The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/05/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 20, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Easement Vacation - Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue) 7: 15 CarMax Auto Superstore (Northeast Comer of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues) Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations November 27 Council Meeling: Ms. Fischer December 11 Council Meeling: Mr. Grover December 18 Council Meeling: Mr. Yarwood January 8 Council Meeling: ?? 11. Staff Presentations Reschedule January 1 Meeling - Tuesday January 2 or Wednesday January 3? 12. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present at 7:06 p.m. Dave Fisher, Interim Community Development Director, Building Official Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Hess seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 6, 2006. Chairperson Fischer had a correction to the minutes on page 7, in the first paragraph, last sentence changing Monday to Wednesday. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November 6, 2006. Commissioner seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Alley Vacation - Driscoll (south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street) (7:03-7:22 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Judy Driscoll is proposing that the city vacate an existing alley. This unused alley runs north and south between Frost and Fenton Avenues and is between Walter Street and Phalen Place. Ms. Driscoll wants the city to vacate this alley because it has not been used in several years and so she would have additional private property behind her existing house. The city acquired the alley in question many years ago when the developer of the Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition recorded the final plat with Ramsey County. Ms. Driscoll is requesting the alley vacation because her existing house is set near the rear of her property. By having the city vacate the alley, she (and her neighbors) will acquire an additional ten feet of land along the rear sides of their properties. Neither the city nor the developer of the neighborhood ever paved or improved the alley. Jon Jarosch of the city engineering department reviewed this request. He stated that the city doesn't have a need for the alley in question. He noted there is a low area near Fenton Avenue that could collect storm water. Part of the low area appears to be in the alley. As such, he is recommending that the city keep a drainage and utility easement over the entire vacated alley. Such an easement also would accommodate the needs of Xcel Energy for their existing power lines. The property owner of 1907 Phalen Place, Mr. Buehlman, is asking the city to keep at least part of the alley in place from the rear of his property to Frost Avenue. This is so he may have access to the rear of his property. As Ms. Driscoll notes in her statement, the city could vacate the part of the alley from Fenton Avenue north to the north property line of her property and then keep the remainder of the alley in place (the north 113 feet) for the access to Frost Avenue. Commissioner Hess said he noticed a power pole on the northwest side of the alley and the alley is all grass. How is the Xcel easement set in relation to the power poles? Mr. Roberts said without a specific survey staff doesn't know for sure. Staff is recommending that the city keep an easement over whatever is vacated so Xcel Energy has the right to go in there and do what they have to. Staff doesn't know how the power pole lines up with the easement or with the alley but are hopeful it will line up. Commissioner Trippler said it appeared to him that the home at 1915 Phalen Place and 1100 Frost Avenue have driveways that exit onto Frost Avenue. The home at 1907 Phalen Place has a driveway that goes to the garage so why do we need to keep the north 113 feet for the access to Frost Avenue? Mr. Roberts said staff understands that at least one of the neighbors has been using the alleyway to access their rear yards but the applicant can further expand on that. The alleyway is used as an occasional use and not a regular use. Commissioner Trippler said if we vacate the alley but retain the utility easement for Xcel Energy, doesn't that mean it precludes someone from building anything on that portion of the property anyway? Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said yes and no. Staff's understanding is that the utility and drainage easement is for the utility and drainage. If you want to provide the easement for ingress and egress that would be a different type of easement. The resolution would have to be modified to include that as the part you are keeping. If there is "some public interest" and "some public use" in using that part of the alleyway then the city is better off keeping it "public" rather than vacating it. Commissioner Trippler said assuming the easement is 20-feet wide then each person would get 10 feet from the easement. Then it would be their property and if they wanted to drive a car on the 10 feet of property then they have that right? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Trippler said he just wanted people to be aware if they leave the easement on the property as it is it would be open for the public to use or drive on. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Hess asked if the easement is vacated would the adjacent property owners have the ability to put a fence right up to the easement? Mr. Roberts said if the 20-foot easement is divided into 2 the new property line becomes the center point and the fence could go down the center. If this isn't vacated and it's kept open, then nobody would be allowed to put a fence there because the 20 foot wide alley is supposed to remain open. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Judv Driscoll, 1890 Walter Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said she didn't have any comments or questions. She just wants to accommodate the neighbors and she said she understands the utility easement. Mr. Edward Buehlman, 1907 Phalen Place, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This request is fine with him. He just wants to be able to access the rear of his property where he has a double gate that is 10 feet wide located south of his garage. He pointed out where his property is on the map for the commission. Mr. Wayne Sachi, 1100 Frost Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. To clarify, the power poles are on the west side of the alley and he has always assumed thatXcel Energy would access the utilities through the alley or easement area. He always thought if there was a utility easement on your property you couldn't build anything there that would hamper access to the easement area. Either way he cannot use the additional 1 0 feet of property. He said he uses the alleyway to haul heavy loads of building material to the rear of his property if needed. Mr. John Olson, 1899 Phalen Place, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said although he owns the property at 1899 Phalen Place he does not reside there. The property has been in his family for many years and he inherited the property from his mother four years ago. He is supportive of this request. He does not access this alleyway so this request doesn't affect him in a negative way. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -4- Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the alley vacation for the Driscoll property which is (south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street). Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. b. Walgreens (Northeast Corner of White Bear and Beam Avenues) (7:22-7:42 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Semper Development, representing Mogren Landscaping and Walgreens, is proposing to construct a 14,820-square-foot Walgreens retail store with a drive-through pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.83-acre lot into two lots. The western lot will be sold to Semper Development for the development of the proposed Walgreens and the eastern lot will be retained by the Maplewood Financial Center (Premier Bank) for future development. The property is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as Limited Business Commercial (LBC), which allows for offices, medical or health-related clinics, day care centers, or similar uses. In order to operate a retail store and pharmacy from the newly subdivided western lot, the proposal also includes a request for a comprehensive land use plan and zoning change to Business Commercial (BC). Commissioner Trippler said the city is asking the applicant to set aside escrow money to construct the sidewalks in the near future because White Bear Avenue is going to be expanded. Mr. Roberts said that is correct. Erin Laberee, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. She said White Bear Avenue is planned for improvements in 2008. Those improvements would also affect Beam Avenue and the city is looking at reconfiguring the sidewalk. Therefore, it didn't make sense to require the applicant to install the sidewalk and then tear it out for the White Bear Avenue improvements only to replace the sidewalk again. The city would request the applicant to post escrow for the future building of the sidewalk when the road improvements are done. Commissioner Trippler said the plans show the crowns of the trees overlapping the ten foot expansion of White Bear Avenue, wouldn't it make more sense to move the trees over because if you plant them and they cut in underneath the crown of the tree that would kill the trees. Ms. Laberee said Dan Soler with Ramsey County called her today with the same concern. That is in the Ramsey County right-of-way and to eliminate the impact on the trees in the right-of-way staff will add that recommendation to the comments. Commissioner Hess asked if the applicant considered relocating the trash compactors to the west side of the property so they wouldn't be as visible and unsightly from White Bear Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -5- Mr. Roberts said because of the drive aisle and the parking lot configuration there may not be enough room to do that. With the truck deliveries and the drive pattern that may cause a problem entering and exiting the site, but the applicant could elaborate on that. Commissioner Desai said he read a comment that traffic would not be a factor here but this is a very busy intersection and these are busy streets in both directions. He asked if a traffic study had been done showing this proposal isn't going to affect traffic in the area? Mr. Roberts said he isn't aware of any traffic studies that have been. Staff realizes this area is scheduled to be upgraded by Ramsey County and Maplewood. Hopefully the two entities working together won't create additional traffic problems. Commissioner Hess said a CVS Pharmacy was just built on White Bear Avenue and County Road B East and there is a Walgreen's in the strip mall by Rainbow Foods. Why are so many drugstores being built in such close proximity? Mr. Roberts said staff understands this Walgreen's proposal would replace the older Walgreen's store in the strip mall by Rainbow Foods. Staff understands Walgreen's wants their stores to be freestanding and have a drive-thru window for the convenience of their customer's. Apparently Walgreen's and CVS Pharmacy try to build their stores close to each other because they are competing against each other. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. John Kohler, Architect, Semper Development, addressed the commission. He said the trash collection area is in a brick enclosure which would face away from White Bear Avenue. There is also going to be landscaping and trees around the brick enclosure so it would be well screened and not very visible. Depending on which street you are driving on you wouldn't see the trash enclosure very well anyway. The reason trash enclosure is located there is for traffic circulation and truck deliveries. He said they have been working with Dan Soler with Ramsey County regarding removing one of the curb cuts and combining the curb cuts to improve the traffic in the area. The site was designed to accommodate the expansion of White Bear and Beam Avenues. As far as the number of Walgreen's stores and how close they are located, the corporate office used to figure on one Walgreen's store every 4 miles, now Walgreen's wants to serve customers within a 1 mile area. Walgreen's finds with a good density population this is how far they would like their stores spaced apart in order to fit the customers' needs. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if they had any issues with the recommendations in the staff report? Mr. Kohler said they had no issues or problems with the staff report. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the lot split boundary exhibit date stamped October 5, 2006, for a lot division request to subdivide the 2.83-acre lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues into two lots. Lot division approval is based on code requirements (Section 34-14 -lot divisions) and is subject to the following: Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -6- a. Submit a revised survey to staff for approval which shows the following: 1) Legal descriptions of Parcels A and B. 2) Location and legal description of utility and access easement on the east side of Parcel A to accommodate utilities and access for the property to the north (2950 White Bear Avenue) and access for the property to the east (Parcel B). 3) Location and legal description of access easement on the north side of Parcel A and the south side of the property to the north (2950 White Bear Avenue) to accommodate the drive-through lane located on the north side of the Walgreen's building on Parcel A and the shared driveway on White Bear Avenue. 4) Location and legal description of ten-foot-wide roadway easement along White Bear Avenue the entire length of Parcel A to accommodate for future roadway widening. b. Deeds describing the two new legal descriptions for Parcels A and B, including the required utility, access, and roadway easement descriptions described above. c. Deeds must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of lot division approval or the lot division will become null and void (city code requirement). d. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the proposed Walgreens retail store and pharmacy on Parcel A, the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds. 2)A signed certificate of survey for Parcel A showing the location of all property lines, building, parking, driveway, freestanding sign, and easements. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the comprehensive land use plan change resolution (Attachment 22). This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan map for the newly subdivided 1.54 acre western lot (Parcel A) on the vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because it will: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. c. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. d. Minimize the land planned for streets. e. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -7- f. Prevent premature use, overcrowding, or overuse of land especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems, or streets are not available. g. Help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan including: 1) The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 2) Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. 3) Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social, or physical impact on adjoining developments. 4) 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. 5) The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. 6) Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. 7) Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the zoning map change resolution (Attachment 23). This resolution changes the zoning map for the newly subdivided 1.54 acre western lot (Parcel A) on the vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -8- Commissioner Hess said he noticed an error on attachment 21 of the engineering plan review in the first sentence, it states the northwest corner rather than the northeast corner. Mr. Roberts said the engineering staff will make that correction. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Resolution of Appreciation - Jim Kaczrowski Mr. Roberts reported that Jim Kaczrowski resigned from the planning commission and that staff is recommending adoption of the Resolution of Appreciation for his service on the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Jim Kaczrowski. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. b. City Private Street Policy Mr. Roberts said at the request of the city manager, city staff has researched and prepared a draft policy about the use of private streets in Maplewood. (The report was compiled by staff based on reports from two different cities but written with Maplewood in mind.) The city manager requested staff prepare a policy after receiving concerns about the private streets and driveways in the New Century development. Staff has attempted to include the purpose, policy and standards the city should follow when considering any development with private streets. This is the starting point of the policy in draft form and staff would like input from the planning commission. There are several issues and concerns for the city to consider when reviewing the use of private streets in developments. Private streets or driveways allow development with: 1. No publicly dedicated right-of-way. 2. A narrower section width (from front to front). 3. Smaller setbacks to the pavement (because of no right-of-way). 4. Usually a narrower pavement width. This means less storm water run off and lower costs to build. 5. More flexibility in site design. Private streets or driveways haven't always been built to the same standards that the city has so ongoing maintenance can be a concern. There has been at least one townhome association approach the city about taking back the private streets with the reasoning being they pay taxes and aren't getting their streets plowed and that doesn't seem fair. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -9- The city's concern is they don't want to take back substandard streets so now the city council recently authorized the engineering department to do a feasibility study to research the condition of the streets and utilities. Once the study is done the findings will be presented to the city council. Commissioner Hess asked as part of the standards for city streets and private drives has the city discussed the issue of durability or base aggregate compaction, the asphalt course materials and the finished asphalt course materials as far as durability issues go for private and public streets? Ms. Laberee said when it's a public street the city has control over everything and the city would make sure the street is built to city standards. The city doesn't have that quality control over a private street when it's being constructed. As a city we aren't out there continuing to watch over the development of the private street to ensure the same construction standards are being used like they would for public streets in the city. In fact, on a few public street projects the city has even taken over the project rather than using a developer. Commissioner Hess asked in the future, if a private street wants to become a public street and the private street isn't built to the city standards and starts to have potholes and other problems, what does the developer have to do to be in compliance with the street conditions that the city follows? Ms. Laberee said there is a test section underway at Crestview Forest Drive where the residents have petitioned to have the street converted from a private to a public street. Right now the city is in the process of conducting a feasibility study and the city will be looking at what would have to be done to bring the private street into compliance. If the private street isn't up to the city code and city conditions we have to determine what does that mean exactly? What has to be done before the city will take over a private street and changing it over to a public street? The city is working on those questions and hopefully that will all be answered after the feasibility study is complete. Commissioner Trippler said he thought the private street policy report was well thought out and thinks this would work well as a good policy for "future" developments. If the city looks at acquiring private streets in the future they should grant private street construction rights based on the requirement that a developer build the street to the city standards like a public street is built in Maplewood and not built to substandard conditions. He asked if this private street policy addressed cul-de-sacs and/or turnarounds? It seems when a developer asks the city for a private street the city tends to allow the developer more leeway regarding how the developer finishes the end of the street off when it isn't a thru street. He thinks there should be stricter restrictions for that. Mr. Roberts said that is a good recommendation. We could include language stating the private road should be built to the satisfaction of the fire marshal or something of that nature. Commissioner Dierich was happy to see this private street policy draft because her husband has been dealing with this issue for the New Century development. She thinks staff did a good job writing this draft policy. She thinks we also need to address the issue of restrictive covenants and how they are written because this whole issue stems from a poorly written set of restrictive covenants in the New Century development. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -10- Commissioner Dierich said the people that are upset about this are upset because people are driving through their development and there isn't enough money in the town home fund to pay to resurface the private street because the builder of the townhomes won't pay his portion of money to get this done because he hasn't rented all the units yet nor have they built all of the units yet. This is a large expense to resurface the private road and no way to pay for it without raising the association fees in the development. Commissioner Dierich said the city may need to broaden this policy even more to make sure there is enough funding available so the association can maintain the town homes and the private streets. She likes the idea of making these streets into dead end streets and not connecting them to a public place. The residents in the New Century development will probably ask to have their street made into a dead end. She believes this development should be closed off and the public should come off of New Century Avenue. She said there should be a turnaround for the really long driveways that would be large enough to accommodate a large fire truck and she would like more specific language added to the policy. She would like to see the colors of the street signs look different and have a sign that says Dead End so people don't drive down the street nosing around. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to review what they look for when checking over the covenants and association agreements in developments when they are built? Mr. Roberts said staff doesn't have the knowledge or expertise to review covenants and look at funding and who is going to pay for what and when. Staff looks for things in the association rules such as retaining walls on a site and that there is a list of responsibility parties listed in homeowners' association. Associations or covenants have various rules and regulations that many times city staff is not concerned about such as where your garbage can be put, where you can park boats etc. If there were specific conditions for a particular development that were required by the city council those should be included in the covenants so everyone knows about those restrictions and conditions are and what the level of responsibility is. The city attorney would also have to be involved in the review of the townhome or homeowner association rules. Commissioner Dierich said it defeats the purpose of having affordable housing if you move into an affordable house and then have association fees so high that it makes it unaffordable. This could happen when you have private streets in a development and there are added expenses to maintain the development and the association fees have to be raised to cover those expenses. Commissioner Trippler said the staff report says the engineering department is doing the feasibility study for the private drives. However, the city is currently under a budget crunch and there is lack of staff and staff time to do anything other than the bare essentials so it doesn't fit when you say the engineering department is taking on this feasibility study based on those facts. If a private entity wanted to convert a private driveway and have the city take it over, why wouldn't the private entity do the feasibility study and provide the findings to the city? Mr. Roberts said the homeowners association had to post an escrow with the city to cover costs. Ms. Laberee can elaborate more on the study. Ms. Laberee said the engineering staff is doing the feasibility study so that the city doesn't have to analyze a report and make changes to the report done by another firm which would waste time and money so the city prefers to take the project on themselves. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -11- Commissioner Pearson said he isn't sure what the residents' problems are. The private streets were put in before their homes were buill. Now the residents are looking at the costs of maintaining and plowing those private streets and now they want the city to absorb the cost by converting the road to public. Underneath the streets are gas, electric, water and sewer and every time something needs to be fixed it's going to be a cost in the city in the future. Commissioner Pearson said the people buying into these developments need due diligence and should look at the ability of the developer to fulfill those maintenance agreements. Maybe the city should look at requiring larger escrows to ensure the work is completed. Otherwise the residents are going to have to assess themselves to pay for upcoming costs. Commissioner Pearson said somebody is going to ask what is magic about 22-foot setback where there is gas, electric, water and sewer in the streets. He said if you changed that setback to 10 feet he would be the first to sign up. He said he lives in a neighborhood with private streets and their gas, electric, water and sewer isn't underground, it's located elsewhere on the property. He said he thinks this is a bad idea for the city to research or to get involved in. The people that bought into a private development are going to have to work their way out of this, perhaps they could sell out to another investor. Mr. Roberts said the policy as it was drafted, was intended for the city council to decide if they want to adopt this and staff would put it in place for future developments. Commissioner Pearson said he agrees with the policy for "future" developments but not for "current" developments and conditions. He believes this would open Pandora's box by taking over existing problems with private drives and bringing the streets up to city standards and changing them to a public street. Mr. Roberts said the primary emphasis is for future developments and deciding if the city is going to allow private streets or drives in the future. Commissioner Yarwood said the city needs to protect themselves in the future. If for some reason the city takes over the private street and the standards aren't up to par, it will cost the city money in the future. To prevent neighborhood degradation, if the streets aren't built properly and are built with substandard conditions and the people that live there cannot afford to replace or resurface the streets, then it is a detriment to the way the neighborhood and the way the city looks. To him it's almost a no brainer requiring consistent street construction standards for all developments private or public. Commissioner Trippler said he agrees with Commissioner Pearson's comments that it's a bad idea for the city to take over private streets, particularly if they were engineered and installed to substandard conditions. Mr. Roberts said the feasibility study will tell the city what it would cost to bring the road up to city standards if it was constructed with substandard conditions. The city council may say the city won't take over a private drive until the developer fixes the road and brings it up to city standards. If the developer cannot pay to bring the road up to city standards and there are 50 homeowners on a private street willing to pay money up front to bring the road up to city standards before the city takes over the private drive and converts it to a public street, that may be okay. Chairperson Fischer said the intent of this policy is for "future" developments. She asked if the city sees the next stage as taking existing private drives and converting them to public streets? Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -12- Mr. Roberts said depending on what the feasibility study tells the city council that could be the next step. Commissioner Trippler recommended that city staff take the Private Street Policy to the city council. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Dierich was the planning commission representative at the November 13, 2006, city council meeting. The city council discussed the second reading of the south Maplewood moratorium for properties south of Highwood Avenue. There were 19 residents who spoke and two developers who were in favor of the moratorium. The city council passed a one-year moratorium. They discussed the closing of the St. Paul Tourist Cabins and manufactured home park at 940 Frost Avenue and the fact that a public hearing was supposed to be held before the developer bought and had agreements with the property owners. There was one homeowner that the developer could not come to terms with. If the homeowner and the developer cannot come to an agreement on the purchase price, the city council will determine a fair market price. The electric franchise fee was discussed with about 100 residents in the audience. The electric franchise fee would cost $2.70 a month to cover costs. The discussion was tabled until further notice. Then the city council voted to make the interim city manager, Greg Copeland a permanent city manager for 1 year on a 3-to-1 vote with Mayor Longrie, Council member Hjelle and Councilmember Cave voting Aye. Council member Kathleen Juenemann voted Nay and Councilmember Will Rossbach was absent from the meeting and could not vote. The city council also discussed the negotiations that are taking place for the city employee contracts. There are eight bargaining units for city employee contracts. Because the city doesn't have a human resource department any longer and the city has new legal counsel there is a new group of people negotiating the city employee contracts. This takes a large amount of time to familiarize everyone with the process, the past contracts of the bargaining units, and to understand what has happened in the past and what is being requested for the future. There will be 5 to 7 meetings with each bargaining unit for negotiations which is going to be very costly. The city council meeting ended around 2:30 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -13- b. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the November 27,2006, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is the CUP for Sandy Lake for the materials storage and recycling for the SPRWS. The city council may also give an update on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site at 940 Frost Avenue as well. c. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the December 11, 2006, city council meeting. Items to be discussed are the Alley Vacation for Judy Driscoll, south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street, the Walgreens proposal at the northeast corner of White Bear and Beam Avenues) for a land use plan amendment from LBC to BC, a zoning map change from LBC to BC and a lot division. Also the Resolution of Appreciation for former planning commission member, Jim Kaczrowski will be discussed. d. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the December 18, 2006, city council meeting. It is unknown at this time which items will be discussed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Because the last city council meeting of the month falls on Monday, December 25,2006, the city council may move their meeting up a week and meet on Monday, December 18, 2006, therefore bumping the planning commission meeting date. The two alternate dates to reschedule the PC meeting are Tuesday, December 19, or Wednesday, December 20. The planning commission said if the city council decides to hold their meeting on Monday, December 18, 2006, the planning commission could meet on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Easement Vacation Jensen Estates (Hoyt A venue, east of McKnight Road) November 27, 2006 INTRODUCTION Maplewood City staff, at the direction of the city council, is proposing lhatthe city vacate part of an existing easement. This easement is now 20 feet wide and is between Lots 6 and 7 of the Jensen Estates plat. Specifically, the easement is on the west side of the properly at 2320 Hoyt Avenue. The council directed staff to vacate the east six feet of this easement to ensure that the trail that the developer is to install will be kept to the west of the existing house. This shift is necessary to provide the homeowners room for the landscaping and retaining walls on their properly. (Please see the statement on page three and the maps and plans on pages four through eight) BACKGROUND On September 26, 2005, the council approved the final plat for the Jensen Estates. (This plat created the properties on the Hoyt Avenue cul-de-sac.) A condition of approval of the plat was the developer installing an eight-foot-wide trail from the cul-de-sac to the north properly line of the subdivision. On September 25, 2006, the city council considered a request of Mr. Schroeder of 2320 Hoyt Avenue to not require the developer to install a required trail within the development. The council denied this request and so the city will still be requiring the developer to install the trail. As designed, this trail will run north-south from the Hoyt Avenue cul-de-sac to the north properly line of the development. (Please see the trail plan on page eight). DISCUSSION The city acquired the easement in question in 2005 when the developer of Jensen Estates (the plat) recorded the final plat with Ramsey County. Mr. Schroeder originally requested that the city not require the installation of the trail because of concerns about grading, drainage and landscaping. However, as I noted above, the council directed staff to work with the developer to ensure that the city-required trail be installed while keeping as far from the Schroeders' home as possible. The proposed trail plan and partial easement vacation should meet the requirements of the city council and help alleviate some of the Schroeders' concerns. The proposed six-foot-wide vacation, if approved by the city council, will leave in place the west 14 feet of the easement. The project engineer for the Jensen Estates project has provided city staff with a design for the trail that shows how the contractor could install the trail within this 14- foot-wide easement. (See the plan on page eight). RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page nine. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the drainage and utility easement on the west side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (between Lots 6 and 7, Jensen Estates). 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 all of the existing easement for utility or trail purposes. 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage. 4. The remaining easement area will be wide enough for the installation of the required trail. This vacation is subject to the property owners at 2320 Hoyt Avenue maintaining the drainage on the west side of their house and garage on their property. REFERENCE INFORMATION Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this request on November 16, 2006. State law requires that the city take action and. if the city denies the reauest. notify the affected Darties in writina of the city's action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by January 8, 2007. P:\sec24-29\easement vacation - Jensen Estates - 2006 Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. November 14, 2006 statement for City engineering department Location Map Area Map Address Map Jensen Estates Final Plat Jensen Estates Trail Revision Plan Vacation Resolution 2 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1 En2ineerinl! Discussion PROJECT: PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: DATE: Jensen Estates 05-15 Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) November 14, 2006 The Jensen Estates development was approved with one of the council special conditions reflecting the construction of a trail: The street, driveway, trail and utility plans shall show: (12) The eight-foot-wide trail between the cul-de-sac and the property to the north. The developer dedicated a 20-foot wide trail easement on the final plat to accommodate the trail. Mr. Schroeder, whom purchased the home at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (next to the future trail), was apparently not informed by either the builder or developer that the developer was to construct an 8-foot wide bituminous trail within the 20-foot trail easement between the cul-de-sac and property to the north. After discovering the requirement for the trail, Mr. Schroeder petitioned the city council to have the developer not construct the trail. On September 25, 2006, the city council denied his request -thus requiring the developer to put in a trail. However, the city council also motioned to vacate the easterly 6-feet of the 20-foot wide trail easement in order to help Mr. Shroeder. The developer, Kelly Conlin, will have the trail built in the spring of2oo7 in the manner consistent with the engineering report approved by the city council on 10/23/06. The following is the trail easement that the city should vacate: That part of Lot 7, Block 1, JENSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The easterly 6 feet of the 20 feet of dedicated trail easement bounded by the property line to the north and public street right of way to the south. 3 i i " C'I .-P " = ~O I ClO " : I rt " rfl " , , : c;::I~ 0" ~ '- ~-~--------~- Attachment 2 . . GiiU"'-: cr ! i i:": . ,':~ . I I ':' ,,~, 7 -, i CKNIG~T'LN ; , ; ,i , , I , , , , , .... ::;) ~ !E ~ . ' 'l I I 1\ " ""," j II - )' ~v a 0 i!~~C <) i i]q;~ \ :' - ~....- ,^".."NTEtJR:AVE - ~- - ------- i i~' ~ ~'i !~ i ~! r- bI o!) ~,-,,_ ~i,i / ~!J Q (l - [J , c'" . /J-..!o-l.. I 1 n I I I q 0 " H. ", -.E I:~--'~ ~ I"'I.lJ'D....JJ1 a 1)- , i I,~', ~II~LJI '7"l111l . ir;!,o:,', ': DO 0 V ,_.. r'l//,I1 '''r!IIU i..:!;;!. VI II Lr'1/CJ II lal,I~~: CIl\j(v'" : : ~ ',W ' : .n I 0 '0 I: C:l , ' I:l , , .).!:::l",,, ,,,,, ': L::i! 0 , , , -:;1 I \]' ol-J" ~u I Lr, fJ " . 'T 1~=Cs ","1_0 ( I: c,! 0 \1. .: r ['Jl!'lr LJ' .!:.o l tS II 8: 0 Q ".__ , : - - '0 01101' · - -~-': ,\511' ,,",' ~ I I l:;r j 1 ~I I -0 101""1 I I~ I u I PROPOS, :EDVAC~IO~~ [-\1- ' 0 I' I c:J' \, G 'i i ~ I B I 8! G I , :' i Or~ 'r~ 0 q,~ 8 i Er' ~ ' . I: 'I, \ r -<>I I CJ ':LJI:: ", I)C:>( 0' D:~ ~ " , , ,--;;:: 'Do 1--;:5-,' \.::) : G " 110' '-,-- /' Coil ul" II i '1Irlc{~~7.f$71-~;,..;:::')' Do i i Q "l" I: B.l i 1,.1: (./ 0?1.?(J i, , ':Ci'T I,', r;v n, J ~ -11OTl~ -:./ , LT ~', U -- ". ( "'- -'1 G., """ ,. ~1 ~ r5 I \)~ r--r:r ! ',' r;J I 0 /L"7D "', U LJ c..J '-"", ... , ( J ~_ [i \ ~ I ~ ,- CD I - . \ ) I ~~~~_~~~~~lD,D ~l_~, D~ 8 il_~i ~__'~,",/~ " '- ~-- -~-, ri . ~ (?;"c.""'\ ~.." 4-N lLJ:'I~' i I ID It;I dJ ~ 'i t8~@0J0 ~6 '....r. r: '':''/'0 'S.\:~ , i [fl, i 8 ,(j.r:\ 0",\,,8 e \ \~~\ ~ -..: , LT 'h=r- - If y-~~ @ Jl. ! I i ~ G ~-:~~-^r-t C\J · : . I~ iI-V 1<::?5-'~\\ r':l. , [] 'n ,/ ''-''0. , 'I ,,' V ".,/ J , , , _ I I L II.. """ . ___ .. \ .:!.( I' G:l'" .<i.I~ ! t CJl; -k ~n: 7.. -- (-~~-'1 r-iJ t;'.~ ~/~,/3>-<: :: -r .-1 . '~,':1J.' /', vr~"""" . 0 , I L.....Y"""? '(,I I f7. L.....I 0 i it _ Nebra~ Parftl [}1 ("K;-. ,~" '8/;;;;' : 't ~ r--- 1 I~~ J \' o o I If{ lat T I!" ~ -- - LOCATION MAP \r N 4 ... :l C Q. !z' ~! I I I I ~ I ~ I I .1 ~ 1650 1a2!J-- --n-:i " I Q I, " " 1600 1580 o l!)]-2 1562 I I I , I I I I I, ~ " I 16 I I , ! I i I I I I I I ,! I I ' , ' , ' I ' <>~ :: I I , I ---- - 33- i i I I <> I I r ' I I o I ' ____D___________l~l~ J r : : o I I I~PROPOSEDVACATlON 0 1605 i tn! I 'W: I ~ !~l 1600 or -q ------', ~l o '~, 1595 r I 1592 , I , I I , I I I I I I I ' '. I I I 1579 I .! 1580 , I , I , I I I 8671, i I I I " , \ I \ I I '. , I I I I I I , I , I I I , I -) >, "'--~------- ~3 I l ,. , i I I I I I I I it- ,\ :00 1 'WI (-I ,~, ,~, I::> I ,. ""'u"", L!P48 m~~ ~6~ I IT7 . 0 1U o 1QI\ Do o U~30 in ill 16~D i <D ~ <D ~ 2J o ~ ~- [k8~? I - HoITAVE ------------ //-- <.- i' --------- - ~.--..J-- I I , 154UD ~~c!J~ o :151) ~ ~ . _ ___ _ _____ __ ___ __________'MoNTA."NKAVt_ ~--- ____~____________----.------.-'-' I {'- en T N_ T ~ 1 i i ~ Attachment 3-.. D o oU 1641 CJ o [J Q D L:J 1555 o [j N D[J~~ '" -- ----~-- ~- -~- ---- o --~~~~~~~ ~.'w~N\ "'!:!~ r~~~firi~~0J \'~ ~~) AREA MAP 5 ~ 164t=:J o 16~ 1~ 1616 o 1~ [ 1568 ~ C!J N ~ ~ :;; ~. 1f N ...I :l < l1. 1-, z' :c: Ill, , I I I :0 :a: II- 'J: Ie> 1- IZ I~ lu :~ I I I I , Attachment 4 1628 o DO 1E) ~ l, U630 , a: , " a: g: u::::l \Q 0 : .I 1 2 \__n_' /16 4 0 1600 Do o CD ~ to ~ o I I I I I I 0 I I I I 1580 I I I I I I I 1572 : 1562 I I I I I I I , I I J I I I I J I I , ~~------~--------------~-----------~--------~~ 23~C o ~ N 154UD [}<89(\)2~ i , ../// o HOYT AVE ,..~-~------------- ---------~-----~----------~ --- " / I , I I I I I I I ~~~ CD \Y ADDRESS MAP 1! N 6 Attachment -'2, " P..,....I""I""I.....f ,u,LJL.J: lll):'~ I .,- u_ I ::) f-- e) ll) _I_~~- I ~ I I I I I ----- , , \. '\1 - S. line of property conveyed In Book 876 Deeds, Page 90 , .~ ~..\. ...'\'" N88036'37"E 659.11 ---7~0'0r-~-- 132.40_ ~ I lL _.lll4.5L___~ ,>7' ;. ~ ~/ -110 10 ' -1 /~~/ ;1!l1 I I 110 ;,.4J --+.--" 'J. ;S'~4O"v._,~.r I~ I I j;..f!? ...", ....1~...'!i' ",,, I ~ '0^ ~- /:: . I:" 0 Z<b ~/ '" .... " 6 8 f8 mI' I . ~~ r;;:/!it l!l~ m", 18 J.~ I ~, 10/ "'(/..... ~ ill::! 1% I .f.-A"OJ I ~( ~I -':>...-"33"E' ~ll(s>o ~ ~ Ito lr I ~ -." ~ 10' Vt118"$18 >-" ~. I I 1!;lGi , \ ~ it?~;\,,, Z~ y . ~_ ,,<" ,tt1>"," 8 ~ 1i~ /f \ ,<58 5 is' "VI ~ \ vi: / .;.."'.J" ~~? ,I ~ .~: ..,: 0 , " I ""~, It) '" :0 \ fig A-4so2'" f. tt.l (. 'A,. 10 0> '...1 ,'. :J: l""48 9 32~,,_-__ -- ?'\ ~ '- ----__.1" t.=27 4'2.. I ? C', \ Dl .69 ", / 'iV 0 \,/ L",29.02 A-,- 46.52 ?J 0 L '{" ~ "~ ,,\ .~.i/""7~ ~ 40.05 ":,2Sa4"44!56"E -0-.1\ P: ~1~03~~? t> ~~1" "~ r' g" 145.62 in ~oO'OO.~ l\.. gL - -. ~ /' 1"- (I) ,--- 0.-- .,..~ !b ... IL . I" -'. , " - -,,=,-- I. ~ ~ .0. . "% I / \' " -/,---'..Nll!...llO.10oE: I,' -:, 'b o~ rlt ~ ~... 0 1 81 W t' ""-35 '\ ~ N~O . o.~ (;0"'. (II . ~ III . \ 4 A -96018'04"'/ \ ~A. .~ 0 ~o:"'-_ ~o~~ ~ : j' "ET LAND: _.J 0'" \ Ll " ,;. . IDr~ r\lo-~ e".I ." UJ ., '-.', NB6 L=100.84 <-" 0 tJ 1/ ^'..~. g n ~ "'I: 1 :2: :i 2"i9'~OE: -'-'_ "- %. ~ it NJ (lJ cD 1 l 1 II 97 --______'::........._____ 'I "460 ~ J. 1 "-"_"~" 215,09 - = " 60.00 "" 1 124.99 ~ N88039'43"E 659.21 3 feet of the of the NW 1/4 I N ....N o . ..,.It: , . _'" N ~~ -,.: ON ~. -~ ~1Il ... ....0 0..,. .., s- ;:j~ . I I , ,.. '" f-- e:) __J JENSEN ESTATES FINAL PLAT (PARTIAL) 7 11 N Attachment 6 --: -, -/l ~ TI I' . I -, I ~ f-- I _- ~HD \. \ I t'J Ll~ I - \ '\l023.7 UI LlJ I - --. \, '<\lJl;~ ~:: I / -:-..." ~ \,.. :.t I -~~)\: : :";< "" J ~, :~: j / \ ''-., 1 ---t' '_. --- " --.... ---.. \ TRAIL COMMENTS: 1.Slope from Hoyt Ave to north property line would be 7.2% for approx. 95' 2.Troil would continue at a slope of 4.0% to the end of the trail f I !Iff!I ',HI ;i'm !~un i.!l;u;;n dH.H 50 0 ~ Scole 1" 50 I = 50' l"IIIl!PAMD8'\": HEDLUND PU-.; _ 2005 ~ ON< IRVE EAGAN. MNfESOTA 55122 PHONE: (651) 405-6600 fAX: (~1) 405-6106 ........".,., "- ....."', \ \ -..., \ I I \ \' \ I i I[ \ I! \ \ , I ~ \ ! l i \ , ~ \ 1 t! I ! :K~P , \ : J.!..~5' \ U.~\\' ~ \ I \ ,\ 'I i 1... ......., '\ \ \ \ \ \ " /---... \/ \ ...... " .. ,. \ .. \ \ \ .' i V .. / / I .. / .. , \ , L- -' ~- .~- ... --- 100 I JENSEN ESTATES TRAIL REVISION ANALYSIS TRAIL LOCA TlON WITH ADJUSTMENT 8 Dote 10/12/06 Attachment 7 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood City staff, at the direction of the city council, initiated the vacation of the following: That part of the easement on Lot 7, Block 1, Jensen Estates, according to the recorded plat thereof, In Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: The easterly six feet of the 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement that is along the west property line of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (between Lots 6 and 7, Jensen Estates) between the north property line of the plat and the Hoyt Avenue right-of-way as shown on the recorded plat. All in Maplewood, Ramsey County, in Section 24, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On December 5, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding 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 vacation. 2. On December 18, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public fee title interest in the property will go to the following described properties: 1. Lot 7, Block 1, Jensen Estates (2320 Hoyt Avenue) (PIN 24-29-22-22-0077) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-deSClibed vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use all of the existing easement for utility or trail purposes. 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage. 4. The remaining easement area will be wide enough for the installation of the required trail. This vacation is subject to the property owners at 2320 Hoyt A venue maintaining the drainage on the west side of their house on their property. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 9 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner CarMaxlMogren Addition Highway 61 and Beam Avenue November 29, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description CarMax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, are proposing to develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. CarMax would occupy a site at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. There would also be three future development proposals that would occur on the remainder of the golf course property. Two of these future uses are identified on the site plan as a medical office/retail building and warehouse/retail with gasoline sales. The third site is not yet identified. According to the site plans, these future lots would be developed as follows: Lot 1-CarMax The proposed CarMax used-car dealership would include two buildings. The first would be an 18,744-square-foot building for sales, service and display. The second would be a 750-square-foot car wash. The majority of the site would be used for parking, primarily with sales inventory parking. There would also be a .55-acre work-in-progress area surrounded by a six-foot-tall concrete-block screening wall. This area would conceal cars not ready for display or that are too old or in disrepair and not suitable for sale on this 101. Lot 2-Warehouse/RetaiVGasoline Sales There is no specific proposal yet for this site. This site plan is conceptual and not part of this review. Lot3-Future Development Originally, this was part of the CarMax site. At this lime there is no specific proposal for this parcel. Outlot A-Citv PondinQ Maplewood has a drainage easement over this proposed outlot for area ponding needs. Outlot B-Future Development This parcel is shown on the plans as medicaVoffice/retail. There is no specific proposal yet for this site. This site plan is conceptual and not part of this review. Requests The applicants are requesting the following approvals: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for site plan and use approvals for the entire CarMax/Mogren Addition. This includes the CarMax plans that include automolive repair. The applicants are also requesting approvals for the development of the three future developable sites. 2. A preliminary pial. The design plans for CarMax will be reviewed by the community design review board (CDRB) in a separate report. Refer to the applicants' narrative and the allached plans. Please note that the narrative is the applicants' original narrative and, therefore, mentions a request for an easement vacation over the watershed district's drainage easement. This is no longer part of the applicants' request. The relocation of these buried pipes to an above-ground channel is being considered. This would be worked out between the city and the watershed district. Note: Although the applicants' have requested approval of the development plans shown on Lot 2 and Outlot B, there are no specific users, or applicants, for these lots. Staff, therefore, is considering them as conceptual only and will not be recommending their approval as part of this PUD review. BACKGROUND This site has been operated as the Country View Golf Course for many years. It ceased operation by Mr. Mogren two years ago when the County Road D extension project began. As part of land negotiations for the acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of Venburg Tire, the city acquired an easement over the area shown as Outlot A for regional ponding needs and wetland mitigation for Legacy Village. On June 12, 2006, the city council on;lered the preparation of the feasibility study to construct the public s~reet in this proposed development. 2 DISCUSSION Planned Unit Development As stated above, the proposed PUD would be for the entire development comprised of CarMax and the remaining developable sites. Being that the applicants do not have specific users for these sites, staff views these site plans as conceptual and we do not feel the city council should grant any approvals for them at this time. The city should only act based on specific development proposals. Staff, furthermore, does not think it is prudent to be approving uses such as gasoline sales without a specific proposal to consider on these sites. Fuel sales are allowed by conditional use permit which should be applied for at the time of those specifiC development requests. With this in mind, the proposed PUD should be narrowed in scope to only include the proposed CarMax site and the area needed for regional ponding purposes. The balance of the subdivision should be considered as expansion areas for future development Parking Stall Widths The applicants have requested a deviation from the code as part of this PUD request. They request that CarMax be allowed to have 9-foot-wide parking stalls in their "inventory parking" area. Staff sees no problem with this. The city ordinance does not have a parking requirement for inventory parking and these smaller spaces would merely create tighter parking stalls for the CarMax vehicle inventory. Auto dealers typically provide smaller spaces for their vehicle inventory. The applicants are also asking for approval to provide 9-foot-wide spaces for customer and employee parking. City code allows 9-fool-wide employee parking stalls, but customer parking is required to be 9 % feet wide. Staff does not see any justification for 9-foot-wide customer parking spaces. These spaces would be very few compared to the large numbers of spaces that would be provided. Staff feels that customer parking stalls should meet code at 9 % feet in width. A more important consideralion with parking is that there should be a sufficient number of customer and employee parking spaces available. Often, we see that other auto dealers do not have enough customer and employee parking available. If approved, there should be a condition requiring clearly-marked, signed parking areas for customers and employees. Car Storage for Older Vehicles The applicants are proposing to build a six-fool-tall concrete block screening wall surrounding their "work-in-progress" area. This is a parking lot/storage yard for cars not yet ready for display in the sales lot or for cars thai will be sold to other dealers. This wall would surround a .55-acre vehicle storage area. It is proposed to be built of plain concrete block. Staff feels that the design of this wall should be more attractive than plain block. A reasonable suggestion may be to require rock-face block colored to match the building. The final design should be subject to the review and requirements of the community design review board (CDRB). 3 Shoreland Ordinance Considerations The southwest corner of the CarMax site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland Boundary Area. The shoreland ordinance requires that the applicants cannot develop more than 60 percent of the site with impervious paving. Forty percent must be "pervious' and be able to absorb rainwater. To meet the 40-percent pervious area requirement, the applicants have designed the parking lot in this area to be covered with a pervious bituminous paving method that allows rainwater to penetrate and absorb into the ground. The city engineer and watershed district have reviewed this proposed method and both feel that it meets the intent of the shoreland ordinance requirements. Traffic Impacts Proposed Plat The city has done an extensive traffic analysis for this area already in the Maplewood Mall Area traffic study, the Legacy Village AUAR (Allemative Urban Area-wide Review) and the County Road D Extension study of traffic impacts. These studies were done in consideration of the golf course site being fully developed under the cuITentland use plan guidelines. Uses, like the ones proposed, were anticipated when these three studies were conducted. The major thoroughfare proposal with the preliminary plat is the proposed north-south street connecting Beam Avenue to County Road D. The city's engineering staff has completed their feasibility study for this new roadway and will be submitting it soon to the city council for their consideration and comment. CarMax Site The applicant is proposing two curb cuts for CarMax. The main access point would be a driveway connection on Beam Avenue. This would allow right and left turns into the site and right-turn exits only. The city engineer is recommending that there not be left-tum exits allowed from the site onto Beam Avenue in order to avoid traffic congestion. There is a proposed driveway access from Highway 61 to the site. This driveway is intended to be used for vehicle deliveries only. It would be gated and not open for use by the public or employees. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has approved this in concept but final details must be worked out. Wetlands Maplewood's Environmental Management Specialist, DuWayne Konewko, has submitted a wellandlstormwater evaluation report (allached). Mr. Konewko's report details the existing drainage systems in the area, the proposed stormwater treatment systems and the weiland impacts/mitigation/management and proposed mitigation. Refer to the attached report, but in summary, Mr. Konewko states the following: 4 1) Wetland MitiQation Plan The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to achieve the entire mitigation requirement on- site, including new wetland, public value credits, and buffer areas. The primary mitigation area is the expansion of the current wetland system in the northern portion of the project site. Additional wetland mitigation will be created along the eastern border of the CarMax site, and mitigation credits may also be obtained in the second cell of the pond-wetland system in the south portion of the CarMax site. Final design will need to conform to the state requirements for weiland mitigalion sites, indude side-slope limitations and maximum bounce. Planting will be consistent with the existing wetland area to the north. 2) Wetland Buffers The wetland areas along Beam Avenue are classified Manage C which means that 25 fool buffer areas will apply. The maximum buffer area for this area is 69,853 square feel. The actual exisling buffer area is somewhat less than this as portions of the 25-foot zone extend onto Beam Avenue pavement and the gravel shoulder. The required buffer area for the expanded mitigation site will include creation of up to 1.60 acres (69,853 square feet) of buffer, with an average buffer of 100 feet and a minimum of 50 feel. The RWMWD also had buffer requirements for the created wetland, although to a lower level than the stated City requirements. The RWMWD requires a 75-foot average and 37.5-foot minimum. The required buffer area is intended to minimize future impacts resulting from development encroaching on the wetland areas. While adequate surface area is available to meet the buffer requirements, obtaining a minimum 50-foot buffer along the east side of the proposed wetland area/ditch section may be difficult without further encroachment onto the parcel to the east and beyond the existing easement over the twin 48-inch pipes. Given that one of the overall goals of this project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer) replacement on-site, we recommend that the design use the 50-fool minimum as a goal, but that the RWMWD distance of 37.5 feet be considered acceptable if site conditions limit the full 50-foot distance in all areas. The average buffer around the entire weiland system, as proposed, is approximately 110-120 feet. The City of Maplewood will be assuming the responsibility of working with the watershed district in all wetland mailers as part of the public improvements for this pial. PUD Summary There have been considerable mailers to work out with the applicants and the involved agencies since the applicants' initial application submillal. The traffic impacts have been reviewed and the access to public streets substantially revised to improve traffic flow and lessen negative impacts. Drainage and wetland issues have also been worked out to the satisfaction of the city engineer and the watershed district. The watershed district, however, will still be reviewing the city's final design for wetland mitigation, but they have conceptually accepted the city's designs so far. As for the proposed CarMax use, staff's primary concern is that CarMax makes sure to avoid the usual problems we see with auto dealerships such as the use of public right-of- 5 way for vehicle-transport unloading and parking on the grass. These are operational matters, though. The proposed PUD should be approved only for the CarMax site at this time and it should not include the other developable sites with one exception. If the watershed district's twin drainage pipes are abandoned and converted to an on-grade, open channel, staff recommends a condition of the PUD that all businesses within the CarMaxlMogren development apply aggressive litter-pickup efforts to keep the channel clean from debris. Preliminary Plat The proposed preliminary plat creates four developable sites and the 10.07-acre city's regional-ponding site. The ponding site and the northeasterly development site have been denoted as "outJots." These should be relabeled with lot numbers. The city code does not allow development on outlots without the developer first obtaining a CUP or a replat to delete the outlot classification. This would hinder the development of the northeasterly 101. Classification as outlots would create a need for additional and unnecessary reviews. The CarMax site abuts the ponding site with an irregularly-shaped common boundary line. This is because the ponding site has already been graded in this configuralion for the holding ponds. The CarMax site has been designed in consideration of those grades. City staff engineers, Erin Laberee, Michael Thompson, and city consultant Ron Leaf, of SEH, have reviewed the plans. Their comments are attached. As a condition of the plat approval, the city council should require compliance with the condition requiring that the developer enter into a development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. The proposed street has not been named. The name of this public street should be subject to staff approval to determine a suitable name and to determine if it should relate to its alignment with existing city streets. RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District Tina Carstens, of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, has given her comments regarding this proposal. Refer to Ms. Carstens' report. Naturalist's Comments Ginny Gaynor, naturalist with the City of Maplewood, has reviewed the landscaping plan with specific attention given to the wetland and rainwater g<Jrden planting proposal. Refer to Ms. Gaynor's comments in the attached email correspondence. 6 Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had these comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. . A separate building permit is required for each building. . All exiting must go to a public way. . Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. . The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered. . I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had these comments/requirements: . Need 20-foot emergency access road at all times. . Fire protection system per codes and monitored. . Fire alarm system per code and monitored. . Fire department lockbox required. Get the paperwork from the fire marshal. . There must be proper protection for any tanks stored above ground. . The applicant must get proper permits for any tanks installed above or below ground. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett has reviewed the plans and sees no significant problems as long as the applicants make sure to keep all vehicle unloading activities within their site. Engineering Comments Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, Erin Laberee, and city staff engineer, Michael Thompson, reviewed the plans along with one of the city's consultant engineers from Short Elliot Hendrickson, Ron Leaf. Ms. Laberee and Mr. Thompson submitted their report along with comments from Mr. Leaf. Refer to the attached report. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Leaf have noted many points of additional data needed or plan revisions required. In addition to those, the applicants should be required to: . Sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. 7 . The developer shall enter into a developer agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. . The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Citizen Comments One resident responded to our survey for comments about this proposal. That person opposed the project and felt that another car lot was an eyesore and a detriment to the area. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the CarMaxlMogren Addition development Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped October 20, 2006, except where the city requires changes. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This approval permits the development of the CarMax site subject to the conditions of the city council. The future development sites are not approved at this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications and materials for evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance. 5. If the watershed district allows their twin drainage pipes to be relocated above grade as an open channel, the PUD shall also require that all developments within the CarMaxlMogren Addition actively and regularly pick up alllilter from their parking lots to keep debris from entering this open channel. 6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated November 21, 2006 by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson. 7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan- review reports as follows: . The Drainage and Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006. 8 . The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006. . The watershed district oomments by Tina Carstens dated November 21 , 2006. 8. The PUD allows the applicants to provide 9-foot-wide parking stalls for all inventory and employee parking spaces. Customer parking spaces must be 9 Yz feet wide as code requires. The applicants shall provide justification as to how many customer and employee parking spaces they need and then show that number on the site plan. Customer and employee parking spaces shall be signed as such. 9. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The concrete-block screening wall design is not allowed as proposed. The design of this smooth-faced concrete block wall must be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. 10. The pervious-paving method proposed within the shoreland boundary area shall meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 11. Vehicle transports shall not use public right-of-way for loading or unloading. 12. The proposed driveway on Highway 61 shall remain gated and closed at all times except when needed for vehicle transports delivering vehicles or exiting the site. This access shall not be allowed for any other use by employees or customers. 13. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 14. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces. 15. The applicants shall obtain any required permits from the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County and the Slate of Minnesota and meet the requirements of those agencies. 16. The site plan shall be revised to move the driveway on Beam Avenue as far to the east as possible. This revision shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 17. The city engineer shall get the necessary approvals for wetland mitigation from the watershed district as part of the public improvements needed for this subdivision and development as slated in the report by DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist. 18. All buildings, paving, unneeded utilities, etc. within the proposed subdivision shall be demolished and removed from the site by the applicants. 9 19. The applicants shall provide all development agreements, maintenance agreements and escrows required by the city. These agreements shall be executed and escrows paid before the issuance of building permits. B. Approve the preliminary plat for the CarMaxlMogren Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signing of the following agreements with the city: . A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. . A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. 2. Revising the plat to rename all outlots with lot and block numbers. 3. The applicants shall dedicate any easements that the city may require for drainage and utility purposes. 4. The name of the street shall be subject to the approval of the city's public safety staff and city engineer. 5. The applicants shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated November 21, 2006 by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson. 7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan- review reports as follows: . The Drainage and Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006. . The weiland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006. . The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006. 10 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 17 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. One was opposed and two offered comments. Opposed . I can't believe that you would even consider a massive used car lot with all the car lots on Highway 61. You don't owe CarMax anything. You owe your residents protection against blight. I pay taxes to live in a nice area and used cars don't bring nice neighbors. Please no more used cars in Maplewood or Highway 61. Please notify members of city council that we don't like it. No votes for a city council if approved. (from a Maplewood resident) Other Comments . The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority has no comment on the CarMax site plan but does have an interest in the development of the property to the east of CarMax. The Rail Authority owns a portion of the abandoned rail line to the east of the larger development area and may purchase from Maplewood additional abandoned rail property along the same corridor. This rail line is reserved for future raillransit, and our department has much interest in the future development, site plan and other issues that may impact our property and plans. (Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority) . The city should be aware of traffic concerns with the proposed driveway connections to Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The proposed westerly curb cut on Beam Avenue is very dangerous being so close 10 the intersection. The driveway connection to Highway 61, likewise, may be hazardous. (Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota) 11 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Use: 50 acres The former Country View Golf Course with clubhouse and two single dwellings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D Extension and Lexus of Maplewood South: Beam Avenue and wetlands East: Abandoned railroad right-of-way (the Vento Trail) West: Highway 61, Maplewood Toyota and LaMettry Collision PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M1 Findings for PUD Approval City code requires that, to approve a planned unit development, the city council must base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the allached resolution. APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete revised set of plans, making the application complete, on October 20, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land-use proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by December 19, 2006. 12 p:sec 3\CarMax PC Report 11 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning and Land Use Map 3. Entire-Project Site Plan 4. Site/Landscaping Plan (CarMax) 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Applicant's Narrative dated May 17, 2006 7. Engineering Report from Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated November 21 , 2006 8. S10rmwaterlWetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006 9. Wetland and Rainwater Garden Comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006 10. Watershed District Comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006 11. CUP/PUD Resolution 12. Plans date-stamped October 20, 2006 (separate attachments) 13 BEAM AVENUE -?c!1- U ""'II I " - <:J ~ ---- PROPOSED SITE ~ ~.' '" _ '--1 .J . a . t> HIGHWAY 36 ) Kaler Qolf Cola-le t - ~ tJ TO o ... fI Q .. "i ! t:5 ...1 0 , c..~ @ ~ 'U D LOCATION MAP 1-694 - . . ? o l tJ ,9. : Q Attachment 1 ~ . o r::::a:; "-........."'.~.... .,,-~~ .().. ';."'\.'.:\' -- tf?-.. ~= ~(I o ., " 'il 14 Attachment 2 -'I""'.~ : :... . \, .....--: 1\, .,!>-~ --,~_.~_.-.. ..-., -_.~',/ ,. o r1 9 >0 ~ I jO () . rR ZONING AND LAND USE MAP v 15 ~I AI~ ..~ 11111 ~~I N.'OOOM3'IdYW 'l;:~ a1 ;!ii I Et9l.0N3~S - i i Iii! I I _ .... VB ....W... ....... I ~ "" .ft.&;...... " 'I' I ~ Js rl~ i;rLQ] -,II !:l J . c"J. , '~8 Illl11H111 ~..l lIb II'" ,I , I HI,.I'.' '";~ ~ ~ ~~ i I ~ !.;l~; fl ' ! ali .!~ ~~ ~ ~a ~ i: ~ ~!!i I: a1 · 11111'1,1 I"! ~I ~n ~~, t~ ::: ~~ '6 ~~t ~~!~f~ .1 ~I ! I! ,':1' ili!," I! !. ~ !~ ; i ~!I ta ~. 5 0' :1: i;!!I! !! 11 E Ill'! ..!I'i !:i': " j. ,i, !~'I!!:1 " Iii U h~ !~~i *~ ~ ~ ~~ I , " . & i ~ ; g ~ ~ ~ I ! II I : j' '. 'I ", l ,Ill ;.: I: IH!li!P.lIH; ~!li lllli' i1 ;', illl'l"! ~ . ~ ~e j ; ii! i I_ '! ~ ;11 !I I, d :1 11111!.jli I II ij e I" Ii In,;!! 1111Idll!!ll!,;1 A ~ ~ .~ n !~ & ~~ ~ .~ ~ u ~ h ~~ nl' ~ ~ pO ~ ill! "~~ ~ f lll!i~ ~ ; ;;; I! I. '" Ii ~ 11,:i z !l,1l m!l q ~ ~ ~ . " "" ~ n_~~ ij ! H ~~ ! ~ : ~ illi "- ,"--. ,'~,'---..) I , I II' .1' ,I II i I ~ ~ B III 0 ON ~ 8 1Iti~ 0 .J~ ~ ~ 0 c:)==='T'ifL?~ - 0 .. '~ B ~ ' 0 \J6=p CDC::::r~ ~ ===cr=c::u <. ....~ : ~i o ~~ E-<i; g~ o c:" :---) '-...-.~~ --- ) '---- -' b Iirfff , ~~-- -~"'~_,I'.' ~ . .. i---___ IIII I . i : i I I i i I I. / 1/ I II Iii II' II! .IU' . I . I I i I I Attachment 3 .... o w ~Z Ocr: O::...J Q.Q. WW 0::.... ~(j) Z W 16 ..A~ ~~ Attachment 4 1!lfJI'~' ~1m :~::: j~!~1 Ii i,lll ~... ... ... ... ... i fI. ,:I!! I xeWIIY:) I ~ I !!I I 5 Ii; , ~ ~. . 11'IIIHIII 1IIIII/b.I.} , II , I I I , ! I ! ! . I ! l ~ ~ ~ . : ~ I , . . I , . , . . I ! , , . - -. . , . . . . , ~ ~ ~ .. j I I I I I , , , I I I '" , , , , , , , ! ., ! ! ! ! ~~~ , , ;; i I I .. , , , ~i~ : : " I ~ ~ il , > , ! ~ ~ , , ;!i " .. !ill! I i ! Il Ii t I i I II , i II 'I,l.!l, I I II l' !l !,., illhllli!! . I. .i iI ! Ii l'li/;Il III ;. I , I I l , , I Ii! ! Ii I g , I, II I! Ii , i! ! 'i' liiull, , , P !I I , il ! ;1 /.; ! I ;' ! II Ilil, I, ~ ~ . ~ ~ 0~1 . . , . . .. . , , " . c:} 0 (3)0(3) '~ ! I " .0 i . 00. . . . i 8 I ~ I I I I I I I 31 I: ~I II I I I I I I I I I , , ! ! . , I I ! ! . I I ~Il:! J I , . I . ! I i i I I !:lll@D'j mw:: '... Q Q Q I~~ z c( ..J . : i" 1'-11 jl ! I,' a.. I ,. I,,' 11,1 'Ill ~ ~~ m~ $Sf~, 'l C) . l' 'l~i 'II' i ; ,I ! :1 " i' " K ~~ !hl ~':I ~, ~i -I Z ill Hli III!I ii' ,l:!I_ !~. hf~ ~~h: ~ ~ll' a.. I lil'il! "'i' !i " ! I,;,!"! I,i,! I! I';l <C ~ '! !!i!!l: !!~i! Ii; llll (J ~ Ii m:l-!,'ii,!!.! ;1'1 #^ ~ I;, ill mil !!i,i III ij Ij V~ ~ !!l!!~l!!',',i.ll;!'1"IIC ~ :!'!ll:,;hll/lll!il!!!!Z <C ..J 1(0 ~ ~ ~ Ii" 'j !!. ,- Ilhi8~1 ~~Ull -!imI1,! i:'iiljW II; ili 1 !!!i I:!'i! I~ ~I~ ~~~ ! ~iill !d~~il ~- ., II!' '-'1,.,.',1 '#^ 'il h, ; !!!; I::!i Ii : ":~ , hi !!II; l'jl !lll'l,,! ':11'1:"1 ,., 1.,1, !'l 'II'!,.., I'/'I"S, .Ii 111;1 !1'1.!ill'II!; '!I:ili1!! ;!I! llili N,:!!l!!j:lj 1* lji!li / I!':, li;i Ii ,I;! i III il ill Il','!lll; I"!'l !!H~ Ju ~lll~ ~ ~ f f;: ~I! ~~ ~~I~! I;I! !!ii ",I! "I. iil ,! I! ,I !",h, I" - . 8 Q QQ' ., . Q .. 17 W to- - tIJ ~ :E a:: c( o ~, I I iii 'I,ll~ 'illl'lI I .,mi.II/III.. . II~i"IIIHIIIIII i!!'~ ~. ~I NO'"""",""", ~-~I~~!i :1,1 I ""'ON,"""", I ~. 1:11; ''''''''''''''''... S ~ !!I!; ~ .. xeWIIY:J I l!> ~ , ~ r.!IIIHllf 1....8..1 111'111,. .., l!( , , i~~ ~I: ~i.~~~ ~i ~l" I ~~.;! ~~r~: ~~t ~~ ! e _ h ~ iHe ill iIl1li ;! Ii!!! :Iill';j; il"" 1!1' 1,I'illll'.. !;.' !/l,'!i I i'l: ill i! " , j:n: !!il ,. 'I' I l'l! 'II'" ,11 i!".' II": .~i-~! ~a~~_~ !~I d,. j Ii.' I',!! Ii I illl ,i 1,1 I'j 'II.. '11: -Ill" " ':",'!I Iii I! !:~j ~ !ii: ~ I f; ~=B' I~! li;d :11 Ii/I! !lii!!!!! ill! i!II'!!!I!' ~ !lIlli; ill; II !1111 1,'ll 'I!; Illilll 5 k1iilll,Il,II! ii I III/,ii 'i/'!!! g ill! l!l! i! !II I: lli!1 ill ,i iil;ll 11m .. GI G! GIG!' . . . Q " .. 'I I ; I j' I,: ',! Jill!' .1 , .. !';' ,.li! '! " ~ ~~ H~ ad~1 ;~ ~ ! .!' 'l'l 'lllll:; II! I;! lill Ii':! I! II'! I : 'i ~ii' 1'111 " 1.11 ! : !! hi'lh,:! ,.', i ""!'Ii' 'II'! II ,'11, · I!l'i "1, ":' I :;. "" lihl 'Il'.l I -! ','il' ',. ' .'ll! e i I 1'1 "l; II", II, ,I I, I 2 ! I;' "f! 'I"'! i 'I! I III i,ll':Jl; b. Ill: il! f ;" ~i~ !~~ I ~i!~, ~h II' 'I ~ !c ~~~! ~u~ h!~ ~l" i l! :!j e d ui$ I ~~l 'driB ;~. I" ~ ;hU!;,;llhd !ll!!ll! "t,; ~ . ~ " ! I I ! ! I I . I , I .' . . . , . . , , , , , , , ! , ;. i ~ . , . . , I , I I , I , I , , " , , , , , , ! ~l , , , , ;~~ , . " , , I . Iii " ; ~ ~ . . . ! , , I !lll!l ' I " II I i I !l I ~ I I I !l Ii II i II " II I! . ill Ii II j~ Ii ulll q. , II al !. I g . , ; l; ! I , I ~ I . l. , Ii Ii! hi! HI ql I, I , , II Ii H M ;II Ii II! , " .. j' ~~ ~~ ! .; . . . , ~, OG8& .. , . ,. . " d (~'j. 'Il d\. . 0~ .. I~ , . . co. . , r I . , I ! ! I , I 1 : : = f ii, I i I I mg~11 mOllliJ,- fI fI G! :1 III ."1 . , , J , , J " 3 'i " " ,I I , , J J , , ".' , , " !ie ~I ~~ J I~ 18 AI~ ..~ 111/1181111.,<' 11l1.llb.J l~ . II ,ii ii i ,11 "" ,11"'1 ,i..i~,lll!l,!,iii~ II! llil!. i~lll;lll!I!I;I!IUf.Ii!l!!U"11 !,mllllllililililiIUlIIllllllIIll ; I ijegi:i~;~~il ~ ~ ~ a ,~m.m'-J~~~ Attachment 5 lllllj ~'.I :::: ll-l~ 11 il~11 IElltmllllE3lllllBlllllllll ~ Ill!l I 'UBw........ 1> I ~I ' l ~ ~~~ . "! . !: " . llll , il!!!. 1 L , Ijil!i!i ! '] , " " ,II, i:!, i I' !, i11ilUi h~~ .. , ,I' ! \, " ~ i:~~ I ri! :1 I" . n~u ~ 'I " 1'1 .llnm! I,i! i! a~~~ ~ Ii .iiil:! i}::~~ !":!t'-!'- ~ h r 1 iI' , iliji!i!1 I''''!!'' ~ H .. .~~~~ ~ -: ~ ~ !'~ , OJ .1. m :~ "~~ ~ Ii Ii- ,i! i:i!i. I ill' hiU ~ ~ il!'I!,!' ., ~ ~ '=I ;~~ ~i li~ t a ~ ~;9i~ I hli . ,jii I ~: ~;: ~ !. . i!nH i ~! ~ M ! ~ . L~~ " ~ '~""<;::::::::-._. -'-'- ~' -, --'---' .~. -........ - .- -'......... ''-'- -................ ! .................. '-......., -........-......... I -,......... '-......., ........, l~ '........ '. " r ........,........ "" ". 1 " '", ",~ -'-. -" ! '-. " '. \ \ \ \ . . \ I \ \ i I I 1 1 1 10 ., I, Ii 1 1 I i i i i i I I . !!r f i- f f i ~ ~ ...... Eo-< ...... ~ ~ ~ o o u "-"---'---. -- al ; ij~ ii" i L , i -< ~ o , If j- ". ~ 9 _ ___ ___ --51Z......._ __ r----- .1 13 I j'.""."-..-' , - 9 ~ .IP I J ! ! I , iill . jl :! 'j .. I ~ I i , , I i I i i I iI, l! II' il! I- Ll . 19 t- <C ..J Q. > a::: Ill( z - :IE - ..J W a::: Q. Attachment 6 RECEIVED MAY 3 02006 Car.Mt1:J(/:Moaren Jftfditwn 9rf.apCewooa, 9rf.innesota APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL May 17,2006 Prepared By: ~t~~ ~ LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS-PHOENIX 20 ,!tt~ m'~ LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition iii 1 N N I A ~ 0 ~I'. P H 0 I H III May 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION We respectfully request approval of a Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Vacation of a drainage and utility easement and Community Design Review Board approval for redevelopment of the former Country View Golf Course located at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. The property is currently zoned M-1, Light Manufacturing, and is guided the same. The total site is 57.1 acres in size. Currently, the. only known tenant is CarMax (proposed to occupy Lot 1). The development team is continuing to work to finalize tenants for Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C. No development is planned for Outlot A as it contains existing municipal stormwater ponds. Architectural details for the buildings on Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C, will not be finalized until the tenants are chosen; therefore, we are requesting approval of the PUD/CUP for the site plan and uses for the entire development, with the knowledge that building elevations and sign plans will need to be submitted for review and approval by the Community Design Review Board prior to finai plat approval of Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat contains 2 lots and 3 outlots. Only two of the three outlots (B & C) are for future development, the third (Outlot A) contains existing municipal stormwater ponds. Lot 1 is the only lot proposed for development at this time. However, the remaining lot is intended to be mass-graded and ponding constructed as needed in preparation of future development. Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C will likely be developed independently of each other sometime in the future. VACATION There are three stormwater pipes that run north-south through Lot 1: two 48-inch pipes and a 3D-inch perforated pipe. The applicant is requesting to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement over the twin 48-inch stormwater pipes. (There is no easement over the 3D-inch pipe.) The applicant is proposing to re-route all three of these pipes. The overflow from the northern existing stormwater pond will be re-routed to the western portion of Lot 1, and the twin 48" pipes will be re-routed east toward the new right of way, then follow that right of way south before re-entering Lot 1 and connecting back to the existing 48" pipes. A new drainage and utility easement will be dedicated over all three of the stormwater lines in their new location. CUP FOR PUD The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development. The PUD is requested to allow the mix of commerciai uses on the site, including auto sales, retail, office and gas/convenience, and to allow the comprehensive calculation of impervious surface area for the entire Page 1 21 .etl~ ma LANDFORM CarMaxlMog ren Addition MIMNI...aLI....MO.N'" May 17, 2006 development. The retail sites may include uses with liquor sales, but those uses would comply with all city liquor licensing requirements and would be sited to meet the required 350-foot setback from residential properties. There is a small portion of Kohlman Lake's shoreland area located in the southwest corner of Lot 1. Kohlman Lake is a Class IV water body. The site meets all of the prerequisites to reduce the standards by one classification as described in Section 44-1242(b)(I)a of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the development has been designed to meet the impervious area requirements of a Class III, non-water frontage lot, with an "impervious surface area bonus." The bonus is based upon the design of the on-site stormwater management system that Is identified in Section 1242(b)(1)d of the Zoning Ordinance. Stormwater treatment for the overall development will be accomplished through the implementation of traditional wet ponds, underground storage, and rain gardens. The stormwater management techniques proposed are intended to encourage infiltration, meet the enhanced stormwater practices outlined in Appendix D of the City's Stormwater and Wetlands Plan, and meet the requirements of the impervious surface area bonus. All of the proposed uses are permitted by right in the M-1 zoning district, except for the following uses, which require a conditional use permit: . The CarMax used car sales lot and its accessory uses . The gasoline station, which is proposed as an accessory use to the warehouse retail use on Lot 2. The project meets the Conditional Use Permit standards in Section 44-1097 of the City Code as follows: 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. All of the above uses will conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The request would allow redeveiopment of the site to provide needed retail and service uses to the community. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The proposed uses are typical for this area and would not alter the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The proposed uses are all allowed in the M-1 zoning districts permitted or conditional uses. Page 2 22 '!I~~ ~ LANDFORM CarMax/Mogren Addition MINH K"'~"LI.' ~NO.NIX May 17, 2006 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The uses will not depreciate property values. All of the abutting parcels are also zoned and guided M-1 and the uses will provide additional services and conveniences to the surrounding neighborhoods. 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The proposed uses wiil not involve any dangerous, hazardous, detrimental or disturbing activity. 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. The traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any local streets. The site as been designed in accordance with the City's transportation plans, which include construction of a new public road to serve this development and contribute to improved overall circulation of the area, has been proposed. Therefore, this new public road will alleviate any additional traffic congestion created by this project. 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. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed uses: . The redeveiopment of the site will not burden the existing police and fire protection services. . The existing schools and parks are adequate to serve the commercial development, which will contribute to the overall tax base while having no impact on the schools and limited impact on the park system. . There are existing water, sanitary and storm sewer systems in the area which currently serve the site and any proposed infrastructure improvements will be paid for and constructed by the developer. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Page 3 23 ,!tt~ ~ LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition M'NNI"~OL"""0.NU May 17, 2006 The proposed infrastructure within Lot 1, Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C will be paid for and constructed by the developers; therefore, the proposed uses will not create excess additional costs for public facilities. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Because the site is developed as a goif courseldriving range, there are very few natural features to be preserved. However, the developers will continue to analyze each site as the individual tenants for Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C are finalized. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. The uses will not cause any adverse environmental effects. The project also meets the PUD criteria in Section 44-1093 of the City Code as follows: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. The site is consists largely of hydric soils. The master planning of the entire parcel is necessary to correct the soils for development and provide the enhanced stormwater management system being proposed by the developer. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The proposed development would be consistent with preserving the health, safety, and welfare of the public and all other purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, if not better. 3. The PUD would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to this chapter. The proposed development will be at least of equal quality to that which would result from adherence to the Zoning Ordinance. Page 4 24 o!tt~ m-a. LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition M'''''..PDLl..PIIO.",X May 17, 2006 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. The proposed development will not constitute any threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. In fact, the proposed development may increase adjacent property values. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. The only deviation from the City Code being requested with this PUD is the slight decrease in the dimensions of the parking spaces within the CarMax (Lot1) portion of the project. The Applicant is requesting approval to use 9' x 17' stalls in the "vehicle inventory/dispiay" area west of the main CarMax building, and 9' x 20' stalls in the "customer/employee" area south and east of the main building. The Applicant is requesting these modest deviations from City Code to accommodate an efficient site design that allows for proper placement of the wet pond and the infiltration basin. By comparison, the 9' x 20' stalls contain 9 additional square feet of stall areas versus 9.5' x 18' stalls. Additionally, these stalls will be used for low-turnover traffic (i.e. employees and customers of a car dealership), so safety should likely not be an issue. This modest PUD flexibiiity is requested to allow for reasonable and practicable commercial development of the master-planned site. CARMAX SITE PLAN (LOT 1) The Applicant is seeking approval to use Lot 1 of the subdivision for the construction of a used car saies facility. This facility will include a sales area, a carwash (for use by the used car facility only), and a motor vehicle maintenance area. In the M-l district, the sale of used motor vehicles, carwashes, and motor vehicle maintenance garages each require a conditional use permit (CUP). Thus, the Applicant has submitted a CUP application for all aspects of the facility to be constructed on Lot 1, which application will be discussed in more length below. The used motor vehicle facility to be constructed upon the Property will be owned and operated by CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. ("CarMax"). CarMax, a publicly-traded, Fortune 500 company and one of the Fortune 2006 "100 Best Companies to Work For," is the nation's leading retailer of used cars. CarMax currently operates seventy used car superstores in thirty-three markets nationwide. CarMax has achieved great success by offering its customers no-haggle pricing on a vast inventory of late-model vehicles. CarMax seeks to now offer its services to Maplewood and the surrounding areas. Page 5 25 .llt~ ma LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition MI NN..~OL'" ~HD".'X May 17, 2006 As shown on the plans submitted in connection with this application, CarMax proposes to construct two buildings upon its site. The principal building is 40,796 square feet In size and contains the dealership's sales, service, and presentation areas. The second building is 11,533 square feet in size and contains the dealership's cosmetic services area, including a carwash. Applicant has submitted building elevations for each of these buildings with its applications. The site also includes a sales inventory parking area (3.99 acres in size and containing 568 parking spaces), a customer/employee parking area (2.77 acres in size and containing 292 parking spaces), and a 2.86 acre work-In-process area that Is protected and screened by a six-foot CMU wall. Lot 1 of the subdivision, in addition to being currently zoned M-l, is designated in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for development under the M-l zoning designation. Thus, a used car sales facility upon Lot 1 is consistent with the City's plans for this area. Furthermore, the use of Lot 1 as a used car dealership is consistent with the current uses in the area, as there are other car sales facilities located to the north, east, southwest, and south of the Property. As the City notes in Its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the "area along Highway 61, north of Highway 36 to White Bear Lake, is known for its car dealerships and auto service facilities." Accordingly, CarMax's used car sales facility would fit into and enhance an already well-established pattern of land use in the area. Because CarMax's use of Lot 1 is entirely consistent with the current use of surrounding parcels, it will not have an adverse effect upon the value or uses of surrounding properties. To the contrary, the distinctively attractive visual appearance of CarMax's facilities will be a pleasant addition to the Highway 61 corridor. There are no residential properties within 350 feet from the site that would be adversely affected by CarMax's use of the site. The level of noise generated by CarMax's use of Lot 1 will be consistent with the other uses in the area, and perhaps less because CarMax will not use an outdoor loudspeaker system on the site. Additionally, CarMax's hours of operation will be similar to the hours of operation of the other car dealerships along the Highway 61 corridor. In short, CarMax's planned use of Lot 1 wiil blend nicely with the surrounding area. As required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, all service and maintenance activities performed as part of CarMax's operations will occur within the buildings located on the site. The carwash within the cosmetic building will have its own drainage system, which will not drain onto a public street or access. Further, CarMax's site wiil be well landscaped, as shown on the landscape plan submitted in connection with the applications. Finally, after completing engineering analyses, the Applicant believes that the City's existing public services and facilities, such as streets, water and sewer systems, and police and fire protection, are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Page 6 26 .ltt~ ma LANDFORM CarMaxlMogren Addition "'HNI"~D~'" ~MO.N III May 17, 2006 CarMax's facility will also not generate excessive vehicular traffic on local streets. To the contrary, the traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any local streets. Instead, traffic will only be able to enter and exit CarMax's site from Beam Avenue on the south (which is designated as a Minor Arterial roadway in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan) and the future collector street on the east that connects Beam Avenue and future County Road D to the north, which is to be constructed as part of Applicant's PUD. Thus, the Applicant believes there will not be any traffic problems created by CarMax's use of Lot 1. SUMMARY We are requesting approval of the Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development, Easement Vacation and Community Design Review to all redevelopment of this site as a commercial development. We hope to be able to present our request at the following meetings: June 13, 2006 Community Design Review Board June 19, 2006 Planning Commission July 10, 2006 City Council. Any additional questions in regards to this development can be directed to Daniel Hughes with Landform at dhuqhes@landformmsD.com or 612.638.0254. Page 7 27 Attachment 7 P:IWORKSIENGl06 PROJDOCSI06-14CarMax _ MogrenAdditionlENGR COMMENTS Page I of 10 EDmneerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: CarMax I Mogren Addition PROJECT NO: 06-14 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer, City of Maplewood Micbael Tbompson, Civil Engineer I. City of Maplewood SUBMITTAL NO: 2 (First Submittal Comments on June 8, 2006) DATE: November 21,2006 Bruce Mogren is proposing to develop the old Country View Golf Course property at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. The development includes Carmax, a major retail center, a fitness center and office facilities. At this time the only portion of the development under consideration is the Carmax site. Mr. Mogren petitioned the city to prepare plans for a public road that would run north and south through the development and connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. Several wetlands will also be impacted by this development. The city will also lead the wetland mitigation process as part of the public improvements project. Runofffrom the Carmax site will be treated in several rainwater gardens, a storm water detention basin and an infiltration basin The developer shall address the following questions and comments. Drainage I. Two 48 inch pipes owned and maintained by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) run through the proposed development. The developer is also proposing a swale system downstream of the wetlands created as part of the County Road D project. The swale is located parallel to the twin pipes. The city in conjunction with RWMWD is considering the replacement of a segment of the twin pipes with an open channel. This would be a better design hydraulically and from a water quality standpoint. The developer shall work with the city and RWMWD and consider this option. Comments from SEH also address this issue. 2. Please address the comments from the SEH memorandum to Erin Laberee dated November 2, 2006 (updated November 9, 2006). 3. The engineer shall detail how the rainwater gardens, swale, detention basin are to be prepared and constructed. Due to the poor soils in the area, the engineer shall address how runoff is to be infiltrated in the gardens, whether it be through a rock sump or an under drain system. 4. It shall be noted in the plans that sumps are to be 3 feet deep. Most sumps catch basins have been noted with the exception of catch basin 23. 5. The curb cuts at the southwest corner of the site shall be replaced with catch basins with a 3 foot sump. 28 P:\WORKSIENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax_ MogrenAdditionlENGR COMMENTS Page 2 of 10 6. Catch basin #77 should have a minimum 3' depth sump in order to catch sediment and other debris prior to flowing into the rain garden. 7. The intersecting storm pipes 61-62 and 56-57 do not provide enough separation. Refer to city plate number 320 for concrete block support if at least I-ft of separation is not achieved. Wetlands I. The applicant shall work closely with the city to accomplish the goal of wetland replacement on the develooment site to mitigate the proposed development impact of the 54,000 sq-ft wetland along the Beam Avenue ditch. The city will lead this process. Please refer to comments from the city's environmentalist, Duwayne Konewko. Grading 1. The developer's engineer shall provide a phased grading plan to include items such as stockpiling, haul routes, etc. 2. If any retaining walls end up being 4-feet or taller then a required submittal to the City of Maplewood building department is required. Please show a typical detail of the retaining wall on the plans. 3. All rainwater gardens and infiltration basin shall be excavated to final bottom elevation after major grading is complete. Care must be taken to avoid compaction of bottom area in order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil. If rainwater gardens or infiltration basins do not perform as designed, it is the responsibility of the developer's engineer and/or contractor to correct the problem. The city will withhold all escrow monies until such time all storm water BMP's work as proposed. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan I. IdentifY erosion and sediment protection on slopes and sediment controls at top and toes of slopes and base of stockpiles. Heavy duty silt fence shall be placed lOO-ft east and west of the Beam Avenue entrance. 2. IdentifY locations for equipment/material storage, debris stockpiles, vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. Address measure to contain area and specifY that all materials stored on site shall have proper enclosures and/or coverings. 3. IdentifY the quantity of materials to be imported or exported from the site (cu-yd). 4. Describe measures (e.g...sediment basin, sediment trap, etc) taken during the rough grading process to intercept and detain sediment laden run-off to allow the sediment to settle and how the settled stormwater will be de-watered and introduced to the public drainage system. 29 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax_MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 3 of 10 5. Describe measures of onsite dust control (i.e.... water as needed) and also provide a sweeping plan for adjacent streets with the sweeping schedule also incorporated into the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). 6. The erosion control notes reference using straw bales under note 12; however the city encourages use ofbio logs embedded in the ground to contain sediment. Wood chips scattered at the edge of disturbed areas has also has proven effective in controlling sediment. 7. In Outlot A, the wetland edge shall be shown along with the wetland delineator and date wetland was delineated. A 100-ft buffer shall clearly be shown on the plans. Silt fence and orange construction fencing shall be placed around the wetland area. 8. The following verbiage shall be added to the plan: "Flfective erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to any storm events. " Failure do such shall result in the deduction of escrow funds (the city requires the developer or contractor to post escrow prior to issuance of the grading permit). The funds will be deducted at the discretion of the city inspector upon notice to the developer or contractor. 9. All emergency overflow swales shall include permanent erosion control blanket such as Enkamat or NAG 350. Demolition 1. What is the developer's plan for the existing maintenance garage near the holding ponds? This should be shown and addressed on the demolition plans. Landscape I. The landscape plan does not include seeding or restoration details for lot 3. Orange fencing must be placed around this area to ensure no disturbance. Please shown the plans as fenced with a "no disturb area" text. 2. The landscape plan is subject to the review and approval of the city's naturalist, Ginny Gaynor. See attached comments from Ginny. Sanitmy Sewer 1. On sheet C4.1 all of the CarMax sanitary sewer pipe is shown as 6" diameter, but on sheet C4.2A (close up view) it is shown as 8" from SANMH#2 to the existing sanitary manhole. Please clarify which is correct. 8" sanitary sewer pipe shall be SDR 35. Agency Submittals 30 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 4 of 10 1. The applicant must apply for permits through Tina Carstens at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Also, the applicant shall coordinate all necessary pennits associated with the twin 48" storm water pipes running through the proposed CarMax development site. 2. Submit all potable water related design for the development site to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Is there any specific reason the water service pipe proposed to service the CarMax building is connecting to the main from the south (435-ft) instead of the east (240-ft)? Insulation should be shown at all water service crossings in accordance with SPRWS standards. 3. Coordinate with Dan Soler at Ramsey County for all traffic related permits on Beam Avenue. 4. Mn/DOT approval for the entrance/exit on T.H.61 is required. 5. The developer or project engineer shall obtain a MPCA's construction storm water permit (SWPPP). 6. Agency submittals are not limited to those listed above. Traffic Traffic comments provided by Jon Horn, Brandon Bourdon, and Chadd Larson from Kimley Horn and Associates. 1. The access onto TH 61 from the proposed CarMax site (Lot 1) shall be gate controlled and shall only be used by those that have clearance to open the gates via A VI tag or other form of control. The details and requirement of the gate control and degree of access allowed will be included in the conditional use permit. The use of this access will be reviewed on a yearly basis by the City of Maplewood. The City will solicit comments from Mn/DOT during this yearly review to determine if any modifications to this access need to be implemented. 2. The right-in/right-out access to the proposed CarMax site (Lot 1) from Beam Avenue shall be located as far to the east as possible. The exact location will be determined based upon the wetland mitigation required, the ultimate configuration of the existing storm sewer pipes owned by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, and intersection spacing to the proposed public roadway. 3. The access locations for the warehouse retail site on Lot 2 shall be consolidated to two locations on the proposed public roadway. The southern access shall be located at least 300 feet north of Beam Avenue (measured centerline to centerline). Striping shall be installed on the two accesses to the proposed public road from Lot 2 so that there is one entering lane and two exiting lanes. 31 P:IWORKSIENGI06 PROJDOCSI06-14CarMax _ MogrenAdditionlENGR COMMENTS Page 5 oflO 4. The access from Lot 3 onto the proposed public roadway shall be aligned with one of the access points to the warehouse retail site on Lot 2. Right of Way /Easements Right of way and easement comments provided by Jon Horn, Brandon Bourdon, and Chadd Larson from Kimley Horn and Associates. 1. The preliminary plat does not show the existing Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District easement across Lot 1. 2. Proposed public improvements include the possible removal of the existing watershed pipes and the construction of an open ditch. The developer shall dedicate any additional easement required for the construction of this open ditch. 3. Wetland mitigation is currently being investigated on the project site. The developer shall dedicate any additional easement required for wetland mitigation. 4. The preliminary plat shows the dedication of an approximate 88 foot wide right of way for the new north-south roadway. This right of way width should be revised to an 80 foot width. 5. The alignment of the proposed north-south roadway right of way should be revised at the County Road D intersection. Field survey information confirmed that this intersection location is east of the intersection shown in the development plans. 6. Outlot A should be shown as a drainage and utility easement together with Lot I rather than a separate lot as the area is needed to meet the maximum impervious area percentage requirements of the shoreland zoning rules for development. Miscellaneous 1. 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. 2. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. 3. The developer or developer's engineer shall incorporate a preliminary lighting plan into the plans. 4. The owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for all storm water treatment devices (list devices i.e.... sumps, basins, ponds, etc). The city shall prepare this agreement upon plan approval. 32 P:\WORKSIENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAdditionlENGR COMMENTS Page 6 of 10 5. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the city. The city will prepare this agreement which will cover items such as cost sharing for public improvements (signal lights, Beam Avenue road improvement, etc.). 6. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon the completion of the necessary public improvements to support the proposed development as identified in the Feasibility Study and Report for the CannaxlMogren Addition improvements, City Project 06-17. These public improvements include the new north-south public roadway, sanitary sewer and watermain improvements within the public right-of-way, and improvements along Beam Avenue and at the TH 61lBeam Avenue intersection. The developer shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the estimated assessments identified in the Feasibility Study and Report. 7. The developer shall complete the overall mass grading of the project site including areas within the public right-of-way. Grading within the public right-of-way shall be completed to within a 0.2' tolerance of the design grades. The developer shall perform field surveying to verify that the grading meets the specified tolerance before the City commences the construction of any public improvements within the right-of-way. The mass site grading shall be completed and verified by June 1, 2007. 8. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for all public improvements including easements. The agreement will require the developer to post a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of the public improvements for the new public road and a portion of the costs for the Beam Avenue improvements as detailed in the feasibility study. The developer's agreement will also detail requirements for the site grading as mentioned previously. 33 P:IWORKSIENG\06 PROJDOCSI06-14CarMax _ MogrenAdditionlENGR COMMENTS Page 7 of 10 ~ SEH MEMORANDUM TO: Erin Laberee, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Maple wood FROM: Dan Cazanacli, PE Ron Leaf, PE SEH Water Resources DATE: November 2, 2006 (updated November 9, 2006) RE: CARMAX Plan Review - Storm Water I Drainage Submittal SEHNo. A-MAPLE0612.oo Background We have reviewed the Storm Water Narrative and Calculation and Drainage Plans for the CARMAX - MOGREN site in Maplewood. Landform, submitted a set of plans, narratives, and HydroCAD model printouts, dated October 18, 2006. The set of plans, titled MOGREN RETAIL AND CARMAX MAPLEWOOD, covers the area south of County Road D and north of Beam Avenue, east of Highway 61. We also participated in meetings with representatives for developer and with the Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and Ramsey SWCD staff on November 8, 2006. Landform plans indicate that there two development areas: 1. LOT I (west): CARMAX area to be located on the western side of the site, immediately east of Highway 61. 2. LOT 2 (east). Warehouse Retail area to be located further east, east of a proposed Public Road connecting County Road D and Beam Avenue. According to the plans, the area between these two sites will remain undeveloped. We believe the intent here is that Landform intends to refer to the land to the north, currently the pond and wetland system for the County Road D and a portion of the future Warehouse Site. The submittal indicates that the north-central area (OUTLOT A) and south-central area (LOT 3) will not be graded or modified. Although the narratives include runoff values for both sites mentioned above, the HydroCAD model for the proposed conditions appears to reflect the CARMAX area (LOT 1) only. Therefore, our review has focused on the details of the CARMAX site, but has also generally considered the overall storm system in the area. 34 P:\WORKS\ENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax_MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 8 of 10 For the CARMAX site, the plans indicate a storm water detention, treatment, and infiltration chain consisting of four rain gardens, a wet pond and an infiltration pond. With the exception of a smaller rain garden, these drainage features are located along a north-south strip, east of the proposed CARMAX parking lot. Three rain gardens collect the runofffrom approximately half of the impervious surface and overflow into the wet pond. The remaining impervious surface discharges either to a fourth rain garden and then to the wet pond or directly into the wet pond. The wet pond overflows into the infiltration basin. Based on our meeting at the RWMWD on November 8th, the second cell of this system may be eligible as wetland credits. The plans also include a channel section to serve as the outlet for the wetland mitigation site to the north and also to serve as a portion of the wetland mitigation area. Review Questions and Comments The following review comments are separated into four categories: treatment system, rate controls, infiltration systems and wetlands. Water Quality Treatment 1. When the CARMAX site (LOT I) only is considered, the proposed drainage plan appears to provide adequate dead storage volume for storm water quality treatment in terms of total phosphorus (TP) and suspended solids (TSS) to meet the City's standards. Submittal of computations for the removal efficiencies of these systems are needed prior to making a final determination. In general, the cumulative volume of the four rain gardens, wet pond, and "infiltration" basin is fairly large relative to the total impervious CARMAX area surface. Our understanding is that these computations have been completed by the developer's engineer and are available. 2. In general, we recommend that the developer remove as many pipes for the rain gardens system as possible and identify what types of pre-treatment will be included in the design. We anticipate the RWMWD will also have questions/comments along these lines. Flow Rate Control 3. The proposed model indicates that the design provides adequate runoff detention and reduces the peak flow rates for 2, 10, and 100-year events, below the corresponding existing levels. However, the model assumes free-discharge at the downstream end, an assumption that may not be entirely correct. The model should be updated to consider a downstream water level that corresponds to the 2, 10 and IOO-year design storms. 4. The infiltration basin discharges into the ditch north of Beam Avenue through a culvert / overflow system. The ditch on the north side of Beam Avenue flows west. A 27-inch culvert is proposed along the ditch under the CARMAX driveway at Beam Avenue. A 60-inch by 136-inch elliptical culvert located on the northeastern corner of the Beam Avenue-Highway 61 intersection collects the runoff from the ditch. Neither the proposed 27-inch culvert nor the large elliptical culvert has been included in the HydroCAD model. The inverts of these culverts are also not shown on the plan. 35 P:IWORKSIENG\06 PROJDOCSI06-14CarMax_MogrenAdditionIENGR COMMENTS Page 9 of 10 5. In talking with the developer's engineer on November 8th, we understand that the hydrologic modeling was limited to the sites and not beyond the boundaries of the site. Therefore, we recommend that a combine model of the area be updated to evaluate any potential upstream or downstream impacts. The timing of this model should coincide with the selection of the final site storm water routing - with the major unknown at this time being the determination of creating a ditch section to replace the existing twin 48-inch pipes operated by RWMWD. Infiltration Systems 6. The proposed drainage plan provides runoff volume reduction through infiltration practices. However, the infiltration volume may not be as high as estimated in the submittal due to the uncertainties associated with the soils and ground water elevation in this area. The bottom of this infiltration basin is near elevation 863.0, which is likely near the normal (ground) water level. Plan Sheet C3.2A shows a normal water level (NWL) of 864.25 for the infiltration basin while the HydroCAD model reflects no such assumption. Therefore, because the bottom of the basin is at or near water table the infiltration rates may not be as high as claimed (i.e. I-inch of rainfall contained on site). The HydroCAD model assumes certain infiltration rates for the proposed infiltration basin which, as discussed below may not be entirely correct. Note that the RWMWD new rules will require specific soils information in the areas of each basin to demonstrate the design infiltration rates and will require some form of pre-treatment of runoff prior to discharge into the rain gardens/infiltration areas. As stated above, this infiltration basin may be eligible to be counted towards wetland mitigation credits. 7. Clarification with respect to the function of the infiltration basin and the downstream routing are needed. The proposed design has a good chance of satisfying the flow rate and runoff volume reduction requirements when the CARMAX area only is considered. 8. A detailed review of the infiltration systems show in the Retail Warehouse areas to the east was not completed. However, these same questions will arise at the time a project is proposed on that property. Stonn Water Routing - Other Considerations 9. The proposed routing scheme indicates that the runoff from the CARMAX area would be entirely directed into the ditch north of Beam Avenue. According to the plans, the central wetland mitigation area, drains through a proposed north-south swale into the same ditch north of Beam Avenue. Both the infiltration basin and the swale are connected to the Beam Avenue ditch through culverts which would have to cross a sanitary sewer pipe. The plans do not provide the elevation (i.e., inverts) information for these culverts. 10. The proposed north-south swale runs parallel and immediately west of the existing twin 48- inch pipes connecting the wetland basin north of County Road D to the wetland basin south of Beam Avenue. The proposed swale system and wet pond could be combined to achieve a 36 P:\WORKSIENG\06 PROJDOCS\06-14CarMax _ MogrenAddition\ENGR COMMENTS Page 10 of 10 larger storm water detention and overall water quality treatment volume. Furthermore, from a hydraulic standpoint and based on our preliminary analysis, it is also possible to replace a segment of the twin 48-inch pipes with an open channel which would collect of the runoff from the CARMAX area and from the central area that would remain undeveloped. In this case, the runoff from both these areas would be eventually routed across Beam Avenue through the existing 58" by 91" concrete elliptical pipe and not through the larger 60" by 136" elliptical pipe at Beam Avenue / Highway 61 intersection. The City, RWMWD and developer should consider this as an option which would achieve: I) reduction in the long-term maintenance issues that will likely be need in the area of the twin 48-inch pipes; 2) an opportunity to create more wetland mitigation area on-site; 3) some addition water quality benefits; and 4) the potential for additional live storage capacity of the regional routing system. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation II. This issue was discussed with RWMWD, Ramsey SWCD, City staff and developer's representatives on November 8th. At this time, it appears that the site will impact the roughly 54,000 square feet of wetland present along Beam Avenue. The initial wetland permit application submitted to the RWMWD will be revised to reflect comments provided including: a. The City will be identified as the owner/permittee and will lead the wetland mitigation process. The details of financial responsibilities of the City versus developer will be discussed as the project proceeds. b. The project will have the goal of replacing all wetland impacts on-site instead of using the bank described in the initial application. c. The developer's engineer will prepare the accounting of wetland impacts and mitigation areas (including buffer area requirements) and work with the City to develop the permit application materials. The City will lead the design and construction process for wetland mitigation efforts. For any questions please email me at dcazanacli@sehinc.com or call me at 651.490.2112. s:IJ:o\m'mBple\0612OO'tclnaD:sIomIsystcmmemoll-2-06_00c 37 Attachment 8 Stormwater/Wetland Report By DuWayne Konewko, Maplewood Environmental Management Specialist November 22, 2006 A. Storm Water Management 1) Existing Drainage System and Features The existing drainage system consists of a regional treatment pond at the north end of the site which collects and treats runoff from portions of County Road D. The existing pond has treatment capacity for a portion of the proposed development south of County Road D, including portions of the proposed public road and the private development east of the proposed road. The treated storm water from the regional pond discharges to a two- cell constructed wetland system immediately to the west before entering a section of what is referred to as North County Ditch 18 (or Willow Creek). The drainage system is routed to the road ditch on the north side of Beam Avenue and then crosses Beam and TH 61 before entering Kohlman Lake. The existing wetland system was designed and constructed in conjunction with the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMATI) to mitigate both public and private wetland impacts throughout the MMATI prqject area. The created wetland credits are all accounted for and no additional credits are available for future impacts in the CarMaxlMogren Site. The wetland also has a buffer area, including minimum setback distances of 100 feet on the north, east, and south sides, and 50 feet on the west. Another feature of the existing drainage system is the existing twin 48-inch pipes that connect the wetland complex north of County Road D to the pond and wetland complex south of Beam Avenue. This is an important feature of the site from both a site design and long-term operational standpoint. This system is not hydraulically connected to the drainage system on the immediate CarMaxIMogren site, although both systems ultimately drain to Kohlman Lake. As will be discussed later in the section, there may be an advantage to replacing the existing pipes with ditch section to better meet the site design goals for treatment and wetland mitigation and to reduce long-term operational concerns with the existing pipes. 2) Proposed Storm Water Treatment Systems The proposed treatment system consists of a combination of regional and on-site treatment areas. Both existing and proposed systems will be designed to meet City and RWMWD design standards for pollutant removal efficiencies and for volume control (i.e., infiltration requirements). The majority of the public road portion of the site will be routed to the existing storm water pond system on the north end of the site through a conventional storm sewer system. A small portion of the south end of the new public road will be routed to a treatment system in the northwest corner of the intersection of the Beam and the new road. A rain 38 garden or infiltration feature in this area is recommended, although coordination with the adjacent development will determine the ultimate size and location of the treatment area. If an infiltration area is incorporated, the system would include a pre-treatment component such as a sump manhole or mechanical sediment removal device. For the purpose of this feasibility report, we have assumed that a more effective mechanical sediment removal device would be installed for pre-treatment. 3) Proposed Storm Water Routing and System Capacity The proposed storm sewer system for the public road will be routed as illustrated in Exhibit 7. The northern section will route to the existing regional pond to the north and southern section will route to the south toward the Beam Avenue ditch system after treatment. Storm sewer catch basins with concrete curb and gutter are proposed to accommodate the runoff from Beam Avenue Developers of the sites on the west side of the proposed public road will be responsible for meeting City and RWMWD rate and volume controls on their individual sites. The overall routing of these systems will be coordinated by City staff throughout the design and development review stages. 4) Proposed Open DitchlWetland Section The proposed north-south swale traversing the CarMax site runs parallel and immediately west of the existing twin 48-inch pipes connecting the wetland basin north of County Road D to the wetland basin south of Beam Avenue. Based on preliminary analyses, the proposed swale system and wet pond could be combined to achieve a larger storm water detention and overall water quality treatment volume. Furthermore, from a hydraulic standpoint, it is also possible to replace a segment of the twin 48-inch pipes with an open channel which would collect a portion of the runoff from the CarMax area and from the parcel immediately to the east of CarMax. In this case, the runoff from both of these areas would eventually be routed across Beam Avenue. The CarMax site would route through the larger 60" by 136" elliptical pipe at the Beam Avenue I Trunk Highway 61 intersection the southwest. The remainder of the site, including the wetland mitigation system, would route through the existing 58" by 91" concrete elliptical pipe. The City, RWMWD, and the Developer have evaluated this as an option. This option would achieve: 1) reduction in the long-term maintenance issues that will likely be needed in the area of the twin 48-inch pipes; 2) an opportunity to create more wetland mitigation area on-site; 3) additional water quality benefits; and 4) the potential for additional live storage capacity of the regional routing system. Prior to implementation of this approach, the RWMWD will need to review the detailed design and approve the modifications. The critical issue for this ditch creation is the need to maintain the current response of the wetland areas north of County D and south of Beam. 39 D. Wetlands Management Wetland areas currently exist on the site, primarily along the north Beam Avenue ditch which will be impacted by the overall site development. A small area of wetland impact will also occur along a section of the North County Ditch 18 system. However, this area has already been mitigated for as part of the MMATI project. As discussed previously, the main wetland feature in the immediate area is the created wetland system just south of County Road D. This section discusses the anticipated impacts and mitigation plan for the impacted wetlands in the CarMaxIMogren site. Because the most feasible location for mitigation is adjacent to the existing created wetland area, the City intends to lead the overall coordination, design and operation efforts for the proposed mitigation site, while the developers will remain financially responsible for their portion of the impacts and mitigation. Having the City lead the process will allow for consistency in the overall design and long-term monitoring and operation of the mitigation area. The following table summarizes the anticipated wetland impacts and mitigation needs. These existing and proposed wetland and buffer areas are illustrated in Exhibits 8 and 9. Table I. Summ of Wetland 1m cts and Miti Area Existin Mitigation Area South ofCoun D Existin Wetlands Ad' acent to Beam Total Existin Areas D 1.90 1.60 o o 3.50 3.60 4.30 o 1.1 0) 6.80 1.30 As shown in Table I, the existing wetland and buffer areas include the mitigation area to the north and the areas along Beam delineated in 2006. Based on the preliminary review of the proposed project, the improvement can result in a net increase of up to about 0.35 acres of new wetland and 1.30 acres of new buffer. As part of the wetland permitting process, this estimated 1.30 acres of new buffer would be proposed as the public value credit portion of the wetland impacts. The numbers presented in Table 1 assume that the second cell of the treattnent system in the CarMax site will not be considered new wetland. If designed to meet the wetland requirements, this area may result in a further increase the extent of new wetlands throughout the site. 40 I) Wetland Impacts A combination of the private development, the new public road from Beam to County Road D, and improvements to Beam Avenue, will result in impacts to the entire 1.25 acres (54,424 square-feet) of wetlands located adjacent to Beam Avenue. The areas were delineated and boundaries approved by the RWMWD as described in the July 18, 2006 Wetland Delineation Report (SEH). The existing buffer area estimate of 1.60 acres around the wetland system adjacent to Beam is conservative, as the number represents a 25-foot buffer around the entire wetland. In reality, the buffer extends into portions of the Beam Avenue right-of-way. The total proposed wetland and buffer areas presented in Table I, are illustrated in Exhibit 9. Only buffer areas outside of the existing mitigation site easement were included in the new buffer calculations. In addition, existing buffer area used to expand new wetland areas inside the easement, were subtracted from the total buffer area calculations. Additional 2) Wetland Mitigation Plan The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to achieve the entire mitigation requirement on-site, including new wetland, public value credits, and buffer areas. The primary mitigation area is the expansion of the current wetland system in the northern portion of the project site. Additional wetland mitigation will be created along the eastern border of the CarMax site, and mitigation credits may also be obtained in the second cell of the pond-wetland system in the south portion of the CarMax site. Final design will need to conform to the state requirements for wetland mitigation sites, include side-slope limitations and maximum bounce. Planting will be consistent with the existing wetland area to the north. 3) Wetland Buffers The wetland areas along Beam Avenue are classified Manage C which means that 25 foot buffer areas will apply. The maximum buffer area for this area is 69,853 square-feet. The actual existing buffer area is somewhat less than this as portions of the 25-foot zone extend onto Beam Avenue pavement and the gravel shoulder. The required buffer area for the expanded mitigation site will include creation of up to 1.60 acres (69,853 square-feet) ofbuffer, with an average buffer of 100 feet and a minimum of 50 feet. The RWMWD also had buffer requirements for the created wetland, although to a lower level than the stated City requirements. The RWMWD requires a 75-fool average and 37.5-foot minimum. The required buffer area is intended to minimize future impacts resulting from development encroaching on the wetland areas. While adequate surface area is available to meet the buffer requirements, obtaining a minimum 50 foot buffer along the east side of the proposed wetland area/ditch section 41 may be difficult without further encroachment onto the parcel to the east and beyond the existing easement over the twin 48-inch pipes. Given that one of the overall goals of this project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer) replacement on-site, we recommend that the design use the 50-foot minimum as a goal, but that the RWMWD distance of37.5 feet be considered acceptable if site conditions limit the full 50-foot distance in all areas. The average buffer around the entire wetland system, as proposed, is approximately 110- 120 feet. 42 Attachment 9 Tom Ekstrand From: Virginia Gaynor Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1 :07 PM To: Erin Laberee: DuWayne Konewko: Jon Jarosch; Tom Ekstrand Subject: Carmax Attachments: InvasivePlanls.doc Here are comments regarding the landscape plan for Carmax. 1. Plant selection. Two of the planls in the plan, Barberry and Miscanthus, are potentially invasive and may spread to natural areas. Both of these are on the city's list of plants to avoid (see attached). Because this site is adjacent to wetland complexes, different plant species should be selected. 2. Native seed mix. Mn/DOT mix 328 is the economy native ditch mix. It is 1/3 bluegrass for quick establishment, and 2/3 prairie grasses. Because of the wetlands adjacent it would be preferable to use a mix that is more similar to a native prairie. Better choices for the slopes and upland would be Mn/DOT mixes 340 or 350. 3. Rain gardens along Beam and along Highway 61. These are in very visible gardens that need to be successful. Because 1) these are relatively narrow gardens, and 2) they are surrounded by sod, and 3) it takes so long to establish native seedings, and 4) success is not assured with seeding, these gardens should be planted with plants rather than seed. Plants can be perennials and/or trees and shrubs. If native perennials are selected, plugs can be used to keep cost of materials down. Most planted rain gardens are mulched with shredded hardwood mulch. If mulch is not used, blanket and frequent weeding will be needed. 4. Pond, infiltration basin, and 3 rain gardens east of building and parking lot. a. It is difficult to establish the bottom of a rain garden or infiltralion basin with seed since the seed is washed away as water flows into the garden. Thus, the bottom of the rain gardens and infiltralion basin should be planted with plugs rather than seed. b. Seeding the slopes and upland areas is fine. c. It can be difficult to establish native vegetalion from seed when turf is seeded adjacent. Site managern often end up mowing as if it is turf and the nalives don't establish. On the east side of the rain gardens, pond and infiltralion basin, there is a strip of seeded turf between two strips of native vegetalion. I recommend that the native vegetalion extend from the gardens, pond and basin all the way eastward. If the goal is to have a more manicured look around the pond, this might be achieved by featuring a couple of focal areas of turf and planling beds on the west side of the pond. d. Maintaining areas of nalive seed. On sheet L2.2A, Raingarden note #22 indicates garden areas should be free from weeds and other invasive plant material. This language is fine for areas planted with plugs or containern. It would be helpful to include a note on the landscape plan regarding management of areas seeded with natives to ensure these areas are properly managed the firnt few yearn. Areas seeded with native prairie mixes are typically maintained by mowing and spot herbicide treatments. The first growing season (and sometimes the second season), these areas should be mowed 4"-6" high when plants reach IS" high. 5. Parking lot medians. It's great to see some planted medians. But, it would be nice to have even more to provide shade and cooling. If this is not possible, it would be help to have more trees along the parking lot edges. In addition, many ofthe trees along Beam and Hwy 61 are shown centered between the road and parking 101. It might make sense to put those closer to the parking lot to take advantage of the shade they will provide. Please let me know if you have questions. Ginny 11/22/2006 43 Maplewood Naturally Invasive Plants - A Serious Problem for Maplewood What are invasive plants? Invasive plants are plants that escape from gardens, woods, pastures, or roadsides into the wild and proliferate. They may be native or non-native plants. Native plants are plants that existed in this area prior to European settlement. Non-native plants are those introduced after European settlement by intention or accident. These include: . horticultural plants that have naturalized (ex: buckthorn, purple loosestrife) . species planted as pasture grass, cover crops, or for erosion control (ex: brome, reed canary, crown vetch) . species that entered country as weed seeds in hay or other ways (ex: burdock, spotted knapweed) Why should we be concerned about invasive plants? When invasive plants spread into natural areas they can displace native plants. This can lead to loss of plant diversity, which can negatively impact nesting, food, and shelter for wildlife. One very dramatic example in Maplewood is the degradation buckthorn has caused in our oak woodlands. Buckthorn has invaded woodlands, creating dense shade that has lead to a decline in woodland wildflowers, ferns, and shrubs. Oak seedlings have a hard time surviving under buckthorn and die out. The woodland shrub layer in many of our woodlands now consists primarily of buckthorn. As mature trees die, there will be few young native trees to replace them and the oak woodland as we know it will disappear. What can homeowners do? 1. The first step is to avoid planting invasive species. This is especially important if you live near a natural area or a wetland. The list on the next page indicates some of the most troublesome plants in our region. 2. If you have invasive plants in your yard, we encourage you to remove them. See general guidelines below. Ifremoval seems overwhelming, you may want to begin by removing fruiting trees and cutting flowers before seeds form. 3. After an area is cleared of invasive species, something else generally needs to be planted. Removi IftVGsive S ies Invasive species can be removed by several methods: . mechanical - pulling, cutting, mowing . chemical - herbicide . biological - insects, animals, or pathogens It is important to note that many species sprout when cut, exacerbating the problem, so cutting is not always the answer. Use a control method that is known to work with the particular species you are removing. Several internet sites have good information on control methods including those maintained by The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 44 The Most Troublesome IrMJSiw Species In Maplewood Natural Areas Flowers that escape from gardens Grass-like species Bird's foot trefoil (Lotus comiculatus) Creeping charlie (Glechoma hederacea) Crown vetch (Coronilla varia) Dame's rocket (H esperis matronalis) Grecian foxglove (Digitalis lanata) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota) Tansy (l'anacetum vulgare) Teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus, D. sylvestris) Flowers that came to U.S. as weeds Burdock (Arctium minor) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Hawkweeds (Hieracium aurantiacum, H canadense) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) Leafy spurge, cypress spurge (Euphorbia esula, E. cyparissias) Thistles (Cirsium arvense, Carduus nutans, and others) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) White sweet clover (Melitotus alba) Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) Yellow sweet clover (Melitotus officinalis) Cattails (Typha glauca, T angustifolia) Giant reed grass (Phragmites australis) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) *Miscanthus, sometimes called Pampas (Miscanthus spp.) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) Aquatics Erasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Curly-leafpondweed (Potamogeton crispus) Non-native water lilies Trees, shrubs, and vines Atour maple (Acer ginnala) Autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellate) Barberry (Berberis spp.) Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) Glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia) Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Siberian peasbrub (Caragana arborescens) Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) There are many other plants that may be aggressive in gardens or new plantings but are not as problematic in natural areas. * A note on Miscanthus grass - There are several cultivars of Mis canthus. Some spread by seed, some spread by rhizome. On the east coast, some cultivars have become invasive. Researchers at the University of Minnesota are trying to determine which cultivars may be harmful in our region. Until this plant's invasiveness is better understood, please don't plant it if you live near a wetland! There are many wonderful native grasses and non-invasive ornamental grasses you can substitute. Maplewood Nature Center and Preserves 8/04 45 Page 1 of2 Attachment 10 Tom Ekstrand From: Tina Carstens [tina.carstenS@rwmwd.orgl Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11 :29 AM To: dhughes@landformmsp.com Cc: rleaf@sehinc.com; Tom Ekstrand: ChuckAhl; DuWayne Konewko Subject: Review of Carmax Permit Applicalion District staff reviewed the Carmax permit application for the following items: mass grading of the entire site for the first phase of construction, the final grading of the Carmax site, stormwater management of the Carmax site only, and erosion and sediment control for the entire site. The plan I reviewed for erosion and sediment control omitted any grading in the area of the wetlands until the wetland permit application gets approved. The plan also leaves the District's twin pipes in place so there are a few comments relating to that. 1. Grading adjacent to the twin pipes . Plans shall show no grade changes over the 50 foot easement the District has for those pipes. . Plans shall also show construction fencing marking the location of that easement to ensure no construction activity over those pipes. 2. Haul road over the twin pipes . A haul road shall be shown on revised plans as close to Beam Ave as possible. . Limit the haul roads to one crossing with good foundation and fence off the rest of the pipe easement as mentioned above to prevent other roads from being used. . The road over the pipe shall maintain at least 2 feet of cover. . Top of pipe monitoring shall be done during the hauling. 3. Erosion and Sediment Control . All stormwater management BMPs shall be protected from sedimentation once they have been final graded and until the surrounding area has vegetation establishment. Revised plans shall show silt fence around the perimeter of the rain gardens/ponds. . All outlets of temp sed basins to the wetland ditch system along Beam shall have a BMP to filter the runoff before entering the system. 4. Stormwater Management · The pond labeled infiltration basin on the plans really does not function like an infiltration basin. I understand that the infiltration basin was not counted in the District worksheet for volume reduction but in the HydroCAD analysis exfiltration is noted as being accomplished. It is my understanding from the soil boring report that the ground water is quite high in this location and therefore wouldn't meet the 3 foot separation to groundwater requirement for infiltration basins. · The District would like to request the applicant to install a piewmeter/observation well in each of the rain gardens in order to monitor the rain gardens and their functionality. The maintenance agreement the District requires will require the applicant to monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs and submit an annual report to the District. The monitoring report is mostly to check for the need for maintenance that would then prompt the land owner to maintain the BMP. The monitoring piewmeter would give additional information to the District on how well the BMPs are working. This is important to monitor for this site that has 11/21/2006 46 Page 2 of2 poor soils underneath the engineered soil that will be placed below the rain garden. . Please supply the spec for the engineered soil that will be used for the rain gardens. . Also supply details of the all the stormwater management BMPs and also the erosion and sediment control BMPs. 5. Maintenance Agreement . The District requires a maintenance agreement with the District. We are working with our attorney to come up with a template for that and I can get that to you in the near future. Just as a heads up, that agreement will require annual monitoring of the BMPs and maintenance as needed to maintain the function of the BMP. We would also like to have something in the maintenance agreement regarding the pervious bituminous that would state no salt/sand usage and also a vacuum sweep at least annually. This probably should be spelled out in your developer's agreement and/or in any site maintenance document that you develop. 6. Agreement with District · The District has identified this drainage area as a need for additional treatment before the water gets to Kohlman Lake. Specifically we are looking at ways of reducing dissolved phosphorus. The volume reduction practices that are being proposed by the applicant will go a long way to providing that treatment but the District may want to do additional treatment for enhanced water quality treatment options. One of the options that have been explored is an enhanced sand filtration system that can be easily fit within an existing stormwater pond. We would like to discuss the possibility of having an agreement between the District and land owner that would allow the District access to the pond and the possibility of retrofitting the pond and doing maintenance on our enhancements on a regular basis. Of course this would all be at the District's expense. If you have any questions about the comments please let me know. If these items are not able to be addressed before next week Thursday, I will submit to the Board a report that would list these items as special provisions (wont' be as wordy though!). The permit will then be issued once those items are addressed. 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 11/21/2006 47 Attachment 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Chris Crowe of CarMax, and Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to develop a CarMax used-car dealership on the former Country View Golf Course property; WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 14.46-acre site at the northeast comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The legal description is: PART OF TRACTS A AND B, R.L.S. NO. 466 AND PART OF TRACTS A, B, C, D, E, AND I OF R.L.S. NO. 210, ALL IN THE SOUTHWEST Y. OF THE NORTHWEST Y. OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE WEST Y. CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST, 60.02 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BEAM AVENUE; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 01 DEGREES 0 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST, 265.81 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 3 (ALSO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 61); THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE, PARALLEL WITH AND 75 FEET DISTANCE FROM A SPIRAL CURVE ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY 61, SAID LINE'S CHORD BEARS NORTH 14 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST, 24.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 912.34 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PROPOSED COUNTY ROAD D; THENCE SOUTH 80 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST, 241.63 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST, 416.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 92.54 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST, 128.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES" 54 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 283.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, 272.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, 804.48 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BEAM AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST, 985.82 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On December 5, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present 48 written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council this conditional use permit revision. 2. The city council reviewed this request on . The council considered the reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council above-described conditional use permit revision because: the 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 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: C. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the CarMaxlMogren Addition development. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped October 20, 2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 49 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. This approval permits the development of the CarMax site subject 10 the conditions of the city council. The future development sites are not approved at this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications and materials for evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance. 5. If the watershed district allows their twin drainage pipes to be relocated above grade as an open channel, the PUD shall also require that all developments within the CarMaxlMogren Addition actively and regularly pick up all litter from their parking lots to keep debris from entering this open channel. 6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated November 21, 2006 by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson. 7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan- review reports as follows: . The Drainage and Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006. . The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006. . The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006. 8. The PUD allows the applicants to provide 9-foot-wide parking stalls for all inventory and employee parking spaces. Customer parking spaces must be 9 Y:. feet wide as code requires. The applicant shall provide justification as to how many customer and employee parking spaces they need and then show that number on the site plan. Customer and employee parking spaces shall be signed as such. 9. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The concrete-block screening wall design is not allowed as proposed. The design of this smooth-faced concrete block wall must be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. 10. The pervious-paving method proposed within the shoreland boundary area shall meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 11. Vehicle transports shall not use public right-of-way for loading or unloading. 50 12. The proposed driveway on Highway 61 shall remain gated and closed at all times except when needed for vehicle transports delivering vehicles or exiting the site. This access shall not be allowed for any other use by employees or customers. 13. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 14. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces. 15. The applicants shall obtain any required permits from the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota. 16. The site plan shall be revised to move the driveway on Beam Avenue as far to the east as possible. This revision shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 17. The city engineer shall get the necessary approvals for weiland mitigation from the watershed district as part of the public improvements needed for this subdivision and development as stated in the report by DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist. 18. All buildings, paving, unneeded utilities, etc. within the proposed subdivision shall be demolished and removed from the site by the applicants. 19. The applicants shall provide all development agreements, maintenance agreements and escrows required by the city. These agreements shall be executed and escrows paid before the issuance of building permits. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2006. 51