is this about a site? We haven't heard too much about the site as an independent entity. I'm trying to balance that out. A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on-site impacts (within the boundaries of the property) but also off-site impacts, where appropriate. More specifically, the traffic analysis is conducted on surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from off-site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on-site improvements to improve both on and off-site water quality/runoff. Jim VonHaden (National Park Service) Q: There is no mention ofMNRA in the EAW. A: That is a correct statement. The EA W evaluates the proposed project's compliance with the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA), which is incorporated by reference into the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Plan. The Findings Document (page 14) presents detailed information pertaining to the project's consistency with the specified goals and policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan 64 (Mississippi Critical Area, page 24 of Comprehensive Plan). The boundaries of MNRRA are the same as that of the MRCA. As noted previously, staff evaluated the project assuming the entire project area was included in the MRCA (per the figure included in the Comprehensive Plan). The following summarizes pertinent information pertaining to MNRRA (source: MNRRA website, Comprehensive Management Plan): . The Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP - the Plan) for MNRRA provides guidance for managing the corridor for the next ten to fifteen years. The Plan provides a policy framework for coordinating efforts to protect and interpret the nationally significant resources of the river corridor and for analyzing other federal, state and local pIans and individual actions in the area. Except for the National Park Service (NPS) development, the Plan does not address site-specific issues. The Plan adopts and incorporates by reference the state Critical Area program, shoreland programs, and other state and regional land use management programs that implement the visions and concepts identified for the river corridor. . This plan does not create another layer of government, but rather stresses the use of existing authorities and agencies to accomplish the policies and actions developed for the area. . Local government will retain local control of land use decisions in the corridor, consistent with applicable state and regional land use management programs. . This Plan will not prevent new development or expansion of existing development in the corridor that is consistent with state and regionalIand use management programs. It is not a regulatory document and does not mandate actions by non-NPS entities. . The NPS and the commission do not have approval authority over local plans and ordinances, and they do not have authority to approve or deny project-specific land use decisions. . The MNRRA legislation specifies that NPS authority in the Code of Federal Regulations only applies to lands that the NPS owns. The developer has taken into account the requirements of the Critical Area (which are incorporated by reference into MNRRA). Hence, the findings from the Critical Area assessment would apply to MNRRA as welL The National Park Service was included on the Carver Crossing EA W distribution list. Q: Concerns for site: Protecting steep slopes Preserving existing vegetation to greatest extent possible Preserving/enhancing wildlife habitat Protecting views of and from the river Protecting water quality The section on impacts on Critical Areas within the EAW should be a discussion of how well the EA W addresses those impacts. (The EA W does not explain how it will meet the necessary criteria. ) 65 A: Each of the items is addressed in the Findings Docnment (Page 13). Will Rossbach Q: Does Maplewood have ordinances in place that enforce the critical plan for environmental protection? A: Yes, see response above to the information contained in the Findings Document. Mavor Lone:rie Q: When 467 mature trees are removed and replaced with smaller, new trees does that have an impact on the absorption of water in that area? A: The EA Wand updated information in the Findings Document (Page 26) indicates the proposed permanent dual-purpose basins (PDPBs) meet and exceed the City's infdtration volume requirements. As specified in the Findings Document, the required infiltration volume is 69,059 cubic fect, and the proposed PDPBs include an infIltration volume of 99,663 cubic feet. Additionally, as specified in tbe Findings Document (page 27), the stormwater system will result in a reduction in the runotT rate for the after conditions. Gree: Cooeland Q: 40 acres of the 70 acres in the proposed development are designated as part of the national park system. Why wasn't that mentioned in the EAW? A: See response to Jim VonHaden's comments/questions above. Irene Jones (Friends of the Mississippi), Q: When reviewing the EA W she noticed that a lot of potential environmental impacts were mentioned, but there were very few mitigation strategies. A: The EA Wand Findings Document identify appropriate mitigation measures that will be further defined during subsequent permit and approval processes. Specific mitigation measures were referenced in the EA W /Findings Document in such areas as: . Soil contamination (Phase II ESA) . On-site wetland replacement . Tree A voidancelReplacement Plan . ButTer Zone for "site of moderate biodivenity significance" . Utility improvements/extensions (water, sanitary, sewer) . Shoreland Zoning (SO foot setback) . Floodplains (received WMA) 66 . Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction . Water Quality (PDPBs, Rainwater Gardens) . Removal of discharge into Fish Creek . Commitment to conduct geotechnical investigation at specific site locations . Traffic mitigation measures . Noise mitigation measures . Park Dedication fees . Avoidance of potential cultural resource site . Visual screening (through landscaping plan and shifting of Henry LanelCarver Avenue intersection) Erik Hielle Q: How does Fish Creek get into the Mississippi? What is the path? Does it go underground at points? In addition, ifit is underground, then isn't the impact of the environment lessened? A: It was discussed at the June 12,2006 council meeting that portions of Fish Creek are canied in a culvert pipe between the project site and the Mississippi. The developer has met with the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District. As noted in the Findings Document (page 27), the stormwater plan was revised to reflect their request to remove the outlet into Fish Creek. The Findings Document (page 27) presents inforDIation that the proposed stormwater system will result in a net reduction in the runoff rate for the after conditions. Additionally, the net effect of the proposed stormwater system will be to reduce phosphorus and total suspended solid discharges from the site. Will Rossbach Q: Do any of you people talking (environmental groups) have direct access to funds so that we can purchase the site? Because if we are not going to develop it, he is going to want us to pay for it. And so, how do we do that? A: Question noted. This issue is outside the environmental review process. As noted above, the time to discuss land purchases is when the city is reviewing specific development plans for the property. Mavor LODl!:rie Q: The EAW focuses on the impact to the environment on that piece ofland. Should we be concerned about the impact on the land downstream? A: The potential impact of the project in terms of water quality has been assessed based on both local and regional requirements/impacts. 67 Tom Dimond (Saint Paul resident) Q: There needs to be an amendment to the critical area plan portion of the city's Comprehensive Plan. To do that requires DNR approval. I did not see that in the requirements of the EAW, as far as the listing of things that need to be done. A: The Findings Document (pennit and approval table, Page 31) includes the requirement for MnlDNR approval. Q: Also, the bluffs and the setbacks have not been identified in this plan. Therefore, the impacts of the bluffs and setbacks have not been figured into the EAW. A: The definition of a bluff is defined in Maplewood City Code in Article IX - Shoreland Overlay District as: Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having all of the foDowing characteristies (land with an average slope ofless than 18% for 50 feet or more shaD not be considered part of the blufl): 1) Part or all ofthe feature is in a shoreland; 2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high-water level; 3) The grade ofthe slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high-water level averages 30 percent or greater; and 4) The slope must drain toward a public water. The area along Fish Creek is the only area that is in a shoreland overlay. Ramsey County owns much of that area as part of their open space. The proposed development has three areas along the south side of Fish Creek that are bluffs. There is one townhome in the proposed development that was located within the required 30-foot setback from the top of one ofthe bluffs. Tbe developer wiD need to adjust the location of this unit or remove it from the project plans before the start of construction if it cannot meet the required setback. The Findings Document identifies the developer's commitment to a ISO-foot conservation easement along Fish Creek. Tbe land along Fish Creek is designated a shoreland zoning district. As specified in the Findings Document. the proposed development complies with the required 50-foot shoreland zoning setback (including shoreland bluff lines). The proposed development would not impact Mississippi River bluffs that are directly adjacent the river. Kathv Juenemann Q: Can we not reach the goal of actually evaluating the sensitivity of where we are going to be with this project by extending our abilities to ask questions on the EA W? A: Yes, that would be an appropriate process. Questions raised at the June 12,2006 City 68 Council meeting are addressed in this document iu effort to respond to specific qnestions either through reference to information contained in the EA W, Findings Document, or new/corrected information for the City Council to consider in making your environmental determination for this project. Q: Can we not achieve what we need to achieve by extending the scope of answering questions that grew out of this EA W and this discussion tonight without having to go to the EIS level? A: See response above. Q: What are we looking at doing with the EAW process without dismissing any of the environmental concerns? A: See response above. Q: We need to have the critical area piece thoroughly cleared up. What is it? Where is it? What does it mean to us? A: See responses above. Mavor LOD2rie Q: I don't see anything addressing the waterfowl or the birds and the impact on them. I know it talks about deer and raccoons, but I think we need to address the birds as well. A: The bird species present ou the site are also considered adaptable, in terms of transitioning or moving to nearby habitat of similar nature. There are significant areas of city and county open space in area (including the land adjacent to the south and west of the site) that provide habitat for birds and a wide variety of wildlife. As proposed, the project would impact only 0.2 acre of wetland out of a total of 7.3 acres, and as such, impact to waterfowl is anticipated to be minimal. Additionally, the proposed wetland mitigation would include 0.43 acre of wetland replacement to compensate for the 0.2 acre of impact. Q: There is an impact on thinking regionally, not just locally, when it comes to the impacts of development on this piece of property, since it is connected to so many water areas. A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on-site impacts (with the boundaries of the property), but also off-site impacts, where appropriate. More specifieaJly, the traffic analysis is conducted on surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from off-site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on-site improvements to improve both on and off-site water quality/runoff. Q: Also concern about the stabilization of banks? 69 A: As stated in the Findings Document (page 9), the developer has proposed to undertake restorative/stabilization work along the section of Fish Creek within the boundaries of the project area. Kathv Juenemann Q: Does the EA W cover a specific site or a proposed development? Or is it both? A: The EA W addresses both the existing conditions on the project site and how the proposed development could affect those conditions. 70 Attachment 19 Page 10f5 P:\WORKS\ENG\REVIEWS\200S Reviews\Carver Crossing (COPAR) Emrineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Carver Crossing of Maplewood PROJECT NO: 05-07 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Dept.) DATE: August 25, 2006 The developer, COP AR Companies, is requesting City approval of a revised 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 (extending from Carver Avenue down to the proposed roundabout) and all utilities located within the new street 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. Drainasze & Treatment 1. According to the Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties, the proposed development site is composed mostly ofMahtomedi loamy sand which is very favorable to infiltration. Soils borings are proposed to be taken throughout the site as shown on Sheet C-4, which includes locations in all of the proposed treatment basins (permanent Dual Purpose Basin, PDPB's) and at various locations along the proposed roads in the project development. The developer's engineer stated on 8/23/06 that the soil boring drilling rigs were currently at the site and that the results would be sent to the city engineering department once they have finalized the soils report. 2. The developer's engineer shall show on the project grading plans, maintenance access paths to each rainwater garden and infiltration basin. The paths shall have reasonable slopes and shall be reflected on the plat map to the satisfaction of the city. 3. Note 17, under the erosion prevention and sediment control notes, on sheet C-4 shall identify Mn/DOT seed mix 310 NWT with an application rate of 82 lbs per acre to be applied at bottom and wet fringe areas of basins and gardens, while the Mn/DOT seed mix 350 NGR may be applied on the side slope. The MnIDOT 310 NWT seed mixture provides tall grass and deep roots which aid in infiltration and pollutant removal. The landscaping plan shall reflect the above seeding and rates unless directed otherwise by the city's naturalist. 4. 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 71 Page 20f5 immediately upstream of a basin is an option. The project engineer shall detail this information in the storm sewer structure schedule once it is created. 5. Depending on the soils report, rock infiltration sumps at infiltration basins and gardens may not be warranted if soils are sandy and have excessive draining capabilities. The requirement of infiltration sumps in gardens and infiltration basins will be made by the city engineer once the necessary data is available. If rock sumps are required, they must conform to Maplewood Standard Plate No. 115. The contractor shall construct all infiltration basins and gardens to their final elevations last to avoid possible compaction of bottom area. 6. The developer's engineer provided calculations showing that the proposed infiltration basins and rainwater gardens exceed the stormwater treatment requirements by the city. The infiltration basins and gardens will capture and infiltrate up to a 2.5-inch rainfall according to the provided HydoCAD model. The city currently requires the first I-inch of rainfall be captured and infiltrated to reduce pollutants such as total suspended solids and total phosphorus. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The contractor shall provide a double row of silt fencing (pre-fabricated and heavy-duty silt backup) at the construction limits along Fish Creek. The contractor shall have the engineer stake the location of the construction limits and there shall be no soil disturbance until the silt fencing is installed. 2. During grading activities, the developer's contractor shall remove the existing Henry Lane pavement and restore the area with a native general MnIDOT seed mixture at a rate of no less than 70 Ibs per acre. Roadways 1. The contractor shall grade the public roadway (Henry Lane) sub-grade to within a 0.2' tolerance. The city will require the developer's engineer to verifY that the grading within the public right of way is within this tolerance. The city will detail this in the developer's agreement that the City of Maple wood prepares for the project. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for review and approval. The developer or developer's engineer shall provide documentation to the city from SPRWS to verifY approval. 2. The developer or developer's engineer shall provide information on the condition of the existing 12" reinforced concrete pipe extending to Fish Creek from the existing wetland (Outlot A). 72 Page 3 of5 3. Kimley-Horn (the city's consultant) shall review all utility design (storm and sanitary sewer) that connect into public utilities within the public roadway. The developer's 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. The contractor shall make such connections to the satisfaction of the City and Kimley-Horn. 4. The project engineer has designed the project so there no longer is a need for a sanitary sewer lift station. All sanitary sewer waste from the proposed development will tie in to the existing sanitary sewer stub near the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on Heights Avenue (south end of Dorland Road). For a preliminary sanitary sewer capacity analysis, it is assumed that the proposed development would have a population of approximately 554 persons (2.9 persons per unit) and each person uses an average of 100 gallons per day. The total flow, including a peaking factor of 4, would result in a flow of 0.343 cubic feet per second; which is about 44% of the total capacity of the sewer pipe. Thus, the existing 8" gravity sewer pipe (in Dorland Road and Heights Avenue) has sufficient capacity for this development. 5. It will be practical for the city to take a pro-active approach to sanitary sewer planning in this part of Maple wood by extending a sanitary sewer stub under 1-494 to the east as part of the public improvements for this project. There is capacity available in the existing gravity sewer pipe and doing the installation with this project would prevent the ripping up of the newly constructed public street (Henry Lane) in the future. 6. Outlot D must be changed to a public roadway because the sanitary sewer line will be located in this street, and will be connecting into the existing public sanitary sewer stub located in Heights Avenue. Also, a 20-foot wide utility easement shall be shown over the centerline of the proposed sanitary sewer from Outlot D to the existing stub location. 7. It should be noted that the City's 2003 Comprehensive Sewer Plan identified sanitary sewer as being readily available to the proposed development site. In 1987, when public utilities were placed in Dorland Road and in Heights Avenue (with temporary cuI-de- sac), the city had the contractor install a sanitary sewer stub to the east for use in future development. These documents and improvements substantiate that for the past 19 years, the City has identified that public sewer is readily available to this parcel and is included in approved documents by the Council. Miscellaneous 1. All retaining walls greater than 4-feet in height will 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. 73 Page 4 of5 2. Plan and profile sheets showing street grade and utility locations will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. The storm sewer struc1ure schedule must be completed and shall include inverts, slopes, RIM elevations, type of pipe, and length. 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. 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 a drainage easement for the location of the PDPB's accepting runoff from the public road (Henry Lane). A maintenance access easement extending from the public right of way to the PDPB' s shall also be dedicated. 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 and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. 10. 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, 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. II. The existing Henry Lane alignment at Carver Avenue was found within the traffic study to be a potential traffic issue with any level of new development. The original location provided the possibility that headlight glare would be directed into the existing home on the north side of Carver Avenue. The new development ingress/egress will be placed on a relocated Henry Lane that has been revised to address concerns of head light glare and as a result will also increase sight distance at the intersection. It is staffs opinion that the 74 Page 50f5 latest re-a1ignment is an improvement and that it has addressed the neighbors concern regarding head light glare. 12. The city had an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) prepared for this site for a development with 299 units. The city followed the EA W process and the City Council found that there were not sufficient documented impacts from the proposed development to warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The findings of the EA W must be incorporated into the final requirements of the development. Attached is a letter from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the firm that prepared the EA W. They have concluded that the revised plan does not have any additional significant impacts on the environment and that the latest development proposal (with 191 units) is consistent with the adopted EA W document. 75 ~=~ Attachment 20 Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. August 23, 2006 . SuIIo~ 2ISIl.lMIIIIVAillnIll_ S1.PouI,M_ 55114 Mr. R Charles AhI, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Maplewood 1902 East County Road B Map1ewood, MN 55109 Re: CoPar Companies Revised Carver: Crossing Development Plan Submittal City Project 05-07 Dear Mr. AhI: AF. requested, we have reviewed the revised development plan submittal (dated August 7, 2006) for the proposed Carver Crossing ofMaplewood development More specifically, we focused our review on the issue of whether the revised plan will result in any additional environmental impacts compared to those identified through the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) process. The EA W was published on March 13, 2006 and the City Council approved a Negative Declaration for the proposed project on July 10, 2006. 0' Based upon our review of the revised development plan and the infonnation contained in CoPar's August 7, 2006 submittal, we have concluded that the revised project would, in many areas, reduce the impacts documented through the EA W process. No additional adverse environmental impacts would result from the revised plan. Hence, the findingi' and conclusions of the EA W remain valid as they reflect worst case project impacts. The revised plan submittal does identify one impact area where disturbance would increase. The e!ltimoted earthwork volume has increased from 217,000 cubic yards to 290,000 cubic yards. The identified increase is a result of grading for enhanced stonnwater trea1ment facilities as well as the change in the development plan from primarily multi-family housing to single family housing. The increased . fa 651 645 4197 FAX 651 645 5118 76 ~=~ K1mley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. R. Charles Ahl, PE August 23, 2006 Page 2 of2 earthworlc: volume is not considered to be a significant change compared to the overall benefits of the revised pian. Please let me know if you have any questions or we can provide any additional information. Sincerely, J B. om, PE ~ Manager cc: Jeanne WitzilVKimley-Hom File 160500017.2/2.0 77 Page I of2 Attachment 21 Ken Roberts From: Tina Carstens [tina.carstens@rwmwd.org] Sent: Friday, August 25,20069:21 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: FW: Comments on Carver Crossing Development Ken, Below are the comments we have regarding the new Carver Crossing submittal. They are all items we have discussed with them previously so I don't think they have any problems with them. They are scheduled for our September 6th Board Meeting. Let me know if you have any questions. Tina From: Tina Carstens Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:52 AM To: 'George Abemathy'; 'Kurt Schneider' Subject: Comments on Carver Crossing Development Hi George and Kurt, The following are the comments we have as a staff on the Carver Crossing project. Please let me know if you have any questions. I. I don't believe that hydrology calculations were submitted with this permit application. Please submit those to me and also to Brad directly at Barr Engineering. His address is 4700 West 77th Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55435. 2. Documentation veri/)'ing that the plan complies with the 50 foot average no disturb buffer shall be submitted. 3. Please submit the requested phased grading and erosion and sediment control plans. 4. The erosion and sediment control plans shall show all 3: I or greater slopes protected with seed and erosion control fabric. 5. Normal water levels and high water levels of all ponds and wetland shall be shown on a plan with the low floors of all surrounding homes to veri/)' the 2 foot freeboard requirement is being met. 6. As discussed, please provide verification that CB409A wiII not overflow to Fish Creek and instead the pipe and catch basins shall be upsized to accept the 100 year storm without overtopping. 7. Plans shall identi/)' District access locations. If possible, a favorable location for access would be between lots 34 and 35 if those homes were able to be shifted to allow at least 25 feet of access. 8. Emergency overflow swales shall be installed at the overflow point of each catch basin or curbline located at a low point. Overflows shall also be installed from one basin to the next. The swales shall extend to the normal water level of the downstream water body or at a point where the downstream ground slope is one percent or flatter. The swale shall be a minimmn of ten feet wide and one foot deep and be lined completely with a permanent soil stabilization material. A detail of the swale shall be shown on a revised set of plans. 8/25/2006 78 Page 2 of 2 9. The applicant shall submit to the District a copy of the approved Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's NPDES Phase 2 Construction Permit and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for that permit. 10. A copy of an executed and recorded maintenance agreement for the stormwater management practices on the site shall be submitted to the District. Some of these items may have to wait until closer to the project start and therefore they will just be special provisions on your permit and will just be required to be submitted prior to the work starting on the project. Again, let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Tina ******************************************** Tina Carstens Permit Program Coordinator Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District 2665 Noel Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 Phone: 651-792-7960 Fax: 651-792-7951 8/25/2006 79 Attachment 22 Maplewood Police Department Memo From: Ken Roberts Lieutenant Michael Shortreed Itt1f~,j/'3-77 August 22, 2006 PROJECT REVIEW - Carver Crossing To: Date: Rr. After reviewing the attached proposal for Carver Crossing, I have the following comments and suggestions: 1) Appropriate security and street lighting should be provided and maintained in order to assure that addresses within the development are readily recognizable and accessible. 2) Each residential unit within the development should have its own unique address number to assure that emergency responses are not delayed by trying to determine unit numbers at locations with the same address number (i.e. 1737 Gervais Avenue Units 1-8). 3) Private roads often tend to be much narrower than public streets, which often results in on street parking limitations. The developer should be encouraged to provide enough vehicle parking spaces for the residents and their guests during special events and occasions such as birthdays and holidays. The proposal mentions that the developer is willing to assume the additional development cost if public roads are preferred, but it does not address the issue of additional parking. 4) 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. If there are any questions or concems regarding these comments or suggestions, please contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651)249-2605 or via email atmichael.shortreed@ci.maolewood.mn.us. 1 80 Attachment 23 - ~ RAMSEY COUNTY 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 TO: SUBJECT: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood Dan s4,,~ Ramsey r<fuy Public Works Carver Crossing of Maplewood FROM: DATE: August 24, 2006 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the revised preliminary plat and site plan for a new residential development in south Maplewood proposed by Copar Companies. The County previously reviewed and EA W for this project and made comments in April 2006. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this revised development. 1. The proposed construction now consists of 191 detached townhome units. This is a reduction from the original proposal of 386 housing units and the EA W proposal of 299 senior (55+) housing units. 2. The traffic study that was part of the EA W identified a trip generation of 1203 trips per day for the 299 unit senior housing. The new proposal has over a hundred less units but they are not restricted to seniors. I would expect a trip generation of about 8 trips/unit or 8 x 191 = 1528 trips. This is not a relatively high number of trips for such a large development. 3. The intersection of Carver Avenue 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 and westbound left turn lane. The relocation of Henry Street an additional 112 feet to the west provides additional space from the 494 overpass and is agreeable to the County. The County will monitor this intersection to determine if an all-way stop is warranted in the future. RECEIVED 81 2 C 2U05 Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on ree.l'dp,d paper with a minimum of 10% p051-l'onsumereonte lit .................. ~ 4. The County concurs with the recommendation to construct a right turn lane on westbound Carver A venue at McKnight Road. 5. The recommended improvements on Carver Avenue will require plan approval from Ramsey County. The developer will be required to obtain a right of way permit for construction on County right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Cc: Chuck Ahl- City of Maplewood REcn I. _ 2 ~. 82 ................~. Attachment 24 August 22, 2006 Linda & Terry Baumgart 2445 Carver Ave Maplewood, MN 55119 Home #651-731-9664 Linda Day #651-303-4004 Maplewood : Ken Roberts, Copar Development, Maplewood Planning Commission, Maplewood City Council RE: Response to New Development Proposal; Carver Crossing of Maple wood This will be a short letter since you have all seen our previous concerns about the density and the realignment of Henry Lane. We can see that the developer is making an effort to satisfy and address some of the problems that have come up during the review process. With the proposed 112 foot shift in the Henry Lane alignment: The only thing this accomplished is to put the road into our neighbors and our front yards, neither of us are very comfortable with this plan either. We still do not see a reason the existing road cannot be utilized in this development, this scenario was never mentioned in the EA W except that the new alignment would improve site distance. Strange the road has been there for how many years (30-40)7 Well you see our point. (stop sign) justified if you look at public safety issue. We also stated in a previous letter to place the new alignment across from 2413 Carver Ave. (CITY OPEN SPACE). This way the planned sidewalk Iwalkway would actually lead somewhere. This brings up the safety issue. This is on a longer tangent to the curves at 1-694 thus longer site distance, and affecting less driveway entrances than the current proposal. 1 only state this because 1 do not wish the city to make a mistake in the placement of the new Henry road entrance. 1 know it is close to a wetland but 1 am sure it can be re engineered to accommodate a road entrance. We know other people have mentioned the parking of vehicles in front of the assisted living home (2465 Carver Avenue), no one is very comfortable with this situation. (dangerous) A school bus is parked in the westbound driving lane twice a day for 15 to 20 minutes (loading/unloading) not good, but this we will have to live with until something is figured out. II There is already a traffic problem in this area that has not been addressed yet. After all this said, 1 think the City should NOT APPROVE the Preliminary Plat as submitted and ask that the contractors' engineers and the city staff to address these issues. 83 Now the short part : We still believe the density is too high. The only area this development blends in with is the Carver Heights area. The isolated homes (as they are referred to in Copar's letter) are just homes on larger lots and that is what people like about this part of South Maplewood. Thanks for your time: Terry & Linda Baumgart (2445 Carver Avenue) 84 To: Kenneth Roberts & Planning Commission City of Maple wood 1830 COWlty Road BEast Maplewood, MN. 55109 August 24th, 2006 Re: Comments Neighborhood Survey - South Crossing General Comment - Neil!hborhood Survey: I must express my grave disappointed with the limited distribution of this neighborhood survey. Apparently, the strongly stated request by the Planning Commission to expand the scope of any future mailings relating to Carver Crossing fell on deaf ears. This is not a simple request for a variance. It is a proposal whose outcome will have a profound effect on current and future South Maplewood development as well as its residents. I now realize why the city so often finds itself in such an antagonistic position with local residents. It simply fails to engage and inform those residents who are close, yet indirectly affected by development plans. I'm sure someone from some department will stand up and proclaim that the letter of the law was followed as it relates to providing notification. In short, they will make excuses for not engaging surroWlding residents that most certainly would be impacted by a project of this magnitude. The city needs to step back and realize that at the end of the day they are the ones that shoulder the responsibility to inform. This is a mnjor project with a minimnl mailing notification. At the very least, the city should have included those residents who successfully petitioned the city just a few short years ago to place a moratorium on development in South Maplewood. Perhaps there is concern that those voices would sOWld off loud and clear yet once again. Furthermore, I could frod no trace of the revised project on the City website as of August 24,2006, nor did I receive any automated email updates on the Carver Crossing project. All in spite of the fact that I am a subscriber. All of the above said. I do wish to commend the current City Council for taking many significant first steps to improve communications and engage the residents of Maplewood. These actions have not gone unnoticed but there is still much work to be done. Site Badmround: CoPar Development states: "Among the many valuable pieces of information gleaned from the E.A. W. site research and findings it has been determined that the entire site can be reasonably developed without a potential for significant environmental effects." 85 Attachment 25 An E.A.W. by its sheer nature is valid only as it applies to a specific development proposal. Without a clearly defined proposal (which has just been submitted) it is impossible to accurately accesses environmental impact. Any statement to the effect that the initial E.A.W. represents"Best" or "Worst" case scenarios is not reflective of sound judgment, common sense or scientific fact. It is instead pure, unadulterated, rhetoric. If CoPar wishes to tout the EAW. as an end all, I would urge the City to have CoPar resubmit the "new revised proposal" to the litmus test of another E.A. W. In fact given the significant changes to the proposal I believe another E.A.W. is warranted. City Land Use Plan: CoPar Development continues to state that the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the entire site as a Single Dwelling (R-I) development area eligible for development at a density of 4.1 homes per acre. What CoPar Development fails to state is that in December of 2002 the City of Maplewood adopted a one-war moratorium on develomnent in South Mavlewood as a result of three separate vetitions by South Maplewood residents. The net result of the moratorium and subsequent study was the creation by the City of Maplewood in 2003 of a Rural Residential Zoning classification or RI-R. A sil!Jlificant TJOrtion of the proverty is currently zoned RI-R at a density of one home ver two acres. Furthennore this property was nol optioned for vurchase based on the obtainment of a change in zoning as is a common practice with developers; instead, it was vurchased outriflht by CoPar with the lidl knowledfle of the current RI-R & Farm zoninfl restrictions. It is important to understand that CoPar can freely develop this property within its current zoning at any time. Instead, CoPar appears to be attempting to hold the city hostage by leveraging a discrepancy between Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning on this property. Perhaps the city should explore amendinfl the cities Comvrehensive Plan to match the current zoninfl. It is my understanding that the City of Maplewood is fully Compliant with the Metropolitans Council's development guidelines (a fact the City should be most proud of) and it is under no legal obligation to change the current zoning. I would request that the City of Maplewood issue a directive to the Plmming Commission to carefully study South Maplewood and develop a master plan that would reflect the best interests of it current and future residents as this plan most certainly does not. PUD Development Overview: The reduction in development density to 191 units appears to be centered on the elimination of two (2) condominium residences (I17 units) from CoPar's last proposal which was rejected by the Planning Commission. If memory serves me correctly, it 86 would have taken a 4 to 1 vote to ratify the cities current Comprehensive Plan to construct the condominiums. In light of this, I tend to view the reduction in density not as a developer being more sensitive or cooperative, but as a developer adopting a more realistic view. Stonn water MaDlllrement: Even with the reduction of 117 units I do not believe the footprint of the development is smaller or less invasive. If anything, by CoPar's own admittance, it appears to be substantially more invasive than the previous plan. As way of example it is calling for an increase in estimated earthwork from 217,000 yards to 290,000 yards. It then tries to convince us iliat and I quote: "As was concluded in ilie E.A.W. the amount of earthwork associated with this project is not lDlusual when considering the size of the property. It is reasonable to make the same conclusion with this revised earthwork and storm water plan" I beg to differ. No one can reasonably draw the same conclusion without another E.A. W Once again, more marketing driven rhetoric. Show me the scientific data to support their claims. Park Dedication: I have always been a strong advocate of increasing the Park & Recreational offering in South Maplewood. It would appear that CoPar has presented two options. 1 am concerned over ilie following: It has been brought to my attention iliat CoPar adopted a very non-traditional approach having presented iliese two options (Cash vs. Land) to ilie Deparbnent of Park & Recreations well before the current plan was formalizing and submitted to the city. I believe the term used was "fronting" the concept. Frankly, this concerns me. When this kind of money is being placed on the table it should always follow a very clean and straight forward process. I also would like to have the city prepare a cost analysis projecting the net cost to the city over say 5, 10 & 20 years for both options. Landscaoe. Wetlands. Noise: As I have stated previously. Given the significant amolDlt of change presented in this revised plan it warrants anoilier RA.W. review. Even the scope of the project has changed from a Senior Development to individual town homes. Public Utilities & Roads: I agree with CoPar Development's stance that the extension of utility connection points east IDlder Interstate 494 should not be included in any way with this project. The city does not need to expend precious tax dollars to supplement possible future development 87 east ofInterstate 494. Those projects, if and when they come to light, need to be evaluated on their individual merit and absorb the direct costs to any development without subsidies at the expense of Maple wood tax payers. Traffic: Once again the perception I get is that because the failed intersections of SterlinglBailey and CarverIPoint Douglas fall om side of the cily boundaries it's just not our problem. Almost a see no evil, hear no evil; speak no evil approach to traffic management. The traffic issue is not going to crawl under a rock, it needs to be addressed and a plan needs to be set forth. With the exception of a couple token turn lanes nothing has been really dealt with. Fish Creek. Mississiooi River Critical Area Corridor: I will be submitting additional comments in the near future on these two very important areas. I am also keenly aware that several environmental groups are monitoring these highly controversial topics. Conclusion: I'm not really sure there is a conclusion to be reached here. I don't believe anyone is against CoPar developing this area within the current zoning densily ofRI-R (one home per two acres). After all an estimated 36 sites at 3S0K each translates into $12.6 million dollars. Yet CoPar does not appear to be satisfied with what they bought. I also question why any developer would have paid so much money outright without first having some assurance that their larger scale project would be green lighted. A question 1 have been wrestling with for some time. Respectfully Submitted; Mark 1. Bonitz 88 Page I of I Attachment 26 Ken Roberts From: Kathy Urban lk_a_urban@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 23,2006 7:26 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing I am very disappointed in the change from an active senior housing to housing for everyone. Will the next change be to accomodate low income housing if this plan is not approved? I feel this will greatly increase traffic on Carver and center turn lanes will be needed from the current underpass at Henry west to McKnight road. How will this now impact the school district, bus traffic on Carver, and our future property taxes? From the plans now received it appears as if the homes are closer to existing properties and the wet lands. Kathy & Rick Urban Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2~/min or less. , '3 5'G:. [):91::.. L:A:N D j?f) s. 8/24/2006 89 Carver Crossing Page 1 of 1 Attachment 27 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: Telin. Peggy [Peggy.Telin@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US] Friday. August 25. 2006 3:28 PM Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing On page 7. paragraph 2 of the proposal dated August 14, 2006, "the adjustment of 112 feet to the west to avoid aligning with homes on the north side of Carver". This is not acceptable because at that point it will aijgn with our house. If, on page 9, the new homes will be available to "all qualified buyers" that could possibly mean drivers of all ages will be using the new road.. The population could be as many as 554. They would be coming and going at all hours. That would mean headlights and noise at all hours. As property owners of 2431 Carver, we are concerned about headlight glare affecting our home. We are more concerned about the traffic noise. If Henry Lane MUST be moved from its present location, to directly across from our property, we would reasonably expect a sound and light barrier to be put on our property. Don & Peggy Telin 2431 Carver Mailing address 835 E. Magnolia SI. Paul. Mn. 55106 8/25/2006 90 Attachment 28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kurt Schneider. representing CoPar Companies. applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS. this permit applies to the area south of Carver Avenue and west of 1-494. WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the properties are: Commitment No. 242035 PARCEL A: The West One-half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24). Township Twenty-eight (28). Range Twenty-two (22). lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494. Ramsey County. Minnesota: Except the North 150 feet of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24). Township Twenty-eight (28). Range Twenty-two (22) lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494; And also exceDt that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4). Section 24, Township 28 North. Range 22 West. Ramsey County. Minnesota. described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 24 and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right- of-Way line of T.H. #393. a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393 a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line of said T.H. #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of-Way line; thence Northeasterly. along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right-of-Way line. as measured at right angles. a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less. to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said SW 1/4. Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line. a distance of 176.32 feet. more or less. to the actual point of beginning. And the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty four (24). Township Twenty-Eight (28). Range Twenty-two (22). except the North Five Hundred feet (500 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: 91 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 corner 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 y. 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 corner thereof thence West along said North line a distance of 975.93 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24 (NW corner 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. 92 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood. Minnesota Abstract Property, Ramsey County Commitment No. 242032 PARCEL F: The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28. Range 22. according to the government survey thereof. Ramsey County. Minnesota 1501 Henry lane S Maplewood. Minnesota 55119 Abstract Property. Ramsey County All in Section 24. Township 28, Range 22. Ramsey County. Minnesota. (The property to be known as Carver Crossing of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 6. 2006. the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On September 25. 2006. the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit. because: 1. The use would be located, designed. maintained. constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity. process, materials. equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous. hazardous, detrimental. disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property. because of excessive noise. glare. smoke. dust. odor, fumes. water or air pollution. drainage. water run-off. vibration. general unsightliness. electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 93 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. 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 August 8. 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. (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 Michael Thompson's memo dated August 25. 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 turn 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. 94 (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: 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 council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on .2006 95 Attachment 29 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, CoPar Companies applied to the city for the vacation of the following-described parts of a public right-of-way and the following easements: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF HENRY LANE That part of Henry lane turned 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 corner 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 ofsaid Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 52 minutes 01 seconds East 238.73 feet; thence easterly 169.04 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 184.00 feet and a central angle of 52 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds; thence South 53 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds East 42.60 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence southeasterly. southerly and southwesterly 152.16 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 72 degrees 38 minutes 56 seconds; thence southwesterly 283.33 feet along a reverse curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 7,800.93 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 520.45 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A and said line there terminating; Together with that part of said Henry lane lying westerly. northwesterly and southeasterly of the following 60.00 foot strip. Said strip lies 30.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the hereinbefore described Point A; thence continuing South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 157.55 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East 31.51 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 194.51 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly 218.59 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 200.00 feet and a central angle of 62 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds; thence, South 79 degrees 41 minutes 11 seconds West 236.08 feet and said centerline there terminating. Easements and Right-of-ways to be Vacated: 1. A 30-foot-wide drainage and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2499330 2. The drainage easement as defined in Document No. 2499331. 3. A 60-foot-wide driveway easement as defined in Document No. 2060364. 4. A 66-foot-wide roadway and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2060365. 5. The Henry lane right-of-way per MN DOT right-of-way Plat No. 62-19. 6. The Henry lane right-of-way per MN DOT right-of-way Plat No. 62-20. 96 All in Section 24. Township 28, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows: 1. On September 6. 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 and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed vacation. 2. On September 25. 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 and easement vacations 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. These vacations are subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and utility easements and right-of-ways over parts of the property. subject to the approval of the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on .2006. 97