HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2008
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 15,2008
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
None
5. Public Hearings
7:00 Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane)
1. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a Planned unit development (PUD)
2. Vacation of existing easement and right-of-way vacations
3. Preliminary Plat
6. New Business
a. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Land Use Plan Review and Discussion
b. Meeting and Broadcast Ordinance
7. Unfinished Business
None
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
.
April 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai
April 28 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer
May 5 Special Council Meeting: ??
May 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess
May 26/27 Council Meeting:?? Mr.Martin
10. Staff Presentations
a. Annual Tour Date: June 30, 2008
11. Adjoumment
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Ken Roberts, Planner
Carver Crossing
South of Carver Avenue, west of 1-494
April 9, 2008
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted revised plans to the city for a
housing development called Carver Crossing. He has prepared project plans that now show lots for up
to 165 housing units (100 smaller lots and 65 larger lots for single dwellings). This latest plan replaces
a plan from 2006 that showed 191 housing units (in three different types of housing). This
development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry
Lane known as the Schlomka property. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 27-31 and the
maps on pages 32-48. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas.
Mr. Hansen has not yet applied for design approval for this latest proposal. He will do so (including the
architectural, final landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings after the city council acts on
his current requests. However, based on comments from the applicant, staff expects that each unit
would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents
near the doors. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage.
Requests
To build this project, Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow
the project to have a variety of setbacks, to have a long dead end street and to allow the units
and single dwellings to be on lots smaller than code usually allows (in area and in width).
2. The vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within
the development.
3. The proposed preliminary plat to create the new public street right-of-ways, the lots for the
structures and for the outlots. (See the preliminary plat on page 40 and in the project plans.)
BACKGROUND
In 1992, the city considered parts of the l>!-Ibject property in the inventory of possible properties to buy
for open space. Of the approximately fifty properties the city considered, the open space committee
ranked this site 20th overall and first out of 15 in the neighborhood. The city, however, was unable to
negotiate a purchase of any of the property with a willing seller. As such, the city did not buy any of this
property for open space and instead bought two parcels north of Carver Avenue for open space.
1
There were several city meetings and reviews for this site in 2005 and 2006. (Please see the complete
listing of these actions in the Past Actions section starting on page 21 of this report.)
On September 28, 2006, the city council considered the 191-unit Carver Crossing proposal including a
CUP for a PUD, street and easement vacations and preliminary plat. After much discussion and
testimony, the city council voted to deny the proposed PUD thus denying approval of the project. (See
the city council minutes on pages 84 and 85.)
DISCUSSION
Land Use Plan and Zoning Map
The land use plan, as set by the city council in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, is the city's long-
range guide and expectation as to how the city expects land to be used or developed. The zoning
designation for a property defines how a property owner may develop or use the property.
The city has designated the entire site on the land use maps R-1 (single-dwelling residential). (See the
land use map on page 33.) The city intends R-1 areas for developments with single dwellings (no
attached units) of up to 4.1 units per gross acre.
The zoning map shows the designations of F (farm residence) (between Carver Avenue and Fish
Creek) and R-1 (R) (south of Fish Creek) for the site. For areas the city has zoned F or R-1, the city
allows single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area (when sanitary sewer is available)
with a maximum density of 4.6 units per acre. The R-1 (R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on
two-acre or larger lots (where sanitary sewer is not available).
As adopted by the city council in 2003, the intent of the R-1 (R) zoning district was "to protect and
enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have,
nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R-1 (R) code also
states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract
development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal
sanitary sewer unlikely." City staff will discuss the location and availability of public utilities later in this
report.
Land Use Plan
There are several goals in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically,
the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, five apply to this proposal including:
. Provide for orderly development.
. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods.
. Minimize the land planned for streets.
. Minimize conflicts between land uses.
. Provide a wide variety of housing types.
The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate
to this project. They include:
. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic,
social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
2
. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood.
. Include a variety of housing types for all residents. . . including apartments, town houses,
manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, low- and moderate-income
housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing.
. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate
buffering and separation.
The applicable development policies (to implement the plan goals) include:
. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and
services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space.
. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties.
. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative
economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the
same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers.
. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas.
The proposed development, with 165 detached housing units, would meet these goals and policies.
Compatibility and Density
This proposal, if approved by the city, would be a change for this area of Maplewood. It would transform a
semi-rural, very low-density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban-style residential development with
public sewer and water and common areas. This proposal is a departure from the former land uses on the
property but would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and would be in keeping with the types of
housing in the area.
However, it also is important to note that change is not necessarily a bad thing. The city does make
changes to the land use plan, to the zoning map and to the approved use of a property when it determines
that such changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the city and when the changes would be, in
the opinion of the city council, in the best interests of the city. A development such as this, if carefully
planned and constructed, has the potential to be a great addition to the city.
. .
Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed
development would be next to 1-494 and Carver Avenue, would be on a collector street (Carver Avenue)
and is between two arterial streets (CenJ;ury Avenue and McKnight Road). It is important to note that
developers will often build town homes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century
Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a
mix of single dwellings and town homes. There are other examples of this mix in Maplewood, such as Afton
Ridge, Southwinds, The Gardens, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills.
3
As proposed, the 165 units on the 73-acre site means there would be about 2.3 units per gross acre.
This is consistent with (and in fact much lower than) the density standards in the comprehensive plan
for single family and for double-dwelling residential development.
Zoning Map
The city has zoned the project site F (farm residence) and R-1 (R). (See the zoning map on page 34).
For areas the city has zoned For R-1, the city allows single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square
feet of area (when sanitary sewer is available) with a maximum density of 4.6 units per acre. The
R-1 (R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on two acre or larger lots (where sewer is not
available). The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a PUD as an overlay designation
for the proposal. The PUD would serve as the zoning approval for this request.
As adopted by the city council in 2003, the intent of the R-1 (R) zoning district was "to protect and
enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have,
nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R-1 (R) code also
states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract
development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal
sanitary sewer unlikely."
In this case, both municipal sanitary sewer and water are readily available to the site - from Carver
Avenue on the north and from Heights Avenue on the west. Heights Avenue was constructed with a
temporary cul-de-sac and public utilities so that a future developer could easily extend the street and
the public utilities to the east (into what is now the Carver Crossing site). The project engineer, as part
of this proposal, has designed the project so most of the sanitary sewer will flow to the west to Heights
Avenue. As such, there is no need for a sanitary sewer lift station along Henry Lane. It is clear that the
location and depth of the existing public utilities make the installation of public utilities in this
development possible and feasible.
Mississippi River Critical Area Information
Since 1976, Minnesota state law has required communities with land in the metropolitan Mississippi River
Corridor to manage that land. The Mississippi River Critical Area covers the area of Maplewood that is
west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue. The management of this area includes having a Critical Area
Plan to guide development forthe land within the river corridor. Maplewood adopted a critical area plan in
1979 (and updated it in 1981) to meet this requirement. The intention of this plan is to manage
development to protect resources and to protect the scenic qualities of the river corridor, including the
bluffs within the Mississippi River Corridor.
Critical Area Plan
.
The 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan shows all the land area west of 1-494 and south of Carver
Avenue as being in the "Mississippi River Critical Corridor." As part of this 2002 comprehensive plan
update, the Metropolitan Council staff requested the city add language and information about the
Mississippi River Critical Area Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. I have included much of the language
from the Comprehensive Plan in the reference section of this report.
For reviewing this development, the following goals and policies from the Critical Area Plan are most
relevant:
4
Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the city has been designated as an
"Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals:
(1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial,
industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the
river.
(2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources.
(3) Expand public access to and for the enjoyment of the river.
The city may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if the proposals are compatible
with these goals.
Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards
The following are the five relevant policies of the city's additional nine policies for building and land
development in the Mississippi River Critical Area the city should consider when reviewing the Carver
Crossing development.
. The city shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic
overlooks in their natural state.
. The city will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed
the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies.
. Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the
environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The city will review these effects when
approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single-family homes.
. The city shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct
run-off onto adjoining streets and watercourses.
. Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the
quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses.
The proposed project, if built with all changes the city engineer and the other permitting agencies will
require, would be consistent with, and in some cases, exceed the standards established by these
goals and policies.
Vacations
There are existing easements for roadways, driveways and for drainage areas within the development
site that are not compatible with the proposed design and layout of the project. The applicant's
engineer is requesting that the city vacate these areas so they may record the proposed plat without
any conflicts. As shown on the project pli3'ns, the developer will be dedicating new right-of-ways for the
public streets (including Henry Lane) and new easements for the drainage and utility areas.
5
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Conditional Use Permit
Section 44-1 093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to
allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks,
height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that:
1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development
because of its unique nature.
2. The planned unit development would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to
that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter.
4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or
general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land.
5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not
required solely for financial reasons."
The applicant has applied to the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development
(PUD) for the 165-unit housing development. They have requested a PUD to allow the project to have
code deviations and more flexibility with site design and development details than the standard city
requirements. Such flexibility includes having:
1. A variety of building setbacks.
2. The housing units on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width).
3. Some of the public street right-of-ways being 50 feet wide instead of 60 feet wide.
4. A long dead-end street that would be more than 1000 feet in length. In this case, there are no
other alternatives for street access to the southern part of the site because of existing street
layout and the existing topography in the area, including Fish Creek.
It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code
for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown
on pages 35 and 36), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or
superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are
required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. A deviation included in this PUD
approval is the long dead-end street or cul-de-sac that would provide street access to the south end of
the site. This long street is necessary (and the only practical alternative) because the location of the
existing public right-of-ways, Fish Creek and the existing topography do not allow any other
alternatives for street access to the area 'of the site south of Fish Creek.
Having narrower street right-of-ways and reduced building setbacks for the structures will lessen the
amount of grading and tree removal on the property and will allow for more common area around each
building and on the site. If the applicant followed all the standard city subdivision and zoning
standards for the proposal, such a plan would have more of an impact on the natural features of the
6
site. This is because having larger lots for each building with wider public street right-of-ways and
increased building setbacks would require more tree removal and grading. In addition, it is important
to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the density of the housing in the
development over the density in other detached housing projects.
The developer is proposing a separate lot for each housing unit. As proposed, the smaller units
(similar to detached town houses) on Blocks 1 - 8 would be on lots 55 feet wide (at the front setback
line) and would range from about 5,900 square feet to 12,000 square feet in area (with most lots being
between 6,500 square feet and 8,000 square feet).
For the single family homes (Blocks 9 - 12), the lots would be at least 65 feet wide at the front setback
line and they would range in size from about 7,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet (with most of the
lots ranging between 8,000 and 11,000 square feet in size.)
The lots would have access from Henry Lane and from a series of public streets. There will be a
privately-owned lot around each dwelling unit and a homeowners' association would own and maintain
the rest of the land, including all the common areas of the development, retaining walls and the
ponding areas. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design
or number of units in this development. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed site
design details and code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD.
Preliminary Plat
Lot Size
As proposed, the 165 units on the 73-acre site means there would be 2.3 units per gross acre (an
average of 18,939 square feet per unit). The individual lot widths and sizes, as proposed, will vary
depending on the topography of the lot and the style of the unit. As I noted above, they all appear to
be consistent in size and layout (if not larger) with other town house lots in Maplewood.
The proposed overall project density of 2.3 units per acre is consistent with the density standards in
the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential and low-density multiple-family development.
Open Space and Common Areas
A major element of the proposed plans is the open space and common areas within the project site.
As shown the applicant's open space plan, there would be 31.8 acres of open space and common
area in outlots and conservation easements within the 73 acre project site. The city and developer will
need to decide the final ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the open space and common
areas with the project.
The applicant also has prepared a second plan for the southern part of the site showing 16 fewer lots
along the west side of the public road B (between the west properly line and the new street). (See the
map dated 4-04-08 on page 37.) This is an area that, if the city approves the project, the developer
has agreed to not grade or construct in 2008. This delay will give the city an opportunity to decide
. . whether to buy that part of the site (8.3 atres) for additional open space.
7
Engineering Department Review
Michael Thompson of the Maplewood Engineering Department has reviewed the project plans. He put
his comments in the memo starting on page 68. The city engineers are generally satisfied with the
latest project plans and they are recommending several minor design changes to the plans.
His comments also include a statement from Kimley-Horn and Associates about the EAW
(environmental assessment worksheet) that the city had prepared for the site in 2006. We also have
included a summary of the EAW on pages 22 and 23 of this memo and a copy of a memo dated June
29, 2006 from Chuck Ahl (starting on page 50). This memo has additional information about the EAW
and section with comments and questions about the EAW and the site and staff answers to those
comments and questions.
Traffic and Access
A concern of some of the neighbors near the site is the increase in traffic that their area would
experience if the city approves the project. While staff recognizes that having a new development and
new streets in the area with new neighbors driving past their homes would create changes for the
neighborhood, we do not anticipate a large enough traffic increase from the proposal to justify denying
the request. For example, if each of the 165 housing units would generate an average of ten vehicle
trips per day, there would be 1,650 more vehicles (in total) using Carver Avenue. For a 12-hour day,
the 1,650 vehicle trips would mean an average of 138 vehicle trips per hour, or an average of about
2.3 additional vehicles every minute.
The city traffic consultant confirmed for city staff that, on average, detached single-family homes
generate about 10 vehicle trips per day and that town houses, whether attached or detached, usually
generate about six vehicle trips per day. The difference in these numbers is because of the residents
and the difference in the size of the families that live in the different units. Town houses are usually
occupied by young couples starting out in life or by empty-nesters - that is, families with no children
and thus fewer people in each unit. They also have found that more traditional families with children
still prefer to live in detached single dwellings with more living and yard space. As such, these types of
homes will create more traffic (on average) than town houses.
As part of the redesign of the development in 2006, the project engineer moved the proposed location
of the new Henry Lane to the west down Carver Avenue. (See the detail on page 49.) The proposed
location puts Henry Lane in alignment with the property line that is between the properties at 2431 and
2445 Carver Avenue. This change should help prevent the headlights from northbound vehicles on
Henry Lane from shining into the houses on the north side of Carver Avenue and is the location of the
proposed Henry Lane on the current proposal.
We have included comments from 2006 from Dan Soler of Ramsey County on pages 74 and 75. For
additional information about traffic, I have included the following section from the 2006 EAW
responses prepared by city staff and city consultants:
9. Traffic. As part of the initial analysis, the trip generation for typical single-family detached
homes and senior adult housing - detached homes were compared to estimate the reduction in
trips for a senior development. This comparison showed that a reduction in trips between 47 and
65 percent for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and the daily trip generation would be likely.
That is the reason a 50 percent reduction was used to estimate the trip generation in the EAW.
8
Additional dialog with Washington County staff has occurred since the completion of the EAW,
and based on their comments as well as the comments received by Ramsey County, the
apartment trip generation was modified. The original 50 percent reduction was reduced to a 25
percent reduction for the apartment trip generation. This modification was made to help ensure
that the traffic impacts were conservatively assessed.
Additional concerns from the Planning Commission resulted in another revision to the traffic
analysis. This revision assumes no reduction in trips for the apartment trip generation portion of
the senior housing development. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect this increase
in traffic.
The site trip distribution map caused some confusion because some of the percent distributions
were not listed on the figure. This figure has been updated. The previous analysis assumed
that 30 percent of the traffic would travel south to the interchange of TH 61 and 1-494. This
traffic was split between Point Douglas Road and Sterling Street. Fifteen percent of the site
traffic was distributed to the north via Carver Avenue to Century Boulevard. After further
discussion with Washington County, the percentage of site trips using Point Douglas and
Carver Avenue were decreased by 5 percent each. The 10 percent of trips that used those
roads were rerouted to the south on Sterling Street to obtain access to the TH 61 and 1-494
interchange. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect the impacts of the changes in the
site traffic trip distributions. The updated analysis is included at the end of the Response to
Comments section.
The traffic analysis using a more conservative trip generation number and an increased trip
distribution to/from Sterling Street did not significantly change the traffic results. There was no
significant change in the level-of-service values at any of the intersections included in the
original analysis. The delay on the southbound approach to Sterling Street did not increase and
remained similar to the no-build conditions. Therefore, the mitigation measures presented in
the original EAW are still recommended and no further mitigation measures are recommended.
The traffic mitigation measures recommended by the EAW include having traffic turn lanes on Carver
Avenue at the new Henry Lane and the addition of a right turn lane for westbound Carver Avenue at
McKnight Road.
Wetlands
The developer had a wetland delineation done for the property. The delineation found that there are
four wetlands on the property - two Type 4 wetlands near Carver Avenue, a large Type 5 wetland
between Henry Lane and Heights Avenue and a small (8,879-square-foot) Type 5 wetland north of
Fish Creek.
The city requires a 25-foot-wide no-disturb buffer area around Type 4 wetlands and a 10-foot-wide no-
disturb buffer around Type 5 wetlands. The latest project plans show a 25-foot-wide no-disturb buffer
around the northerly wetlands with possibly some areas of grading encroachments. City staff will have
to work with the project engineer to ensure that the plans will meet the 25-foot and 1 O-foot-wide city
buffer requirements for these wetlands. '.
The developer is proposing to fill the small southerly wetland that is 8,879 square feet in area and
replace it with constructed wetland next to the existing wetlands near Carver Avenue. They also are
proposing to construct eight rain gardens (new infiltration areas) totaling 28,491 square feet of area to
create public value credits as part of their wetland mitigation plan. The watershed district will have to
9
approve this replacement plan. Shann Finwall, the city's environmental planner, has reviewed the
project plans and provided city planning staff with her comments (see them on page 73).
Watershed District Review
The RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District will be reviewing the project plans. The district did
not find any major issues with the proposed plans from 2006 and city staff does not expect they will
have any major concerns with the latest proposal. They will be requiring a permit before the contractor
may start grading the site.
Tree Removal/Replacement/Preservation
The applicant had a tree inventory done for the property in 2005. This survey found 1,111 significant or
large trees on the property, including pines, elms, spruce, ash and oak. (See the tree plans in the
project plans.) The city considers large trees as those that are eight inches in diameter or greater or
pines that are at least eight feet tall.
Tree Preservation
The city's tree preservation ordinance that was in effect in 2006 required that all "large" trees removed
from a site be replaced one-for-one, up to 10 trees per acre. The ordinance defines a large tree as a
tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwood, and poplar.
These are the standards that the city will be using to review this proposal.
The applicant's proposed tree preservation plan shows them saving 709 large trees and removing 402
large trees with the proposed grading and construction of the project site. (This is a reduction of 63
trees to be removed compared to the 2006 proposal). Those they would remove would include pines,
elms, spruce, locust and oak trees. Therefore, the applicant must plant at least 14 replacement trees
on the site to have at least 10 trees per acre. The proposed project plans show the applicant planting
at least 366 replacement trees as part of their overall landscape plan, including a mix of 137
deciduous or over story trees and a mix of 229 coniferous trees. The proposed number and size of the
replacement trees exceeds the city's 2006 tree ordinance requirements.
As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade much of the property to prepare the site for
construction and to build the storm water ponds and infiltration basins. The proposed plans show the
developer saving groups of existing trees in a few areas of the site - including along the west property
line, near the southwest and southeast corners of the site, along the south side of Fish Creek, to the
northwest of the large wetland and near the two wetlands near Carver Avenue.
The 2006 city tree code required there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site after the contractor has
finished construction. For this 73-acre site, the code requires there be at least 730 trees on the
property after the construction is complete. While city staff is encouraged by the level of interest
expressed by the developer in saving and transplanting trees on the site, the devil in this will be in the
details. In other words, how many and how well the trees survive will be in how the contractor handles
the details of the project. The project engineer will need to prepare a detailed grading and tree plan for
the entire site for city staff approval. This'plan will need to show the proposed grading, the trees that
will stay, those that the contractor will transplant and those that the contractor will remove. In addition,
this plan should show the size and location of trees the developer would add to the site for screening
purposes and where they would store the transplanted trees before the contractor puts them in their
final locations.
10
Trees and Landscaping
As proposed, the developer would save, plant or transplant at least 1,075 trees on the site (including in
the yards of each unit and along Henry Lane) and install eight rain gardens and five infiltration
ponds/basins with landscaping. The detailed landscape plans in the project plan set show more details
about the tree planting and seeding for the north one-half and the south one-half of the site. Staff
expects the mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether the
unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 % story, look out or full basement walkout unit. In
addition, all yard areas near the buildings should be sodded (except for any mulched planting beds).
The applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the
ponds, infiltration basins and drainage basins. The contractor should plant the ponds with native
vegetation including grasses with Forbes and plant the upland portions of the ponds with native
shrubbery and trees. The project engineer also should change the Colorado blue spruce to another
species of evergreen tree and must show the planting details on the final project landscape plans. All
landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must have an underground irrigation
system. Any landscaping and turf establishment within the 1-494 right-of-way should be subject to
MnDOT's approval.
Design Review
Building Design and Exterior Materials
The plans show lots for up to 165 housing units - 100 lots for smaller units (similar to detached town
houses) and another 65 larger lots for single dwellings. As I noted earlier in the report, the applicant
has not yet applied to the city for design approval. Staff expects, based on conversations with the
developer, that the proposed units will be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing
homes in the area. They could have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with a stone veneer near the
doors and on the fronts, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there would be a mix
of look out, full basement and walkout units, and each unit would have aluminum soffits and an
attached two-car garage. Staff does not currently have any major concerns about the elevations of the
proposed units since this development would be somewhat isolated from any nearby homes.
Before the city issues a building permit, the city should require the developer or the builder(s) to submit
their building plans to the city for review and approval by the community design review board (CDRB).
This submittal should include building plans and elevations for each building type. These should show
or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, all elevations of all buildings, any shutters,
window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide details about any brick or stone
accents that the town houses might have.
Site Lighting
.
The city's lighting ordinance has several standards for exterior lighting. It requires all new freestanding
lights be no more than 25 feet in height, the light fixtures must have a design that hides the bulb and
lens from view (to avoid nuis;mces), and ,they must have fixtures that direct light downward. In addition,
the maximum light illumination from any outdoor light cannot exceed .4 foot candles at all property
lines.
The applicant has not yet prepared a site lighting plan for the development. The city should require the
developer to submit such a plan to the city with their CDRB application. Such a plan shall show the
installation of at least 12 freestanding lightposts within the site to provide lighting along the new streets
11
and driveways (primarily at the intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sacs). The plans also will
have to show details about the location, height and style of the freestanding poles, the fixture design
on the poles and about the proposed lighting on the buildings. The final plans also will have to show
that the maximum light intensity at the property lines will be .4 foot candles or less.
Parking
The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the parking requirements for a housing
development such as this. In general, the code requires the developer provide at least two parking
spaces per unit with at least one of those being a garage. According to the plans from the developer,
there would be 330 garage spaces (two spaces per unit) and 330 spaces on driveways (660 total
spaces) for the 165 housing units.
It should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24-foot-wide streets, parking on one side of 28-
foot-wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer is
proposing to construct the new north/south public street (Henry Lane) 32 feet wide with a concrete
sidewalk on one side, and the streets would be 24 feet wide. The city would not allow parking on the
24-foot-wide private driveways.
Retaining Walls
The applicant is proposing to install several retaining walls within the development. These would
include locations on both sides of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue, along the east side of Henry Lane
near the creek crossing along the rear of the units near the southwest corner of the site. (See site and
grading plans and the details on pages 36 and 38.) The retaining walls will start at ground grade and
extend upward to 18 feet at their highest point. The city will require the developer to install a fence on
the top of any retaining wall that is four feet tall or higher.
Soil Borings
The grading plan shows the project engineer having taken 30 soil borings throughout the project site -
including the locations of the proposed retaining walls, basins and driveways. The city's engineer will
be reviewing the results of the borings and the report from the project engineer.
Other Comments
Police Department
Lieutenant Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal. He noted that:
1. The developer should provide the appropriate security and street lighting and that each unit
should have its own unique address.
2. The street and driveway names and the addressing of the units could cause confusion. He
suggested that the developer wor~with city staff to pick names for the streets.
3. Parking within town house developments can become an issue for residents and their guests.
The city should encourage the developer to provide enough parking for all to use, especially
during special events.
12
4. Construction site thefts are an on-going problem in the metro area and the contractors should
plan and provide site security during the construction.
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following about the proposal:
1. The engineer will need to verify that the cul-de-sacs and the turn-arounds are large enough for
proper snow removal and for emergency vehicle access.
2. All roads and driveways shall be at least 20 feet wide.
3. There shall be addresses on each unit facing the street.
4. The applicant needs to verify the proper placement of fire hydrants with Saint Paul Water and with
the city fire marshal.
CONCLUSION
The latest PUD plans have 26 fewer units (165 versus 191) for the site than plans the city denied in
2006 and 134 units fewer than the 299 units analyzed in the EAW in 2006. While many of the
neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the right to
develop and use his land. The city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to
develop his land with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive
Plan.
In the last three years since the city first reviewed the developer's initial concept plan for the property,
they have significantly revised plans and reduced the number of units on the property. The applicant
has invested more than two years in time with meetings, plan preparation, revisions and analysis
(including the EAW) to prepare the latest plans. The current proposal balances the city's interest in
preserving many of the natural features on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop
the site. This balance is something the city should strive for with every development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Approve the resolution starting on page 86 (Attachment 29). This resolution approves a
conditional use permit for a 165-unit planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of
Maplewood development on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. The city bases this
approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.)
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 31, 2008, except where the city
requires changes. These plans include only having emergency vehicle and trail access from
the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include:
a. Revising the graqing and site,plans to show:
(1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the
watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the
engineering department requirements.
(2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees.
13
(3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district.
The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor
changes to the plans.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in Michael Thompson's memo dated April 9, 2008,
and the plans shall include:
a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree
preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulbs and round - about
shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn
around.
b. Provide for staff approval a final detailed storm water management plan.
c. The following for the streets and driveways:
(1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary.
(2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans.
4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed
off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements
and meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any remaining debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site.
d. Provide the city with verification that all the units or town houses on the proposed site plan
will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other
documentation. For any units that are within the 65-decibel noise contour, the contractor
will have to build the units or town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This
may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-
deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this
documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses.
.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD
shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
maximum - 35 feet.
14
b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none.
c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line.
d. Side-yard setback: 15 feet minimum between buildings.
7. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
B. Approve the resolution starting on page 91 (Attachment 30). This resolution vacates the unused
easements and right-of-ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area
west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue). The city is vacating these easements and right-of-
ways because:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right-of-ways for
their original purposes.
3. The existing easements and right-of-ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout.
4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right-of-ways with the final plat.
This vacation is subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and
utility easements and right-of-ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city
engineer.
C. Approve the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on March 31,
2008). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat:
1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet
all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility
easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility
easements along the side lot lines of each lot).
d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 12 locations. The exact style
and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval.
e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs.
f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and
guidelines.
g. Replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and
species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval.
15
h. Not do any tree removal, grading or construction in the area south and west of the
proposed round-about until after November 13, 2008.
2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The
plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson
dated April 9, 2008, and shall meet the following conditions:
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
(3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large
trees.
(4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the
plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On
slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization
and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be
seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves
the final plat.
(6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a
building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on
top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet.
(7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city
engineer.
(8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the
affected property owner(s).
(9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10: 1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any
pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not
exceed four feet.
.
(10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed
district. The. overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one-foot deep and protected with
approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets.
(11) The drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer
with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off
from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site.
16
c. The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. This
plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and screening
trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half (2 %) inches in
diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or
other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and
shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species.
(4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group additional new trees together including in the front yard of the property at 2431
Carver Avenue to help reduce head light glare from Henry Lane
(7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 552 trees.
(8) Require the developer to replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final
transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city
staff approval.
d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum street grade of
eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two
percent.
(2) Water service to each lot and unit.
(3) Repair of Carver Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the
public utilities and builds the new streets, turn lanes, trails, sidewalks and private
driveways.
(4) The developer enclosing any ponds or basins that will have a normal water depth of
two feet or more with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. The
contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city
engineer.
(5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city
engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes.
(6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the
standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS).
Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood
Fire Department.
17
(7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements.
The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the
project area.
(8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The contractor shall protect the outlets to
prevent erosion.
(10) The repair and restoration of the temporary Heights Avenue cul-de-sac including the
installation of new curb and gutter, the trail connection, street pavement and the
restoration of the boulevard.
(11) The pipelines in and near Henry Lane and Outlot B.
(12) The restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the
completion of the new Henry Lane.
e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run-off
leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall:
(1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities.
(2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations.
3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
4. Change the plat as follows:
a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These
easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide
along the side property lines.
b. Label the common areas as outlots.
c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
d. Work with city staff on the preparation of a street and driveway naming plan. City staff shall
approve this naming plan.
e. Label the names of all the streets on all project plans and distinguish which are public and
which are private.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-
site drainage and utility easements.
.
6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor
will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet
all city requirements.
18
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide for the repair of Carver Avenue (street, curb and gutter, ditch and boulevard) after
the developer constructs the sidewalks and connects to the public utilities and builds the
new streets, turn lanes and private driveways.
d. Provide for restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the
construction of the new Henry Lane.
7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by city staff.
These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of
the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls.
8. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowners' association documents.
b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or
parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city
council.
c. Covenants or association documents that address the proper installation, maintenance and
replacement of any retaining walls and of the common areas.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for
approval before recording.
9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage.
The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or
contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
10. Combining all the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes.
11. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading.
12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
13. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community
development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat.
.
19
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Note: City staff did not have time to survey area residents and property owners about this latest
proposal. Staff has included the followinq comments from 2006 for backqround information.
In 2006, city staff surveyed the owners of the 101 properties within at least 750 feet of this site about
the 191-unit proposal. Of the seven replies, none supported the project, two had comments and
questions about the proposal and five were against the proposal.
For
None
Comments/Questions
1. See the e-mail from Kathy Urban on page 82.
2. See the e-mail message from Don and Peggy Telin on page 83.
Against
1. I still think they are trying to put too many units in this area. I would rather see single-family homes
with a few town homes. I also do not want to see the approval of the oversized emergency outlet
"Trail" from Dorland Road/Heights Avenue. I think this will only lead to a permanent road to this
development which is not necessary. I also think the land dedication/cash dedication discussion is
selfish. I think CoPar is trying to do the minimum amount possible to satisfy the earlier complaints
they heard. Overall, I think this new proposal is still unacceptable. This area cannot support 191
homes. If you multiply this by the proposed number of people living in the homes, the additional
population of 554 at a minimum. I would like to see a new proposal with a smaller amount of
homes. (Brass -1355 Dorland Road South)
2. See the letter from Terry Baumgart on pages 76 and 77.
3. See the letter from Mark Bonitz on pages 78 - 81.
4. No way should this be done with the same companies involved in taking out and soil removal. It
should be done by an outside company only!! I do believe too many units with even single family
homes. Wildlife, too much too fast, deer? Most important - we need businesses and jobs - no jobs,
no homes. (Gearin - 2575 Carver Avenue)
5. The PUD lot size should be within the existing code parameters. The actual units per acre is already
well above the code when using real density figures (53 actual useable acres of properly). 191
divided by 53 acres equals 3.6 units per acre (net). Basing PUD density on 73 acres is not logical or
reasonable, even if the city code allows. The buildable acres equal 53. The proposed park
dedication fee of $834,000 based on 191 units should be used within Carver Crossing and the
adjacent open space if the proposal is approved by the city council. The city should monitor and
. assure that all EAW, watershed and other agency issues and requirements are met precisely. The
city should require a bond and enforce a completion date so construction does not linger forever.
Allowing this development, in my opinion, is not a prudent decision. Future issues and problems,
when the developer is long gone, will be left to the City at the city and citizens' expense. (Erb -
2354 Heights Avenue)
20
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 73 acres
Existing land use: Vacant (formerly had three single dwellings and accessory buildings)
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South
West:
East:
Single dwellings and Carver Avenue
Ramsey County open space
Houses on Dorland Road and Saint Paul
Henry Lane and 1-494
PLANNING
Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings)
Existing Zoning: R-1(R) (rural single dwellings) and F (farm residence)
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See
findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 86 through 88.)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following
findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic
hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment
for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition,
materials, textures and colors.
Past Actions
On March 14,2005, the city council reviewed an early concept plan for this property. That plan showed
386 units of senior housing on the property. After some discussion by the council, the applicant asked
the city to table their request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal.
21
On May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed a second concept plan prepared by CoPar Companies for
the Schlomka property south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane. This plan showed 376
housing units in at least four styles of homes on about 73 acres. The council also authorized the
preparation of an EAW for the development area.
On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the results of the EAW
and to consider a 299-unit housing proposal for this site. After much testimony and discussion, the
planning commission recommended that the city council:
1. Make a negative declaration about the need for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for the
project.
2. Deny the proposed land use plan change from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (low-density
multiple dwelling).
3. Deny the proposed zoning map change from F (farm residence) and R-1 (R) to R-3 (multiple _
dwellings).
4. Deny the proposed PUD for a 299-unit senior housing development.
5. Deny the request to vacate the easements and right-of-ways within the proposed project site.
6. Deny the proposed preliminary plat that would have created the lots for the proposed PUD.
The planning commission cited concerns about noise affecting the future residents, traffic counts and
flow in the area, the proposed project density, the idea of having senior housing in the location, storm
water run-off and impacts on wildlife as reasons for recommending denial of the proposed 299-unit
development plan.
After the planning commission meeting, the developer decided to withdraw their application for the
299-unit senior housing development for the site and redesign the proposal to try to address the
concerns of the neighbors, planning commission and city.
On June 12, 2006, the city council reviewed and discussed the EAW and its findings for the proposed
299-unit Carver Crossing development. The council, after taking much testimony and because of the
questions they had about the EAW, tabled their decision on the matter until July 10, 2006.
On July 10, 2006, the city council continued their review and discussion of the EAW for Carver
Crossing. The council, on a 3-2 vote, adopted a resolution approving a negative declaration (that the
project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects) and that the city would not
require an EIS for the proposed development. (I have included the June 29, 2006 staff report for this
meeting as a separate attachment for additional information.)
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Summary
An EAW is a preliminary environmental review of a proposal to look at how the development could
potentially affect the environment. The state designed the EAW to gather and disclose information
about potential environmental effects from a proposed project. The EAW also reviews ways or
methods to avoid or lessen any environmental effects. An EAW has a list of standardized questions
that cover issues such as land use and habitat, storm water, wetlands, air emissions and pollution and
traffic.
22
The project with 299 units did not meet the minimum size thresholds (with the proposed number of
units) set by state rules to mandate an EAW. However, the city can require the developer to prepare
an EAW if the city decides that the project "has a potential for significant environmental effects." To
this end, Mr. Hansen requested that the city order the preparation of an EAW in 2005. A preliminary
list of concerns included the effects the project could have on the wetlands, slopes, utilities, storm
water and drainage (including Fish Creek) and traffic in the area. The noise from 1-494 and its effects
on the new residents is another matter that the EAW was to analyze.
Staff expected that the consultant would need three to four months to prepare the EAW. In this case,
however, because of the complexity of the project, revisions the developer made to the project plans
(in response to staff concerns) and the potential issues in the area, the EAW took almost one year to
complete.
The city's consultant completed the EAW and then the city had a state-mandated 30-day public
comment period on the document. The comments the city received included questions and concerns
about wetlands, storm water run-off and management (including possible effects on Fish Creek), the
Mississippi River Critical Corridor, traffic, noise and public utilities. The comments the city received and
the consultant's responses to those comments are explained in a separate memo. In this case, staff
recommended that the city make a negative declaration for an EIS (environmental impact statement)
for this project. The city council, on July 10, 2006, voted to not require an EIS for the Carver Crossing
development.
HOUSING POLICIES
The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They
are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many
housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development
policies that relate to this project. They are:
Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic,
social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural
or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town
houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low-to- moderate-
income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing.
- Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate
buffering and separation.
The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should
consider with this development. They are:
- Promote a variety of housing types, cOsts and ownership options throughout the city. These are to
meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional
households.
The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price
ranges through its land use plan.
23
The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all
ages. To do so, the city must ensure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of
the life cycle of housing needs.
Mississippi River Critical Corridor Information (from the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan)
Maplewood hereby incorporates the goals of the 1976 designation of the Mississippi River Critical Area.
On November 18,1988, Public Law 100-69 established the Mississippi National River and Recreation
Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the National Park System. The MNRRA was established by Congress to:
(1) Protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the
Twin Cities.
(2) Encourage coordination of federal, state and local programs.
(3) Provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and local governments in the
development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure the
orderly public and private development in the area.
The Secretary of the Interior approved a Comprehensive Management Plan for the MNRRA in 1995. This
plan lays out a policy level framework for the management of the Mississippi River corridor.
The responsibility for the administration of the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, as described in
Minnesota Statutes and Executive Order 79-19, was transferred from the EQB (the Environmental Quality
Board) to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1995.
Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the city has been designated as
"Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals:
(1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial,
industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the
river.
(2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources.
(3) Expand public access to and for the enjoyment of the river.
The city may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if they are compatible with
these goals. In addition, Maplewood will require that building and development applications in the Critical
Area have enough information to ensure that the new construction is compatible with the character of the
Urban Diversified District.
.
Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards
The following are the city's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi
River Critical Area:
24
. The city shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic
overlooks in their natural state.
. Maplewood will work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on possible ordinance
changes that would affect lands within the Critical Area.
. The city will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed
the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies.
. Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the
environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The city will review these effects when
approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single-family homes.
. Maplewood requires all development in the Critical Area to meet all state regulations for Individual
Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS).
. Maplewood will notify the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) whenever the city
receives a development or subdivision application for land within the Critical Area.
. The city shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct
run-off onto adjoining streets and watercourses.
. Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the
quality of run-off onto adjoining streets and watercourses.
. The city encourages the clustering of structures and the use of designs that will reduce public facility
costs, which will provide more open space and will improve scenic designs.
Application Date
The city received the latest development plans for this site on March 31, 2008. State law requires that
the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city
action would normally be required on this proposal by May 28, 2008, unless the applicant agrees to a
time extension or if the city extend the review period.
25
p:sec 24-28\Carver Crossing for PC - 2008
Attachments:
1. Letter from Copar Companies dated April 4, 2006
2. Location Map
3. Land Use Plan Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Preliminary Plat dated March 31, 2008
6. Site Plan
7. Concept Plan with Referendum dated 4-4-08
8. Grading and Erosion Control Plan
9. Utility Plan
10. Stormwater Management Plan
11. Stormwater Plan Details
12. Wetland Mitigation Plan
13. Tree Preservation Plan
14. Open Space Plan
15. Master Landscape Plan
16. Enlarged Landscape Plan (North one-half)
17. Enlarged Landscape Plan (South one-half)
18. Landscape Plan Details
19. Carver Avenue/Henry Lane Intersection Detail dated 8-01-06
20. June 29, 2006 EAW memo from Chuck Ahl
21. April 9, 2008 memo from Michael Thompson
22. April 9, 2008 memo from Shann Finwall
23. August 24, 2006 letter from Dan Soler
24. Letter dated August 22, 2006 from Terry and Linda Baumgart
25. Letter dated August 24, 2006 from Mark Bonitz
26. E-mail from Kathy and Rick Urban dated August 23, 2006
27. E-mail from Peggy Telin dated August 25,2006
28. September 28, 2006 City Council minutes
29. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution
30. Easement and Right-of-Way Vacation Resolution
31. Project Plans date-stamped March 31,2008 (separate attachments)
.
26
April 4, 2008
~
COPAR
companies
Attachment 1
Maplewood City Council
Maplewood Planning Commission
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN 55109
Development. Finance. Investment
Re: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Development Plan Settlement
Dear Mayor Longrie, Council Members, and Commission Mcmbcrs,
Enclosed are the CoPar Development Carver Crossing cuP/pun development plans for your
approval. Thc drafting of these plans is the result of active settlement negotiations with the City
and the product of substantial input from the City and its consultants.
Our developmcnt team has worked diligently to revise the development proposal from its
original forms as a 386 home conccpt; 299 home EA W "negative declaration" approved plan;
191 home proposal; to the final 165 home plan contained herein. This settlement plan is
consistent with the Land Use plan of the city and the detailed EA W analysis of the site; and is
offering tremendous open space, public land access, and corridor opportunity.
We respectfully request that the City of Maplewood review this settlement proposal and approve
the following aetions as they relatc to the development plans:
I. Conditional Use Permit! PUD approval
2. Preliminary Plat approval
3. Vacation of excess right-of-way / easements
4. Direct stafIto negotiate with CoPar on the financial aspects of the project.
Outlined below are a number of development plan highlights:
Development Overview:
The development site is 72.3 aeres in size with a development density that has been reduced
from 4.1 to 2.28 homes per acre. The Planned Unit Development (pUD) approach results in the
designation of31.8 acres of woodland, wetland and upland open space; an increase in open space
from all previous plans.
The 165 proposed lots average approximately 8,524 sq. ft. and each will support a large 40 ft. by
60 ft. (2,400 sq. ft.) building site with a diverse mix of lot widths. The lot design and layout
accompanied by the open space create distinct neighborhoods within the development resulting
in a full range of single dwelling size and elevation alternatives consistent with the area. Homes
will be built by a select builder or pool of builders that has yet to be determined. Design review
board approval of these single family homes will be sought as may be required at the time of
phased construction of the development.
8677 Eagle Point Blvd . -.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
651-379-0500
651-379-0412 (Fax) - 1 -
www.CoparCompanies.com Real Estate Development, Finance & Investment III
27
The incorporation ofPUD development techniques has enhanced the development proposal by
allowing 43.9% of the site designated as open. Open spaces, raingardens, tree clusters and other
site features have been integrated into the site plan and are directly adjacent to over 97% of the
homes. The open spaces and slope protections within this development accompanied by the 130
acre Ramsey County Fish Creek Protection Open Space and sizable city open space to the north
will continue to allow the natural areas in this 1494/694 bounded site to be a dominating feature
of south Maplewood.
Stormwatcr Managemeut:
The stormwater management plan can be reviewed in detail on sheet C-6 of the development
plan. A total of five (5) Permanent Dual Purpose Basins (PDPB's) and eight (8) raingardens
have been designed for the site. The PDPB ponds maintain an event based average infiltration
capacity of2.8 inches and present an infiltration event range from 1.5 to 4 inches. The
raingardens further enhance infiltration by allowing an event based average infiltration capacity
of 5.28 inches with an infiltration event range from 4.25 to 7 inches. In accordance with the
Ramsey Washington County Metro Watershed District volume control worksheet, the required
infiltration volume for this site is 69,073 cubic feet. As proposed, the stormwater plan will
infiltmte 109,076 cubic feet. Stormwater management in this plan continues to aggressively
exceed established standards and sets a precedent for other such developments to attain.
Estimated earthwork has decreased from 290,000 yards to 237,000 yards. This level of
excavation is supporting the development and the itlcreased stormwater water treatment basins.
The excavation is well within acceptable range for a 70+ acre site and is also tied directly to the
increased water quality treatment performance of the plan.
Landscape:
There are 1,111 significant trees on the property. Significant trees are individually identified 011
the tree survey contained within the development set as sheet C-8. The revised layout has
rcsulted in the preservation of a majority (709) of the significant trees and is preserving more
trees than presented in the EA W and all previous plans.
In conjunction with the preservation of the 709 significant trees, the landscape plan is proposing
to plant an additional 558 mixed variety trees. The landscape plan has been designed by a
Landscape Architect and is incorporating diverse tree varieties, pond seed mixes, and rain garden
landscaping, focused on native and emergent wetland mnge and native prairie grasses. A total
of 723 trees (l O/per acre) were required by ordinance to be maintained and or placed on the site
at the time of original development plan tree survey and submittal. The tree preservation and
landscape planning vastly exceeds those standards.
Wetlands:
Wetland impacts remain unchanged from the EA W proposal. Thc site contains 319,076 sq. ft. of
wetllllld of which only 8,879 sq. ft. ~r 2.78% will be impacted. In accordance with the State of
-2-
28
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act the impacted wetland requires 2:1 replacement with
17,758 sq. ft. of qualifYing public value credits. The wetland replacement plan offers over 5
times more public value credit than required and exceeds the criteria established by the Wetland
Conservation Act by 95,791 sq. ft. of public value credits. The Watershed District has
previously approved of the wetland sequencing and replacement plan.
The development proposal has also accounted for city and watershed district wetland
classification and building setback regulations in effect at the time of original plan development.
All wetlands maiutain at least a 50 ft. average buffer; the average buJIer width of the entire
central wetland exceeds 71 feet. The Wetland MitigationIRaingarden plan can be reviewed on
Sheet C-9 of the development proposal.
Public Utilities & Roads:
Unlike the balance of south Maplewood, sewer and water utilities are immediately available to
the entire development site. Access to sewer and water infrastructure is gained from both Carver
Avenue and Heights Avenue and is to be extended throughout the site as gravity fed public
Infrastructure. The design and density can be fully accommodated with existing infrastructure
connections.
As proposed and as requested by City Staff, all roads within the development are public. The
road identified as Henry Lane has been enhanced to address Fish Creek crossing concerns and its
intersection with Carver Avenue a<ljusted to improve intersection safety.
To address possible 1494/694 vehicular travel off the freeway causing an obstruction of Henry
Lane, thc following measures have been verified / implemented:
. With the now complete 1494/694 improvements a large center concrete barrier has been
installed limiting possible off.road travel in this scenario to south bound 1494/694 traffic.
. MnDot highway standards for "clear zone" travcl distances have been verified between
the south bound 1494/694 travel shoulder and the bordering MnDot chain link fence. The
available clear zones dictatc no further guard rail or barrier and according to highway
department standards will sufficiently provide for the safe incidental off road travel of a
vehicle.
. A 3.cable dcrived "texas fence" will be installed within the Henry Lane right-of-way and
adjacent to the existing MoDot chain link fence to further restrict vehicles.
. As a fourth barrier, thc pertinent section of Henry Lane roadway will be elevated via a 32
inch high retaining wall constructed near the east side or Henry Lane and adjacent to
1494/694. The wall will be equivalent in form and function to a "J" barrier design. Any
such vehicle making its way to the edge of Henry Lane will be encumbered by this 32
inch wall, which is the height recognized by the Federal Highway Administration to
provide proper vehicle deflection. The implementation of this design rather than divided
medians and expanded width road sections causes the improved Henry Lane to have
minimal intrusion on Fish Creek while allowing for increased safety.
Fish Creek:
. 3.
29
Fish Creek is a positive amenity adjacent to this project and is being protected to a great extent
through the blighted site clean-up that has occurred and stonnwater controls that are a part of the
development. The plan has emphasized enhanced protection of the creek by dedicating
additional open space and conservation easement area along the north and south sides of the
Ramsey COWlty owned creek property running through the project area. Road and lot
alignments have been adjusted to preserve a minimum 300 ft. wide Fish Creek Corridor, remove
all previously identified retaining wall, and expand Creek setback. Plan sheet C- 3 demonstrates
the Fish Creek corridor provisions of this plan.
Mississilllli River Critical Area Corridor:
Regulations pertaining to this area of the site are being met with the revised proposal in the same
manner they were met within the EA W. The development plans have fully considered the
Environmental Protection and Critical Area ordinance requirements of the city. The proposed
development has the potential of greatly increasing public access to and along Fish Creek; is
being designed and will be constructed and maintained to the maximum extent practical as it
relates to erosion, alterations, and slopes; is removing site contamination and pollution, is not
impacting the views of protected waters, and is vastly exceeding stormwater ponding and
phosphorous removal requirements.
The potential for MRCAC designated areas within the site to have qualifying bluftlines has been
fully evaluated. All City bluff line requirements are met. Roadway and lot confignration
a<ljustments have been implemented to protect site slopes to the maximum extent,practical.
Significant portions of developable slope and land area are being left open allowing expansive
corridor connectivity and access.
Demographic & Fiscal Impact:
The 165 homes proposed in Carver Crossing of Maplewood will be open to all qualified buyers
and maintained as minimum maintenance single family homes. The Maplewood Comprehensive
Plan estimates 2.9 people per unit live in a single dwelling. Using this household estimates as
an approximate range, the projected population of Carver Crossing at full development should be
479 people.
A conservative estimated gross retail sales mean of the homes in Carver Crossing is $378,000.
At this level of development, the League of Minnesota Cities tax calculator estimates annual
Carver Crossing tax revenue at $742,170. The current annual tax revenue generated from the
property is $36,000.
Vacation of Ril!ht-of- Wav:
.
Existing public right-of-way within the development is limited to Henry Lane. With the
realignment of Henry Lane intersection to Carver Avenue a limited amount of existing public
right-of-way/easement will no longer be utilized. The more defined roundabout and
configuration of the southern most pQrtion of Henry Lane is also refined causing excess right-of
.4-
30
way to be unnecessary. In conjunction with this development request the excess public right-of-
way and/or easements can be sufficiently replaced with the defincd road alignments and site
layout
Public Ownership Option:
Understanding that there has been a desire by interested parties to purchase portions of the
property or otherwise pursue public ownership the settlement discussions and resulting
settlement plan include a public ownership alternative. illustrated on the attached conceptual site
plan (color graphic) is a public open space acquisition option as follows:
. An option to purchase the southwesterly slope area generally west of Public Road 3 as
depicted. Said option to also include acquiring all remaining dark green open space if
desired.
. Total acquisition option of approximately 33.8 acres
. Resulting combined public open space and conservation easement designation of over
50% ofthe entire site.
Conclusion:
We hope you agree that the 165 home Carver Crossing of Maple wood plan represents a practical
and reasonable settlement and is in the best interest of the City. In spite of the unfortunate
litigation, CoPar and its development team have been able to provide a very high quality fmal
proposal. We hope to receive your approval and construct this development in a manner that
enhances the open spaces, recreational opportunities, and awareness of the desirable
neighborhood elements available to people throughout Maplewood.
Sincytely,
.f /.,>"'_.,~-~ . ,;~~', '
l . ~-v '. }f$v~ ~\....
Kurt Scl1neider
CoPariDevelopment, LLC
.5-
31
Attachment 2
.
~
~;
>~
<~
o
fill
Ii
.' I
'---., I
..J ..
:;:)
<r:
D..
I-
:z
<(
I/)
._ lIlVJl
SITE
SITE
..J
:;:)
<r:
D..
I-
:z
<(
I/)
//,/
NEWPORT
32
1J
N
LOCATION MAP
Attachment 3
. ,
"'el'''''' 0
'_I
~: "~,
iUI J
~:El ,~
...I "
::J
~ Ii
I-
Z
<(
Ul
<;:]
D
c::J :!4'!o,
0"=
Vo
(1
D
CJD GJ
.. "
" ~
,
.~
CJ
o
q
i~
~
~
i'l
N
c-aN~r Ave
~
~
8
SITE
Q
~
r1
os
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
"",
\~
A>~
~C
'1'~~..t
/"\ ~ ___~~------.,_L_<
:..:.."--'"'".;..-..----7.- ----=----.;)'
r1
\J
o D
SITE
'~fl'
Q
[J
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
os
LAND USE MAP
33
a
".j.j,
I
I
I
I
I
I
"-I')" I
"
"
II
"
II
I,
II
"I
\
I I
I
.~).~ I f
II
II
'\
1-'
Wi
W'
llI:'
....!I
UlI
C)I
z!
:::i
llI:
W
I-
Ul
o
N
Attachmeat A
.
,.
[J
1.]
c::J ."~
"0
D
<::
o
"=
~o
LJ
~
f
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
'~~\:\-
'"
'j'
"U'
o
D
...J
:::>
<(
a.
I-
z
<(
(/)
34
11
N
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
~
1
I
t
~
!
Attachmerrt:'" 5
LOT SCHEDULE;
"""-' """"-'
mE"""'. !MAAEA(SF}
73>. 5Ml."
"
,
..J
a
ll.
I-
Z
<(
Ul
""""-12.
lOT AAEIIsrJ
I ..U88
~
3
/6
"""-'
~ ~
..
71.""
" ,
!H
...1
._~
~~
1510.1<
. "
67712
OOR=
lOT AAD.(sr
..<>T""'O"
~
/
,,-
,
." (
--51 /
'ill ,_'''_m''",,,
,:,; \
,I' :
i /
/
/
/ /
/ /
. /
i /
, ..
'2."'.52
,
~ '''.lsa.
~
1.-:"rA,(sr) -I
o=u
~""
LAND AREAS:
liR.r."\W' I:
UI
'7'.00
",
""
..
. "
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
-<>o$'-s-
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
i'
,
,
1
,
,
I ",..:
,
,
L-~-
. ---
!
,
1-31-65
.-HIO'U....
, 'f
'f:-~'- --
! /,
PRELIMINARY PLAT 11
N
35
~
'3-3f-Cf6
Attachment 6-
..J
;:)
~
I-
Z
~
1Il
CARVER AVENUE OARVER A'/EN", ~ En
r"1
'] I
I' /,'
Ii-
I, 1./
'j,
:'\
I!
L..i
"
Iii
'''\'
~.\':<- .-
"\ :~',-
,~
-,
,
;
1
!\
~
is'+
Q.
\>j)~~
1:
t-
"\
J
r
;
/ , I
'r/ >of"
-~l
~ -"'l!)"
Ii : 'f
,t : /!!
. !~
,~
._f
. :::,,;.;
!; , '
, /f'---....-
f if! ...... i'
l /' ~i'
,,/ ;
! It
! 1/"",'
I l .
, .
,/ /,
<.--t
/1
liif
I~$
, "..
:::;:" ___-----1,"
...;;---.:.-=--==-.,...-----
SITE PLAN
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
":3) lie.
PLifN
i
1f
N
Attachment 7
.
141UMITS
12.:IM;
2.1 liMrnl/AC
TOTAL LOTlYPES:
1ID''MDEUI'fS lDO
13'-75' Wilt lOTS lit
TOTAl tAl
4- t-( -08
LEGEND:
..
..
..
11IIII
-
........'"
....
""
Ol'DlSPACf
- 21.5 4CRES (.5UlC)
IIlEmENDl1lI MEA
-1.3Il.CltES(lt.$lll
W~~~I CllNmlVAllOH tAmlENT
- 2.sACflES (3~lC)
'"1OULI't:If!NlW. Of Ell SPACE - 5O.n,
;-ii""ilU l<lCr
......,.."...0"
,...............
Q
.~
AIJ.JANT ....
~~~~
=:":~._--
37
Attachment 8-'
,
1......1O""""""""""""...DUllOI'SItJ.."'"".,fl-_........
~!=.w;~'"i"~+.=~.m.
.- ~~..:&."="~.lfi'::':O""'rJ..~~!I8..,.
5>lW.B<.......<MIISlID."".....................,.ftIP$OOL.
>. AIJ.....""'''''.......................'''''...................-
t<It<IIllOI,"''''''''''''''''''''''''''-......'''..-,...._........1I<Ut
..""""".ItD,C<>miOaOfI__.""""".LT~1>.1(fI$'~
=:r~""'-'''''''''''''''''ooo>:_<OIIIllDI.''
"i""~~~~~~~~~
MIII(.j"'"..8tI..............
EROSION PREVENT10N SCHEnlJl.E
EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROl..; :
MAINTENANCE f'AOOfWA
.. '~mT"', ""'.. ............. AnU """ _AU."" 01.....'.....
_~""'AU- _1l1Y........_..,..........'rnru.
.............._,""""......"."''''''''........"......nDE<<lWl<I5Ci..
""""""""""""'.mJOE1l<'..........""U)N'''''"''''''''''''_
.._..""_OEWOtS_l>E'IoU$.........._,.,'"......""'"
~_~~~~~~OEroIIEDIE.......,"""""N'a
._"'*"'"........"""""'.....""""""""ON<<..-..........
DIE<:wl:IIY.._........DI[OUllfi.O:OO""""""'"""'''''''''''.
....... DE .......,... ....._.. ....."""""'.
.. =.=.~~~~=.'%.~~
'.lMI:oot<IlWmIIl''''''-Km'lI<'IJUU:D/J_''''uor_","
~,::-=,.~~"""""""""""""
8ENCI-I.lARKS>
(l)...........-_~_,.,_._......_
....._""'''''''',....................""...."-'-v~...
;.
,k
(>l.T.."""_......."..................;..<O~,......(
""'"...............-.,....,
..J
:J
<l:
a.
I-
Z
~
~-=
""""""",,_..........."'...
........~.".._,.,,----
SILT FENCE
KIT",,"""",
~~-
."
I WlMCO CA
EROSION PREVENTION, AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
.
38
11
N
.......
Attachment 9
...J
:::l
<(
11.
I-
Z
<t
III
I'
i:
CARVER AVENUE
A'{ENU~.':~:':t; ".
\':1:, -
I:;"
'1'
'n!
;1
: H~i:
-;-'-;',
"i!:"
~' : \ ~
il,i
j'l'
I': ,~"';
'I;
--'.-.- I:';~'[i;
1-::"
l! ! !i~!j~-i i __
!' i ;\:\:~i.-; I~]::t
., \(Z~:t.,
l:
\
I.
k I.
~'
lSro.
~~~+
,
,(
)
~
5 -3r -43
.
j-
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
.
39
11
N
Attachment-'lO
',-,-:,-:,:.'
;- i,' ~ ,\
CARVER AVENUE
! /.~
,
;'
,!
j.,-
;,:j
,.
:''''-'-,,/;
oJ
:;:)'
<(
0..,
....:
Z
~
., I,
,"I
" .,'
l~
"':'-<
,
. ~.\ " , '.
'3 ~ 31-oca
'-,-. . ,", ....
.' ,I
i
i'
"
;r
,
I
-/-:
r'-
;
.;,
i"
,
; ,:I /
'.'/
;-
I......
!'.;'
':i';
I
le-,>
if'
'~".J
40
11
N
~
.
Attachment 1f'
PERMANE:NT DUAL PURPOSE BASIN DATA SCHEDULE
'0''''. """'''' """'''' """'''' """''''
DIRECT CAltHWENr MfA (ACRES) 1.99 2.-43 4.3& 21.111 2.14-
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS (X) .U 15.3 ..0 00.0 56.0
JNFlLTRAT10N VOWNE p~ (Cf') 7.970 7.490 10,280 11..,8 '.309
BASIN BOTTON B...EVAllON 870.00 878.00 lltll5.00 1188.00 874.00
2 YEAR HIGH WATER 878.19 878.02 867.lU 870.4& 87..10
10 '!'fAR HlGHWATER 870.82 878.37 1167.18 871.90 874.85
100 YEAft HIGH WATER en.el 879.24 1- 887.21 1174.47 875,$12
DISCHARGE RATE - 2'l'R E.\IEHT (CFS) '0.00 0.00 0." o.6li1 0.00 .
OlSCHARC! RATE - II7l'R EVa<< (CFS) 0.00 0,00 .... '.08 0.00 .
DISCHARGE RATE - l00YR EVENr (CFS) ~oo 0.00 7.89 .... '0,00
lNFllTRA.T10N CW'AC~' (EVENT) 4.00. 5.2S. 2.~. I.SO. 3.2&-
RAlNGARDEN DATA SCHEDULE
A!3'A' ,,'nr .." .." ..'" ..,. ..... .."
DIRECT CATCHSolOO AREA (ACRES) 0." 0.59 0.87 1.01 .... ,.. 2.07 2.7'
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS (x) 29.4 ,... ,... 28.1 13.8 23.0 1U1 ".0
INFILTRATION VOlUME 'pROPClSEO" (CF) '.79<l 2.900 ,.... '.270 ..- '.220 1.7150 3,3150
BASIN BCm'OM B...EVJ.llON ....00 905.00 ....00 ....00 878.00 874.00 87e.00 077.00
2 YEAR HIGH WATER toS.Ol "'"'01 toS.Ot ",",01 87G,02 874.01 07~00 877.0t
10 "f'E.tR HIGH WATER Q05.18 gas.UI 905.1' ...... 876.87 874.15 87e.o2 8"-41
100 YEAR HIGH WATER ...... 905.M 90UJ ..~" 873.15 314.52 810.17 lInSl
DISCHARGE RATE -:lrR EVENT (CFS) 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
DISCHARGE RATE - to'iR E.VEN1' (CFS) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
DISCHARGE RATE - lDOYR EVENT (CFS) ." 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.08 0."
INfilTRATION CWACITY"- (EVENT) lS.OO" 5.l5O" ..... 15.25" 4.25- 15.25" 7.00. 4.SO.
TOTAL INFILTRATION VOLUME PROPOSED. 68,635 CF ,
"
_THE NflllRATION VOlUME PROPOSED - M CN>ACITY OF A ~N TO INFILTRATE A SPECIfiED
VOLUME Of" WAlER IN lHE TIME SPAN Of" <48 HOURS - HAS BEEN CJU:ULATED USING THE
STORI.lWATER MODEUNG SOFTWAAE "HYDROCJ,(). IN CONJUNCllON WITH THE 0\IERN..1. STOAMWATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WItH THE: CRY OF !.W>LEWOOO.
.. THE SPE:CFlED EVENT IS THE TYPE II - 24' liOlJR EVEN1' USING THE SCS TR-20 RUNOFF METHOO.
,
COMf>ARISON OF EXISl1NG AND PROPOSED DISCHARGE RATES
_"""""""'(CFll) I'lU'OSED """"""'" (CAll
"""""""''''"'' ..", ...", ....", ..", ...", ....",
CENTRAl WEfl>>ID 7." 7.83 7." 7." 7.57 . 7.07
DIRECT TO FISH CREEK FROM NORTH .... 7.24 llS.01 0.00 0." 1.21
DIRECT TO FISH CREEK FROM SOUTH 1.42 U3 23.13 0.00 0." 1.07
DISCHARGE NORTH (CNMft ft(W)) 0.02 1.18 ~.. 0.01 0.81 2.Bl
DISCHARGE NORTH (FISH CREEK) 0.00 0.00 0,08 0.00 0.03 - 0.73
DISCHARGE NOR1HWEST 0.00 0,00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.12
OISCHARGEWE'ST 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0." 1.>0
DISCHARGE SOUTHWEST 0.00 0.10 1.70 0.00 0." 1.25
" ,
3-3/-08
-,
~]lb
';-'6li"
i E~l
~-I~E
....."11..
., .
5~;i
a~o",
.l!...-l:l;:!
:S..Il'b:!g
1>]:Ii~...
:Ii.."II"'~
;f15fi
1I..~20
!"l:~ tli
SI!.~~
::ei:~!
i
.
.
.
o
.
i
~ i
't':
~~
o.
,
~
.r
~
.
..J
~
S!
III
::I
III
I-
Z
....
::::Ii
a..
0
..J
....
... ~
... Q
>
<< I-
'"
C ... Z
> ::I
0 '"
<<
0 u C
~ Z
.. .... j
.... ... Z
..J .. Z a..
a.. ... j
~ ~ I-
::::Ii a.. Z
....
L... '" Q ::::Ii
0 ...<< Z ....
~b ~ (!)
(!) -'" ~
~... j
Z 0% Z
Vi % ~
~:i ::::Ii
VI << . a..
0 ",,, ""
00 >-
It: <<0 "" ....
U "'" !;(
o~ ~
It: l;;~ Z ~
.... ~" S! ::::Ii
> ::J a:
a: xx
<-<- .... 0
~ "" It: I-
00
"'''' a.. III
REVISIONS
5-3-0e EAW COMMENTS
7-7-06 CUENT SUBI.llnAl
7-28-06 CITY CDl.4MENTS
3-31-08 REVISED SU8t.llnAL
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DETAILS
41
1)
N
-,p;.
Attachment 12
EXISllNG WETLAND SUMUARV,
llmLNII _M Tmt _.,
"""",' ,..- .
"""",' ~1QI) .
-
-
-,
~
"'
........................,
..
..
..
17._
17."'...'
~.
...."'.
~
~
1III\OCJltI....................,..,....._nmLYImJOIQNIEA'Ot!WlI>OOIl$lIW,....
NZr"""'-""smE""'....omNlQ........"""""""lHEfIIIST'''..._.......
ll!I'U<:OWif. M1M""'1GI.WD ,,' .............. WIllI! CMMS..... lIE USE111O.1W1<
:::.:"="'~........,..,.,.~:=.~~~J!:::=~Q>
=-~~y~=::,=~~~-"'"
....................~....,.._.......__IIIEP>oE...WEI\RIQ'"
flallIFll\E"L01>"_"""IIlt'Ul\,/JlO,lIlEllImlIWlItJl"'1lEDIJIl(llmNG
II "s,"'.'""'""........._EHIIIII:..........
""""'"MJ""""'\mINIQ_....T......""_IIUFFDIWIll...~
'O'_omwxIl>MwI\W.
WETLAND REf'LACEtJENT/lMTlGAllON SCHEDt./LEI
........._,~
...._..I'OImI_~..""
..m....wmND""""'"
~_~ w,,~ ,~
~_~,o<.."
""AL ,0<,0,......., VAW~........
TOTAL.Cl'EDIT8PRCM:)8)~
TOTAL.CfElIt8 fEOl.H!DfT;l63
lEGENl>
~,'"
L...:........:.
""""
~
c:=J
-
-
(a,l33HWC,f04,618PYO)
(ll,mNWC,ll,mPYC)
--
---
......,_am:m{to.lmO,PIlI'8)
..............am:m{W<QM<lDl)
,
RAINOARDEN/Pom SUMMARY'
- --
- -
..... ~
IlO-<I ",...
_ M2>
- ''''
...., ..."
- ,~
....~ .....
-
"""",a,
"""",..
-,"
-,"
-,.
--
.....~..............""""''''"'''~
'...". .
..-
,,~
".
.....,
WETLAND MITIGA TION/RAINGARDEN PLAN
.
42
1f
N
Attachment] 3
TREE INVENTORY SUMMARY'
TOTAL SICNIFiCANT TREES ON SITE =
TOTAL SICNlnCAtlT TIlEES R[~O\l(O"
T01ALSIGNIFiCANTTR[[SSAVEO =
TOTAlS1GHlflCANTTRtESfttClUIRED
TO BE REPLACED
J~ l:,o:d..~':'.:'i':\::r,rnlE'" ......om)
..("'EESH'CI<IIOfDIO'U"....IO/ACmllffl.""'rnrH.llO)
CARVER AVENUE
'XI ~':
*P1H'('-".It1l_,...,.,,,,..<>.,,,..........."A_..
"lI'IE<.....'..nlN'"'.."""otMTS.....""'''''RUo'''''''-
o<......O'"""ro"."""
,.;
''''.::
,"-:>}
LEGEND
TREE OADINANC8
lHIO 51lE IS APPROXIMATELY 72.4 ACRES. ACCOllOlNGTO
nil' WOODLOT AlTfRAllON PERMIT, IMPACTED TREES MUST ~E
REP!.ACEDONEfORONt.lJP TO 10 lREES PEft ACRE.
723 TOTAL TREES NffOro ON SITE.
_._._......OlEcnnornl<(
"
"_,.0_'_._"
=
"""'"
G@-
G@-
O
1!IIFS'.""'''''.'''''''''''''
...-..,-
OET"'-'OF"""'..........
'j--
;
...._'"<ES,.......""'"
1,111
'"
709 (70H&RtlOC'uEO)
.......01Rll',"'.......
~.
, +~
~".~
j
NORTH
*
800'
,
o
i
I
,
,
';;~~\"~IO\n~\\~\'r~~}
r:;yt\::;:./: tiS'>'''
,'. ~lO" f'o"_..co
I"
"
PRESERV A TION
43
11
N
Attachment 14
-'
::J
<(
a.
I-
z
<i:
Ul
'.', ,
::ARVER A'JENUE :~_-.
,,'fl
, '
"
i/
id_
,
I
'I
,f' ;"
I,. 1/
It, "
, 1/(
" 1/
Y
!
i
t
__/_ .t
i
!
'f
(,\
"
,,'
,
!
l:.
t ',I
:(
I ,.
!-
!
..
!
,
,
I
..
I
I
,
/
~
..
~ - (.
r
f
,j
i
! i
I "
, I
'Ii '
1* /
;0) I
~ ,
~ i
"
i. he,'
,/1.1
/ ;
"3~'3t;oC56
"
/ I
..
/
! I
.. ..
,
!
I
!
/ J!
. '/
.
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
,
./-!-l-
.I /
44
11
N
OPEN SPACE PLAN
Attachment l!i"
~
PROPOSED lllEE DATA'
OVERSTORYlREES U7
&m1mWCS; l:m Nt
SINGLE FAt.lILY F"IlONTYAlIDlREES ...H!
TOTM.PRQPOSEDlRtl1S SSB
lllEE SUMMARY'
TO~fum~it ~~&lmE)ro BE
lOlAlSI(lH!nCAHTEllISTINGlREU
TDBEPRESERV!:P
lOTALPlIOPOSEnTJlli:ES
TOTAL NUIlBU OF TREES EXCfEPltlO
OllDlNAMCE R[(lUIREMEm" 544
'"
-', ....1) .,',,' "._..'
CARVER AVENU~ I '~RVE~?fi~~-
- . - -, :~ilnr i\.-=':~Hf
"I I'ylj! '>.11_'1
/,"i:~;;-"Tt!:lr L! -.
1 -\J 1-~"lL, r, I ','
L '-'I ;;111 j: ;~:,' \- . H
- , i! !II'i~ I, ',II
Jill'n'--,,-- :.'.
-,r,;jJi!'1f\'(' "
L: :1:1:j': ,1-11,
_'T-'1 I.r,l !:\ .::
':-+1' ""'i".h-j'
~:b~::,:-;:-j.ll-:Hj.-fi-_-' I ./
-, ~{ ;,.X- ~:';>\1~1\t,I(:III- i,- (;~~f::~-.'
'~.\> ,;.-'/ i I) I Ii: \. : =;F_ I/.
",1, 1'1.-_: 1 -,"
--'-.-;::-:1j -i,U ~ /'
',~':~,L" ,1,1 I" '" 'I
j+,,;''f-;_!;'f::,l -- ,I I
I V'LI'~'",I-i':'1 ,I' "I"
',' i\,I'"
:;lri;\'~{lJ YI):{ ,
,.... 1 )1, ., \-
'/?'iik], '
"
,
"
"
1:\<
".
~5a .
.'r
~
200' ICHl'
Ph/<OFlf;F;
q E'L.tM"'/N" "'"
No!,,, I\R
OFlcONal".....
. "0,'0'
COUNTY OPEN SPACE
45
1r
N
MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN
Attachment 16
-,.
'-'/=.-,-
/., ~y
.~l;
,
/
/
;' ,~, l'
\
~~~:
'''\_'''~'
l >- ':"'~ :-;'\~-1r'
<7>'
~, .')
LEGEND:
.XXX NtwLOCATION FOR RElOCATE01REES,
NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH TR[E
PRESERVATJONPlAN
LAHDSC.l.PEAREA NUMIIEll 1
tROKTYARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED
IHTHIS,I,REA-
AUTUWNBWEt.!APLE,FALlGOltlASH,
SKYUME HONEYLOCUST, REDt.!OND UNbEN
KORTKERHPIHO,lJ(,BlACKHIUSSPRUCr.
OR NORWAY PINE
LANDSCAP[ARrAWUWBER2
fRONT YAIID TREES TO BE PROVIDED
IN THIS ARU-
NORTHWOODS R€P MAPLE, SUMMIT SEWLESS
ASH. PAPElI PIRCH. UITIiWf UNDEN. SWAUP
WHITE OAl(, OR COLORADO PUlE SPRUCE
ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN
olll-" .....1
eJ\~ql ~t\ 1:
f:\\\,^\Nfl.\JC1\OI!
"d ?- '(,;.. ~~ CO\l.51
\ ~oi f
..'
".6
"""
.
LANDSCAPE PLAN - NORTH ONE-HALF
3-3/-6"0
4J
N
46
Attachment 17
-,-
~
'~..,
,c'"'1
,'(7 7':::'/
! . ,
iv!//l~1,i:
",.Il / ,,:,)
) ;--iI,,;
1/1 ,/ I / !I
/l / if "
r1--!""). ~
..Al.IillFnT IIOll11I
ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN
~...""'~ "'''''?,.i
d'g\..\~~~"~"o,,
I:'\;:':(a\\co
ImEt-m.
.xxx
NEW LotATIMrORRELCle,l,TED1REtS,
NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH TREE
PRESERVATIOHPlAN
~~~~D~~~U~:I:E 'P/lOVlP~
IHTHISARD.-
AIITIlIolNUlJ.ZE"""'U:.FAU/lOLD.u1l,
SKYLINE tlONEYUlCUST,REDloIOND LlIlPEH
NOlITlltRNPIMOAK,BlACKHlllSSPRlICE,
ORIlORWAYPIIlE
tMllISc..lI'EARE.I.IlUlIBIR2
FIlOHTYARn Tfl[ES '0 BE P/l.OYlDED
IN 'HIS AREA-
NORTl\WOCDS REIl w.fIl.I:. SUl6IlTsttPUSs
,l5H. PAfE~ ~RCH, Um.tI.UtUNPEH, SWAWP
WlIrrEOAK,ORCOLOILlDOBLIlESI'RUCE
lANP$C.lPI: A.EA NUVIEll ~
fRONTY.lllPTlfE~toBEPIWVlDEO
IN lHISIJIU-
SIla.lRWAPlLPATIlOll[ASt!.PIVEIIBIRCH,
80ULEVARD UNDEH. Rtll OAI<, OR AU$1lIU,N ~Jtt~
~
3-3/-c:>3
D
.
F=1
t..=..=I
47
1r
N
LANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTH ONE HALF
J
~
~LJ
''''If~'';p..it-/
I., -f
I 'f
~
//
j II
'~~.t,)",,//
/- ". //-';
'/ //
/i .,11
rt l ft.
J ~ /;;1 ',/
/ '-f, 4 .
"",,of, ii'
.I.' i ~:/?!l: J !
I -' It ) 1/
I /t {/ i
'" 'f ~ I
! j, 11''-1
J I
I 1/ ! J
J:L '( 1
I--r ,f!//l'
I fi,
,I I/o,) I'i !i
If ,/ /. ./
l i//
."
NORTH
I
I
5'- 3/--03
~....:. \ .-/l
-..
/
I
..J
~
3i
m
::l
CIl
I-
Z
...
:::E
D-
9
...
... ~
... e
"
I< l-
e ... Z
> ::l
0 I<
..
0 u e
~ .. ...
.. z
~ Z
D- .. :5 z
oc( ... :5
:::E !;( D-
:;; D-
"- I< e ...
0 ..... z
~b oc( D-
C) -In ~
...
z "'x 3
Ox CIl
iii ~2 e
CIl .. . D- Z
0 1<0 :5
00 ~
0:: ..0
u 5~ oc( e
0:: ..... Z ...
"'.. 3i CI
w ~" 0::
> :J :5
0:: xx
55 ...
~ 00 0:: Z
"'''' D- W
RtvlSlOHS
7-7-06 CUEHT SUBMITTAL
. 7-28-00 CITY COMt.lENTS
:5-31-08 REVISED SUBWITTAL
DRAWH 8Y
CHECKED BY
DATE ISSUED
SCAU
JQfl NO.
"
.K
3-31-08
:(
I'.
- " 1/ l':;' ., , ,-
.
, LANDSCAPE 'SCHEDUler' :'.......-.-.
tM'R!rrnRY~
. AS AlITUMN BlAZE IoW'LE 2.5~ IWJ ~
br II '....mlma 'Jlff.-.d'
J .. S~~~~lI'lo4c1(s.ntry' Ui~~8 --
--
. fA F1UOQUl ASH 2.5~ BU ~
Fl'Oldnul n~ro 'FoblJOld'
" .. NO~m~woocI" U~8&:B ~
J '" ~~~~l'. Sudl_' 2.5"BIcB ~~-
.-
1 PO ~N,"" :u.e.a:a --
Qu.ro"" palu.t"" -~-
" .. RM1< aRCH 2.&- BalB -.-
htulGIlIQra .-
. QA QUAKING ASPEN 2.5- BtB ~~
PopukM tr-.muloldP
11 .. RfI)"""""""" U.N:8 -~.
kwrubnlm 'Franbrwd' .-
J SA ....., ASH 2.0" BMI --
froxlnuI IMnlW)'lvGnlca 'Summit' --
, r.ntJ_RrIlI<:TR~
. 8'81:& ~-
II' AUSTRLlH PINE '-
, Plnu.nlgl'l:l ~-
7J .. &1.ACl( HillS SPRUCE II' 8&B .-
'"'-il_dlnRto
.. CS COlORAllOSI'R\JCE " ... ~-
Plcea P1III91M .-
JJ HP NORWAY.P1NE ,. ... ~-
pf_l"IIln<>to .-
0 SP SCOTCN PINE " ... .~-
"~- .-
nm.LlUI'NT.t.I'YR1'f'!'i:
. " IN'ANESE TREE Uv.c CWMP " ... --
Syringo...uclllata --
J .. Rm Sf>LEHOOR CRAB 2-81:& ..-
MallIS 'Red SplltldlM"' -.-
. sa SERVICEBERRY " ...
A.X91'1:11ldl11oro'AutumnBrl1I~' .-
, .......
.. .0 Rm lWIGO[D"OOCWOOO 24- m., CONY. -.-
III........
COm... MrlClO '80111)'I' -.-
11 os SNOWMOUND $fIRFA 24- HT.. COlfl'. III..........
SplrM nlpponlco 'Snowmouncl' -.-
:u SJ SCAND~ .lU~PER 24- O\,f", CONY. 1II1ll',~
.k.tnlplrulllOb\ng'Scond\a"
.........
50 BE BLACKEYEDS~ 1 GfL CONl.
Rudb<<:klo Coklltutm
. " "'"'''''''''''" 1 lW... CONT.
C. II oeuUflonI 'KorI f-'_
50 so STEl..l.A Of ORO M.'l1.JLY t (W.... CQN1".
H."Sttllao.OJ\:l'
74 P. PNlOON ME M.YULY lGAL.cotfT.
H. 'Pardon MI'
1-"'SO'
0.40112
L-3
SHEEf 14 of 14
i.'
LEGEND:
*xxx
NEW LOCATION FOR RELOCATED TREES.
NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH TREE
PRESERVATION PLAN
lANDSCAPE AREA HUUSER 1
FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED
IN THIS AREA-
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, fAlLGOLD ASH.
SK~NE HONEYLOCUST. REDMOND UNDEM
NORTHERN PIN OAK, BLACK HIUS SPRUCE.
OR NORWAY PINE
LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 2
fRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED
IN THIS AREA-
NORTHWOODS RED UAPLE. SUMMIT SEEDlESS
ASH, PAPER BIRCH. UnLELEAF' UHDEM. SWAMP
WHITE OAK. OR COLORADO BWE SPRUCE
LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 3
FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED
IN THIS AREA-
SUGAR MAPLE.. PATMORE ASH. PIVER BIRCH.
BOULEVARD LINDEN, RED OAK, OR AUSTRIAN PINE
LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS
~
E2J........
.........
..........
.........
.........
r=-=1
L=...=J
48
-
Attachment 18
11
N
i./'-' ():::.IU ~--_., '~,"
~~" -~:'~:'-""-~~'.r'-~ dSe ^ _.r"~~'-'
8f)f-
~DC"'
u --
.~'-'~}
,~ -,
;/~t)
>~ " ."~ ,.
.__..1 <,'
.-.. ~"
884~'
;
i!
V
"
; i
-"'
/\:-{<~V' ~
..., .
! i(]
'... !
'-'>.;,.-'
"Ztit.f5
'v'~--"
\"882
"'tt-l ? \
, . ,
\::' "':"" <:~,
J ': l '.,,-:"
~"J \
r -\{
//-,/ !
'\\
"-"p.
,
\"
> ':\
i _.,> l,
"\ ,
,_..~"---'-~,
'X i
C 8,82.95
'~,_.-j"
,
.,
\.j
._-~. -,:;;;,
=:~il~~_:':u'="--::~:
_r~".
,
,
,
'.
,
,
r
,
\
/'~'
"
9~
CO
~",,,,
"
\
I <.
,", ...-
j ...,.'
/
/
(-
,-
~\
.I
_:."
" ,
; .~
, {
.,,"
{,::)
-""
,'''x'
) y;
ii.
rJ('/
\~"...
l~;'i
/;'<:'
j t
~---_I
l',
-' t.\J'
~\t",,,...,
"
!-~,[' '.89;;:
"".,~ "~~-'
49
'~, .\ .
,. ) ".,_f""'~_
12'1 PETROLEUM
'''--17-\(-;;'ii-I~'' 'f' '/
(" " D\lt'C__"'t: " ~-<,'-'
"\ ;,
i )
89 17 .,.<"
! / .~,
\. ~:....
1 " ~,
,\ \
~ "
"
f;
,"'L
. \~~
t) !
i -;
L -' II
''--it"
,;
'-;
"~\
..
,
\X
53 \
~,J.tP
" .;;(:80/\.-,.
f'-""/
j
~.
.-
/'
\
'"
.,~.,
Attachment 19
--t,) If'
-'b;
! ~
;...-_.
",~~...... tl
~, .'
~~'.":1 ...
~ '~',
\'
'.....,
!
~\
\. <
; :
('./.."r
"\
'~'"
')
\"C
\,-,
-" P;7;;1
.j k::LL.1
t'h ...
1'';,.,1. '
i J
,
,
V'~'
,
()(\
-l.,{:~
Attachment 20
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager
Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Ken Roberts, Planner
Carver Crossing (formerly CoPar Development) -- City Project 05-07 -
Resolution for Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW)
June 29, 2006
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
On March 14, 2005, the Maplewood City Council authorized the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development of the former Schlomka properly. The
CoPar Development Company has proposed a housing development for the site tihat they are calling
Carver Crossing. One of the City's consultants, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. (KHA), completed the
EA Wand staff routed and distributed tihe document for public comment. The City received several
comments about the EAWand staff distributed responses to those comments to the city council for the
June 12, 2006 meeting. (Please refer to that document for reference). Staff is recommending tihat the
city review the comments and responses in the context of applicability toward the final development
plan. Based on comments and responses to the EAW and at the Public Hearing at the May 15, 2006,
planning commission meeting, the developer is revising the development proposal to a project with a
lesser number of units and thus a lower density.
Staff is recommending that the city council proceed with a finding of fact about the EAW. Staff
believes that the development impacts reviewed by the EAW and the entire EAW process represent
the ''worst-case" scenario for possible impacts. It is important to note that a revised development
proposal by the applicant will need to implement all the findings of this process and will most likely
have a lesser impact on the site and the area than those identified in the EAW. Finally, staff is
recommending approval of the negative declaration.
Background
The City Council ordered the EAW for this project area due to concems about the possible impacts that
the originally proposed 386-unit development might have on the area. At the time of the order for tihe
EAW, staff suggested that the EAW might provide significant findings that could require a substantial
revision to the project plans. The EAW found significant issues with the first site development plans,
and the developer has been cooperative in revising their project plans to address the environmental
concems. The long preparation time (over 1 year) for the EAW and development plan process is due
to the EAW findings and because of developer revisions to the project plans. The findings in the EAW
required the developer to reduce the original unit count from 386 units to the current analyzed plan of
299 units. The 299 units are consistent with the lowest development level provided within the
Maplewood Land Use Plan at 4.1 units per acre. The developer is now considering revising the project
plans to further reduce the number of units on the site to a number under 200 units. The City can
complete the EAW analysis at the higher-unit count (299 units) with all the findings kept in place.
On June 12, 2006, the City Council started their review of the EAW. After two hours of testimony and
questions, the council tabled action on tihe EAW until July 10, 2006. The council requested staff get
more information about a series of questions that were raised during the council meeting. We have
prepared a list of those questions and the answers to them and have attached that additional
information to this report.
50
City Council Agenda Report
Carver Crossing EAW
June 29, 2006
Page Two
Background on EAW Process
The City Council reviewed the EAW comments and responses at the June 12, 2006, meeting, and they
raised several questions about the EAW and to the responses provided by staff. There are several
main items for discussion on the site:
. Woodlands: The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland in the 73+ acre site. The
project proposes to change 15.4 acres of these woodlands. Woodland impacts will be mitigated
according to city ordinance up to 10 trees per acre. A total of 215 new trees will be required to be
planted.
. Wetlands: The project includes four wetland complexes covering 7.32 acres of the site. This is the
major issue that required significant revisions to the original site plan. The current proposal only
impacts 0.2 acres which will be mitigated on site with 0.43 acres of new wetland. Additionally, the
developer has proposed features that will provide for future enhancement of the existing wetlands
which have been degraded by area construction activity, namely from the 1-494 freeway. This
c1hange provides for a muclh improved site plan.
,
. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and public water are readily available to this site from Carver
Avenue and extensions of these utilities were constructed in previous years in Dorland Road and
Heights Avenue. The city has been planning for sewer extensions for this properly since the mid-
1980s. Staff is recommending that any development of this parcel connect to the sanitary sewer
system to avoid environmental impacts to the Fish Creek system due to failing septic systems. A
lift station may be necessary to pump some of the sewage from this site to the Carver Avenue
system. The city needs to study the sanitary sewer plans for the area to determine the location and
sizing of this lift station. The area to the east of this site (on the southeast side of 1-494) is currently
unsewered. The city has planned this area as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to have
sanitary sewer at some point in the next 5-30 years.
The proposed lift station within the Carver Crossing Development will help provide sanitary sewer
service to this area. As part of the construction of the lift station, there is a need to install a
crossing pipe under 1-494 to the eastern side of the freeway. The construction of this is necessary
at this time as part of this development to avoid major disruption of the Carver Crossing site and to
Henry Lane when the homes and roadways are in place. This will provide sanitary sewer to the
eastern side of the freeway. This sewer extension is disturbing to some of the existing residents of
this area, many of whom have large lots and septic systems. There are properly owners on the
east side of 1-494 that have expressed an interest in developing their property, and the sewer
extension will provide them the ability to develop. This sewer extension under the freeway has the
potential to be a very controversial issue. From an engineering standpoint, if/when the city
approves the Carver Crossing development, a lift station is required. As part of that project, the lift
station must have the sewer pipe constructed under the freeway as part of the construction to
avoid huge costs and disruption in the future.
. Traffic: The EAW reviewed traffic generation and effects from a proposed development that was
going to be for those 55 and older. Suclh a development should create less traffic than one open to
persons of all ages. The consultant has analyzed the site both with and without traffic reductions,
and the conclusions on the necessary improvements are the same for both. The engineer's
analysis concludes that some turn lanes and expansion are required on Carver Avenue at the
'entrance and at the McKnight-Carver intersection. All other impacts are within acceptable
51
City Council Agenda Report
Carver Crossing EAW
June 29, 2006
Page Three
standards, except the Bailey Road-Sterling Street intersection, which is currently failing. This
intersection is within Newport (Washington County) and should be scheduled for improvement.
The traffic from this development does not have significant impact on that intersection. A property
owner on the north side of Carver Avenue expressed a concem about the proposed location of
Henry Lane as it could affect his house and property. The developer is exploring relocating Henry
Lane to the west to lessen or avoid the possible impacts.
. Storm water issues: The developer is proposing to have this project meet the highest level of
retention and treatment applied within the City of Maplewood. A majority of the site will exceed the
infiltration of flows for over 90% of the storms within the area. This will provide infiltration of stomn
events of up to 2.5 inches of rainfall. Current standards within other developments, such as
Legacy Village, provided for infiltration of only the 1.D-inch storm event. The impacts on Fish Creek
on the receiving water bodies have been reduced to a minimal to negligible amount. This critical
issue related to impacts of phosphorus and suspended solids is part of the City's current plan to
meet the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements placed on Maplewood (along with 29
other communities in Minnesota) to reduce drainage for quantity and quality to pre-1988 levels.
The analysis of this site shows that drainage within the development should meet this requirement
with the increased standards.
. Noise: This site is now impacted by freeway noise and many locations within the properly exceed
the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise standard. This is fairly common for suburban developments
located next to or near major roadways. The proposed mitigation is to provide c1imate-controlled
units and increased wall insulation. In addition, any outside common areas need to be located on
the west side of buildings (away from the freeway). The developer also is considering constructing
a berm along 1-494 as part of the final site design. These elements should reduce future residents'
exposure to traffic noise and provide the City with a reasonable response to the freeway noise
issue. As part of the developer revisions, they are considering implementing bemns with trees and
other noise mitigation measures to further address this issue.
. Wildlife Concerns: This site has wildlife noted in many areas. The developer has considered
providing numerous areas of protection under the current proposal. Obviously much of the wildlife
in the area has relocated to this site due to other development in the area. Some of the wildlife
species in the urban area have exploded due to the removal of many of the natural predators. The
City and Ramsey County have needed to harvest numerous deer from this area due to over-
population. Due to the existence of many acres of open space in this area and their general
mobility, the wildlife experts do not believe that development of this parcel will have significant
impacts on the urban wildlife of the area.
~ .
. Parks and Open Space Issues: There has been a proposal from area residents that suggests
retention of this properly as open space/parks area. The Parks Directors from Maplewood and
from Ramsey County indicate that there is significant park/open space in the area. These include
county open space adjacent to the south and west sides of the site, the county-owned open space
along Fish Creek and a city-owned open space immediately north of Carver Avenue. Staff is not
recommending any revisions to open space borders or the addition of park land in the area.
52
City Council Agenda Report
Carver Crossing EAW
June 29, 2006
Page Four
EAW and Development Process Schedule
City Council Received EAW/Authorizes Publishing March 13, 2006
Planning Commission Received EAW March 20, 2006
Neighborhood Meeting (6:00-8:00 PM @ Fire Station) March 30, 2006
EAW Comment Deadline April 12, 2006
Planning Commission Received Response to Comments May 15, 2006
Development Plans to Planning Commission/Public Hearing May 15, 2006
City Council Determines Need for EIS June 12, 2006/July 10, 2006
Staff revised the Findings of Fact document for the proposed Carver Crossing project in Maplewood to
reflect the comments/concerns raised at the May 15, 2006, planning commission meeting.
Additionally, staff added clarifying language to the document to explain that their action does not
constitute "approval" of the project, but rather a determination that the project would not result in
significant impacts, and that tihe EAW adequately discloses impacts and defines mitigation for future
permits/approvals.
The proposed action defined in the Findings document is consistent with what was proposed in the
EAW, with slight modifications to reflect specific mitigative measures. There is reference in the
document that the developer is currently exploring a site plan that would reduce the number of units
within the project and thus the density on the site. However, staff did not amend the EAW analysis to
reflect that potential change. In other words, staff did the environmental review based on a "worst-
case" development scenario of 299 housing units.
To help further clarify the issues and concems about the EAW and the possible affects from
development, staff prepared a list of questions raised at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting and a
response to each of those questions. This additional information is attached to this memo.
EAW Requirements on Timeline
The requirements on the City Council as the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU) provided by the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) are that a decision on the EAW by tihe RGU is required within 30
days ofthe conclusion of the comment period, which ended on April 12, 2006. A 30-day extension is
allowed due to "insufficient information," which has been applied to this process. Therefore, the City
Council is required to make a determination on the project. There is not enough information to require
the more detailed information required as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EAW
process has identified significant decision and development changes that the developer will now have
to make part of any future development plan for the site.
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt tihe attached resolution that finds that the EAW
adequately addresses the environmental impacts of development of this parcel, applies the findings to
any future development proposals for the site, and finds that preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not warranted. The Planning Commission, while not providing a positive
recommendation on the development plan, recommended on May 15, 2006, that the city council make
the negative declaration finding on the EAW.
53
City Council Agenda Report
Carver Crossing EAW
June 29, 2006
Page Five
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution. This resolution approves the
negative declaration on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing
Development, City Project 05-07.
P:sec24-28/carver crossing EAW report (2) - june 2006
Attachments:
1. Resolution on Negative Declaration
2. Questions and Responses from June 12,2006 meeting
3. MRCAC Map
.
54
RESOLUTION
APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
WHEREAS, CoPar Development LLC is the proposer of the Carver Crossing of Maplewood
Project; a senior housing development with up to 299 units on approximately 70 acres of land;
and
WHEREAS, the general boundaries of the Carver Crossing project can be described as about
702 acres of land to the west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Govemmental Unit (RGU) pursuant to
Minnesota Rules Part 4410.0500; and
WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1300; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and
distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board distribution
list; and
WHEREAS, the notification of the EAW was published in the Minnesota EQB Monitor on March
13, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the public review and comment period remained open until April 12, 2006; and
WHEREAS, a public informational meeting was held for the project on March 30, 2006, in the
City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, the comments on the EAW were received and responded to; and
WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact/Response to Comments document was reviewed at the
May 15, 2006, City of Maplewood Planning Commission meeting: and
WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact/Response to Comments document reviewed by the
Planning Commission has been revised to reflect clarification/revisions to specific impact
analyses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood Planning Commission recommended a Negative
Declaration determination for the proposed action evaluated in the EA W; and
, .
WHEREAS, the proposed projeC\.under evaluation in this EAW reflects a worst case level of
analysis in terms of density of residential development; and
WHEREAS, the record considered by the City Council for purposes of its decision herein
consists of the EAW, related reports and analysis, the comments received thereon, and the
responses to such comments, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part of this
decision; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development will undergo subsequent reviews and required
approvals associated with permits identified in this document; and
55
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood will work with the developer to determine the feasibility and
the effectiveness of additional noise mitigation to the west of 1-494;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, acting with
respect to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Project of
Maplewood, that it finds and concludes the following:
1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Policy Act
and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700; and
2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could
have been reasonably obtained; and
3. The Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit A (attached) are made; and
4. Based on criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, and the Findings of Fact, the
Project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects; and
5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the City of Maplewood therefore
makes a "Negative Declaration".
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on July 10, 2006.
56
Response to Carver Crossing EA W Questions/Concerns
from June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting
A number of questions were raised at the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting about the Carver
Crossing EA Wand the draft Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
document. The following is a summary of the questions along with a response to each question.
Mavor Lonl!rie
Q: Is this project within the Mississippi River Critical Area?
A: Yes, a portion ofthe site is contained within the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA).
A figure iIIustratiug the MRCA bouudaries as it relates to the proposed site is attached
for refereuce. The state has coufirmed these boundaries and they are different from those
included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. As staff assumed that the eutire project was
assumed to be within the Critical Area boundaries during the EA W evaluation, the
project's consistency with the Policies and Goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
were applied to the entire project area.
Q: If so, who has to be involved, as far as governmental agencies andlor entities, when it comes to
development within the Mississippi River Critical Area?
A: The ApprovallPermit table included on Page 31 of the Findings Document identifies
required actions by the Mn/DNR, Metropolitan Council, and the City of Maplewood.
Q: Did the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnIDNR) specifically address those
issues of the EA W with regard to the things they would have to review?
A: The MnIDNR requested that they be included in the ApprovallPermit table included on
Page 31 of the Findings Document.
Q: How many projected trees are to be removed from the site in the "worst case" scenario?
A: The EA W identifies that up to 467 significant trees on the project site would be removed.
Mary Dierich (Presentinl! Planninl! Commission Summary)
Q:
Should we even develop this area?,
.
A: The EA Wand Findings Document summarize the current land use and zoning for the
project site. The existing land use plan designation guides the site for R-l (single
dweUing) development. The developer relied 011 this desiguation when purchasing the
property and when developing project plans for the site. Since the property is now
privately owned, the owner/developer has rights to use and develop the property, subject
to the approval of the city and all other necessary agencies.
57
Q: Is development a foregone conclusion?
A: The City's comprehensive plan gnides for residential development on the project site.
The proposed development will require various City approvals before it can proceed to
construction.
Q: Do we have the infrastructure to support it and do we have the density?
A: The traffic analysis conducted as part of the EA W identifies roadway improvements to
accommodate the proposed development. In tenns of sanitary, water, and stonn sewer
improvements, the EA W defines the reqnired utility improvements to accommodate the
proposed development. The City has been planning for the extension of sanitary sewer to
this site for many years. The sewer is readily available in Carver Avenue and in Heights
A venue to serve this area. The Findings Document (page 28) presents the findings of the
revised traffic analysis to reflect comments made by the Planning Commission.
Q: Sewer extension issues:
septic failure
character of neighborhoods
the prevention of subdivision
infrastructure
to protect the environmentally sensitive land
A: See response above. The City has been planning a sanitary sewer extension for this site.
Q: Should we (the City) overturn what was just decided on 3 years ago regarding the land use and
zoning?
A: The EA W process defines the current land use and zoning designations for the project
site, in relation to what the developer is proposing. The City's land nse plan currently
guides the site for R-l residential development (which allows up to 4.1 units/acre). The
EA W indicates that the City would need to amend the land use designation to R-3(L) for
the 299-unit development plan, and that the City would require a CUP for a PUD.
The proposed development also could require a change to the zoning map, from R-IR
(Rural Residential) and F (Fann Residence) to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential). City
staff has reviewed the criteria defined in the City code about zoning changes. The
proposed zoning map change would meet the criteria listed in the City Code.
.
As indicated in the J?indings DQcument (page 4), the project proposer is currently
evaluating revised site plans that would reduce the density of development on the project
site. The developer has indicated that the revised project plans would meet the density
and land use standards of the R-l (single dwellings) land use designation.
The negative declaration rmding does not mean that the city has approved a project or
development. H the city detennines that a zoning or land use amendment is required for
the project, the city will require the developer to go through the appropriate local
58
approval processes. The city council may and does change the land use and zoning
designations for properties when the council decides that the proposed changes would
meet city policies and standards and when such changes would be in the public interest.
The city reviews and considers each change proposal on a case-by-case basis.
Q: Will the neighborhood character be changed?
A: The city has guided the land in question for residential development. Heuce, the
proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation. The EA Wand
Findings Document discloses that the proposed project would change the existing
character ofthe parcel, from a semi-rural, low-density area (with no public utilities) into a
suburban-style, mixed-use resideutial development with public sewer and water. Such a
development would be consistent with many of the recently constructed resideutial
developments in this part of Maplewood, including the single-family subdivision adjaceut
to the site to the west.
Q: Is this an environmentally sensitive enough area to warrant more study through the
environmental impact statement (EIS) process?
A: The Findings Document goes through the four criteria that the city is to be review as the
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in making that determination. The
recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission and City staff, based
on the findings of the EA W, is that the proposed project would not warrant study
through an EIS.
Q: The proposal to remove 467 existing trees was a big deal to the Planning Commission. There
have been a lot of questions about what sizelkinds of trees would be included in the niitigation.
A: The Findings Document provides additional information pertaining to the tree
replacement plan associated with the proposed project. The project's landscaping plan
identifies the specific type and size of trees proposed on the site. The new decidnous trees
would be at least two and one-half inches in diameter and would be a mix of red and
white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples and other native species. The new coniferous trees
would be at least eight feet tall and a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other
species.
Q: Concerns over wetland issues, i.e. Fish Creek. Can we improve the wetland through the
development process?
A: The EA Wand Findings Document provides information pertaining to wetlands on site,
the potential impact (0.2 acre), proposed mitigation (0.43 acre) and overall wetland
enhancements associated with the project (e.g. rain gardens).
Q: Soils are a major concern. How stable are the Fish Creek watershed banks? What is the
conservation easement on that land? What is the conservation easement on the Mississippi River
overlay area?
59
A: The EA Wand Findings Document summarizes the soils on the project site, as well as
mitigation measures. The Findings Document (page 16) references the developer's
commitment to conduct a geotechnical investigation on the site.
As referenced in the Findings Document (page 9), the developer has agreed to provide a
IS0-foot-wide conservation easement along Fish Creek.
The goals and policies set forth as part of the Mississippi River Critical Area do not
specifically call out a requirement for a conservation easement. The Findings Docnment
(page 14) summarizes each of these goals and policies and the proposed projects
compatibility with them.
Q: Traffic/noise consumed about 1/3 of the Planning Commission discussion. EAW noise/traffic
statistics were based on a 1999 study. The Planning Commission did not feel that those issues
were appropriately addressed because of the outdated data.
The area where traffic was going is a concern. 80% of traffic going down Sterling is going to a
failed intersection in another county (Washington.) Carver Avenue is not suitable for any load
of traffic. It is a difficult area with no place for infrastructure improvements. The Planning
Commission still feels that this needs to be addressed.
A: The Findings Document (page 28) presents the results of the revised traffic analysis. No
additional mitigation measures are required based on the revised analysis.
Q: No park land dedication. Where is the parkland money to be spent in south Maplewood?
A: The Findings Document (page 18) presents information pertaining to a process of
recommending park dedication fees for the proposed project. TheEA W lEIS is not the
tool the city should use to explore the parkland issue. The time to review and explore the
parkland and open space use and dedication question is when the city receives a revised
development plan for the property.
Q: Excavation of217,000 cubic yards of soil is an issue.
A: The excavation of 217,000 cubic yards of soil is not unnsual for this type of residential
development project - especially considering the size of the project site (about 72 acres).
The disturbance of 217,000 cubic yards over 70 acres results in an average excavation
depth of less than 2 feet.
.
Q:
Polluted soils are an jssue (a forrn.er dump was referenced). The Planning Commission asked for
additional information on that.
A: The EA W (Item 9) presents a summary of past land uses on the project site, findings from
the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (phase I ESAs), and commitment to complete
Phase I ESAs where appropriate. The Findings Document (page 6) provides a summary
of findings/recommendations from the Phase II ESAs completed on the project.
60
Q: Air quality on 1-494, as well as the Sterling AvenuelBailey intersection was raised.
A: The air quality analysis section of the EA W (Item 22) indicates that given the projected
traffic from the proposed development, there would be negligible air quality impacts.
Q: Visual effects to the area. (The developer has since addressed these issues by removing the
condominiums. )
A: The visual impacts associated with the proposed project (worst case) are addressed in
Item 26 of the EA W. Additional visual mitigation is presented in the Fiudings Documeut
(page 29). Additionally, with the potential removal of the two condominium buildings on
site, this would eliminate the concern abont their visual impact. The project engineer also
has revised the configuration of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue to reduce potential visual
impacts to the property north of Carver Avenue (near the proposed intersection).
Q: Impact on neighborhood - additional traffic, views, noise (tree loss), soil stabilization.
A: See responses to questions above.
Gree: Coueland
Q: If the City Council were to defer their decision tonight, is public comment at some future
meeting precluded, or are we in the same situation where people can continue to bring forth
information? I'm wondering if there's any constraint there. (The question was addressed to and
answered by Jon Larsen ofEQB.)
A: Jon Larsen responded to this question at the meeting. The City Council could allow
public comment at a future meeting if they desire; however, this would not legally be
required.
Q: Is this about a project or is this about a site? We haven't heard too much about the site as an
independent entity. I'm trying to balance that out.
A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on-site impacts (within the bouudaries of
the property) but also off-site impacts, where appropriate. More specifically, the traffic
analysis is conducted ou surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from
off-site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on-site improvements to
improve both on and off-site water quality/rnnoff.
Jim VonHaden (National Park Service)
Q: There is no mention ofMNRA in the EA W.
A: That is a correct statement. The EA W evaluates the proposed project's compliance with
the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA), which is incorporated by reference into the
Mississippi Natioual River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) PIau. The Findings
Documeut (page 14) presents detailed information pertaining to the project's cousistency
with the specified goals and policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Piau
61
(Mississippi Critical Area, page 24 of Comprehensive Plan). The boundaries ofMNRRA
are the same as that of the MRCA. As noted previously, staff evaluated the project
assuming the entire project area was included in the MRCA (per the figure included in
the Comprehensive PIau).
The following summarizes pertinent information pertaining to MNRRA (source:
MNRRA website, Comprehensive Management Plan):
. The Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP - the Plan) for MNRRA provides
guidance for managing the corridor for the next ten to fifteen years. The Plan
provides a policy framework for coordinating efforts to protect and interpret the
nationally significant resources of the river corridor and for analyzing other federal,
state and local plans and individual actions in the area. Except for the National Park
Service (NPS) development, the Plan does not address site-specific issues. The Plan
adopts and incorporates by reference the state Critical Area program, shoreland
programs, and other state and regional land use management programs that
implement the visions and concepts identified for the river corridor.
. This plan does not create another layer of government, but rather stresses the use of
existing authorities and agencies to accomplish the policies and actions developed for
the area.
. Local government will retain local control of land use decisions in the corridor,
consistent with applicable state and regional land use management programs.
. This Plan will not prevent new development or expansion of existing development in
the corridor that is consistent with state and regional land use management programs.
It is not a regnlatory document and does not mandate actions by non-NPS entities.
. The NPS and the commission do not have approval authority over local plans and
ordinances, and they do not have authority to approve or deny project-specific land
use decisions.
. The MNRRA legislation specifies that NPS authority in the Code of Federal
Regulations only applies to lands that the NPS owns.
The developer has taken into account the requirements of the Critical Area (which are
incorporated by reference into MNRRA). Hence, the findings from the Critical Area
assessment would apply to MNRRA as well. The National Park Service was included ou
the Carver Crossing EA W distribution list.
Q:
Concerns for site:
Protecting steep slopes
Preserving existing vegetation to greatest extent possible
Preserving/enhancing wildlife habitat
Protecting views of and from the river
Protecting water quality
.
The section on impacts on Critical Areas within the EAW should be a discussion of how well the
EA W addresses those impacts. (The EA W does not explain how it will meet the necessary
criteria.) ,
62
A: Each ofthe items is addressed in the Findings Document (page 13).
Will Rossbach
Q: Does Maplewood have ordinances in place that enforce the critical plan for environmental
protection?
A: Yes, see response above to the information contained in the Findings Document.
Mavor Lonl!rie
Q: When 467 mature trees are removed and replaced with smaller, new trees does that have an
impact on the absorption of water in that area?
A: The EA Wand updated information in the Fiudiugs Documeut (page 26) iudicates the
proposed permanent dual-purpose basins (PDPBs) meet aud exceed the City's inmtration
volume requirements. As specified in the Findings Document, the required inmtration
volume is 69,059 cubic feet, and the proposed PDPBs include au iufiltration volume of
99,663 cubic feet. Additionally, as specified in the Findings Docnment (page 27), the
stormwater system will result in a reduction in the rnnoffrate for the after conditions.
Grel! Copeland
Q: 40 acres of the 70 acres in the proposed development are designated as part of the national park
system. Why wasn't that mentioned in the EA W?
A: See response to Jim VonHaden's comments/questions above.
Irene Jones (Friends of the Mississippi)
Q:
When reviewing the EA W she noticed that a lot of potential environmental impacts were
mentioned, but there were very few mitigation strategies.
A:
The EA Wand Findings Document identify appropriate mitigation measures that will be
further defined during subsequent permit and approval processes. Specific mitigation
measures were referenced in the EA W /Findings Document in such areas as:
.
. Soil contamination (phase IT ESA)
. On-site wetland replacement
. Tree A voidance/Replacement Plan
. Buffer Zone for "site of moderate biodiversity significance"
. Utility improvements/extensions (water, sanitary, sewer)
. Shoreland Zoning (50-foot setback)
. Floodplains (received LOMA)
63
. Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation dnring
construction
. Water Qnality (pDPBs, Rainwater Gardens)
. Removal of discharge into Fish Creek
. Commitment to condnct geotechnical investigation at specific site locations
. Traffic mitigation measnres
. Noise mitigation measnres
. Park Dedication fees
. Avoidance of potential cnltnral resonrce site
. Visnal screening (throngh landscaping plan and shifting of Henry Lane/Carver
Avenne intersection)
Erik Hielle
Q: How does Fish Creek get into the Mississippi? What is the path? Does it go underground at
points? In addition, if it is underground, then isn't the impact of the environment lessened?
A: It was discnssed at the June 12, 2006 couucil meeting that portions ofFish Creek are
carried in a culvert pipe between the project site and the Mississippi.
The developer has met with the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District. As noted in the
Findings Docnment (page 27), the stormwater plan was revised to reflect their request to
remove the outlet into Fish Creek. The Findings Document (page 27) presents
information that the proposed stormwater system will result in a net reduction in the
ruuoff rate for the after conditions. Additionally, the net effect ofthe proposed
stormwater system will be to rednce phosphorus and total suspended solid discharges
from the site.
Will Rossbach
Q: Do any of you people talking (environmental groups) have direct access to funds so that we can
purchase the site? Because if we are not going to develop it, he is going to want us to pay for it.
And so, how do we do that?
A: Question noted. This issue is outside the environmental review process. As noted above,
the time to discuss land purchases is when the city is reviewing specific development plans
for the property.
Mavor LOD!!:rie
Q: The EAW focuses on the impact to the environment on that piece ofland. Should we be
concerned about the impact on the land downstream?
A: The potential impact of the project in terms of water quality has been assessed based on
both local and regional requirements/impacts.
64
Tom Dimond (Saint Paul resident)
Q: There needs to be an amendment to the critical area plan portion of the city's Comprehensive
Plan. To do that requires DNR approval. I did not see that in the requirements oftheEAW, as
far as the listing of things that need to be done.
A: The Findings Document (permit and approval table, Page 31) includes the reqnirement
for MnIDNR approval.
Q: Also, the bluffs and the setbacks have not been identified in this plan. Therefore, the impacts of
the bluffs and setbacks have not been figured into the EA W.
A: The definition of a bluff is defined in Maplewood City Code in Article IX - Shoreland
Overlay District as:
Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having all of the
following characteristics (land with au average slope ofless than 18% for 50 feet or more
shall not be considered part of the bluff):
1) Part or all of the feature is in a shoreland;
2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high-water level;
3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the blnff to a point 25 feet or more above the
ordinary high-water level averages 30 percent or greater; and
4) The slope must drain toward a public water.
The area along Fish Creek is the only area that is in a shoreland overlay. Ramsey County
owns much ofthat area as part oftheir open space. The proposed development has three
areas along the south side ofFish Creek that are bluffs. There is one townhome in the
proposed development that was located within the required 30-foot setback from the top
of one of the bluffs. The developer will need to adjust the location of this unit or remove it
from the project plans before the start of construction if it eannot meet the required
setback.
The Findings Document identifies the developer's commitment to a ISO-foot conservation
easement along Fish Creek. The land along Fish Creek is designated a shoreland zoning
district. As specified in the Findings Document, the proposed development complies with
the required 50-foot shoreland zoning setback (including shoreland bluff lines).
The proposed development would not impact Mississippi River bluffs that are directly
adjacent the river.
Kathv Juenemann
Q: Can we not reach the goal of actually evaluating the sensitivity of where we are going to be with
this project by extending our abilities to ask questions on the EA W?
A: Yes, that would be an appropriate process. Questions raised at the June 12, 2006 City
65
Council meeting are addressed in this document in effort to respond to specific questions
either through reference to information contained in the EA W, Findings Document, or
new/corrected information for the City Council to consider in making your environmental
determination for this project.
Q: Can we not achieve what we need to achieve by extending the scope of answering questions that
grew out of this EA W and this discussion tonight without having to go to the BIS level?
A: See response above.
Q: What are we looking at doing with the EA W process without dismissing any of the
environmental concerns?
A: See response above.
Q: We need to have the critical area piece thoroughly cleared up.
What is it?
Where is it?
What does it mean to us?
A: See responses above.
Mavor LODl!rie
Q: I don't see anything addressing the waterrowl or the birds and the impact on them. I know it
talks about deer and raccoons, but I think we need to address the birds as well.
A: The bird species present on the site are also considered adaptable, in terms of
transitioning or moving to nearby habitat of similar nature. There are significant areas of
city and connty open space in area (including the land adjacent to the south and west of
the site) that provide habitat for birds and a wide variety of wildlife. As proposed, the
project would impact only 0.2 acre of wetland out ofa total of 7.3 acres, and as such,
impact to waterfowl is anticipated to be minimal. Additionally, the proposed wetland
mitigation would include 0.43 acre of wetland replacement to compensate for the 0.2 acre
of impact.
Q: There is an impact on thinking regionally, not just locally, when it comes to the impacts of
development on this piece of property, since it is connected to so many water areas.
.
A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on-site impacts (with the bouudaries ofthe
property), but also off-site impacts, where appropriate. More specifically, the traffic
analysis is conducted on surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from
off-site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on-site improvements to
improve both on and off-site water quality/runoff.
Q: Also concern about the stabilization of banks?
66
A: As stated in the Findings Document (page 9), the developer has proposed to undertake
restorative/stabilization work along the section of Fish Creek within the boundaries of the
project area.
Kathv Juenemann
Q: Does the EA W cover a specific site or a proposed development? Or is it both?
A: The EA W addresses both the existing conditions on the project site and how the proposed
development conld affect those conditions.
.
67
Attachment 21
Page 1 of5
Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review
PROJECT: Carver Crossing of Maplewood
PROJECT NO: 05-07
REVISED SUBMITTAL: March 31, 2008
REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department)
REVIEW DATE: April 9, 2008
Introdnction
The developer, COP AR Companies, is requesting city approval of a preliminary plat and planned
unit development south of Carver Avenue, west ofI-494. The proposal consists of 165 detached
housing units on about 72 acres. The developer is proposing that all streets and utilities within
the dedicated public right-of-way be public infrastructure. It has generally been the city's policy
to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and perform the construction
inspection duties.
c
<;
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc., the firm that prepared the EA W for the project site in 2006,
prepared the following statement about the site considering the latest plans:
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the site was
published in February 2006 and a Negative Declaration was approved
by the Maplewood City Council on July 10, 2006. The EAW assumed a
senior housing development site plan with 299 units on approximately
73 acres. The current development plan, if approved by the City
Council, would include up to 165 detached townhouses and single
dwellings. The development footprint of the current plan is essentially
the same, and the density of the development is less, creating more
public open space and undeveloped area than the proposal evaluated in
the EA W The existing site conditions have not changed since the EA W
was published. Since the current proposal is of a lesser magnitude than
the concepts originally reviewed in the EAW, no additional
environmental review is warranted. The EAW published in February
2006 satisfies the intent of environmental review process.
The following comments have been prepared by city staff:
Drainage & Treatment
1. According to the Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties, the proposed
development site is composed'mostly ofMahtomedi loamy sand which is very favorable
to infiltration. Soil boring locations are shown on Sheet C-4 of the project plans, which
includes borings at proposed treatment basins and proposed roadways. The subsurface
exploration and geotechnical analysis was completed by STS Consultants, LTD on
September 13th, 2006. The soil borings reflect sandy type soils throughout the proposed
development site.
68
Page 2 of 5
2. The developer's engineer shall show maintenance access paths, on the project grading
plans, to each rainwater garden and treatment basin that are to accept drainage from the
public roadway and be maintained by the City as determined in a Developer Agreement.
The final plat shall reflect drainage and utility easements needed for this purpose.
3. Raingardens A through D shall have dedicated drainage and utility easements that fully
encompass each of these best management practice features. As now shown, the limits of
these rain gardens encroach upon private lots without easements.
4. The landscaping plan shall reflect the appropriate seeding and planting plugs as directed
by the city's naturalist.
5. All treatment basins and rain gardens receiving pipe flow shall have upstream pre-
treatment (such as a 3' sump structure) in order to capture sediments. The project
engineer shall detail this information in the storm sewer structure schedule.
6. Rock infiltration sumps at treatment basins and rain gardens may not be warranted due to
sandy soil conditions. The requirement of infiltration sumps in gardens and basins will
be made by the city engineer. If the city requires the rock sumps are required, they must
conform to Maplewood Standard Plate No. 115. The contractor shall construct all basins
and rain gardens to their final elevations last to avoid possible compaction of bottom
areas.
7. According to the project engineer's calculations, the proposed project will meet the
required runoff volume reduction standards. Both the city and the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District require that the first I-inch of runoff over new and disturbed
impervious areas be captured and infiltrated to reduce pollutants such as total suspended
solids and total phosphorus.
Grading & Erosion Control
1. Before any grading activities, the contractor shall have the developer's engineer stake the
location of the construction limits. No soil disturbance shall occur until the contractor
installs the silt fencing and other necessary best management practices (BMP's) to the
satisfaction of the city inspector.
2. The city will require extensive protection of the Fish Creek corridor as per the project
plans and at the direction of the city engineer and/or city inspector.
3. The city will require a phased ~ding plan to limit site disturbance. The project engineer
shall include the necessary BMP's on the plan and shall submit the plan to the city for
approval before the city issues a grading permit.
69
Page 3 of5
4. All building pad elevations shall have a minimum 2-foot freeboard during a 100-year
storm event. The project engineer shall clearly show emergency overflow locations, on
the project plans, in the event that the storm sewer piping system is blocked.
Roadways
1. The developer's private contractor shall prepare any public roadway to within a 0.2'
tolerance during rough grading activities. The city will require the developer's engineer
to verify that the grading within the dedicated public right-of-way is within this tolerance.
The city will detail this in a developer's agreement between the city and developer.
2. The city will be reviewing the proposed roundabout and may require a revision in design
if dimensions for vehicle turning movements and safety vehicles are not adequate. The
roundabout would be public infrastructure and the exact design would be reflected as part
of the public improvements. The city may require additional public right-of-way in the
area of the proposed roundabout.
3. The proposed right-of-way width for Remy Lane, from Carver Avenue south to the
proposed roundabout, is the standard 60 feet, with a 32-foot wide street section. The
remaining roadways are proposed at 24 feet wide with a 50 foot right-of-way width. The
narrower street section and right-of-way lessens site grading and helps preserve open
space, but the city may require parking restrictions on one or both sides of these narrower
streets. The city engineer and the fire chief will determine such restrictions. Also, the
proposed cul-de-sacs may have parking restrictions based on final diameter and
requirements of the city engineer and fire chief
Utilities
1. The developer's engineer shall submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services
(SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice Street, Saint Paul, MN 55113 for review and approval.
The developer or developer's engineer shall provide documentation to the city from
SPRWS to verify final approval. The water main would likely be extended as part of the
public improvements.
2. The developer or developer's engineer shall provide information on the condition of the
existing 12" reinforced concrete pipe extending to Fish Creek from the existing wetland
(Outlot A). The city will require a drainage and utility easement over this pipe along
with adequate access to maintain and repair this existing infrastructure.
3. The project engineer has designed the project so there no longer is a need for a sanitary
sewer lift station. .AlI sanitary-sewer flows from the proposed development will tie into
the existing sanitary sewer stub at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on Heights Avenue
(south end of Dorland Road). This invert elevation should be verified by the developer's
engmeer.
70
Page 4 of5
4. The water and sanitary sewer utilities connecting from Public Court 2 into Heights
Avenue need a wider utility easement. SPRWS will have input in the width of the
easement over the proposed water main.
5. The city will require plan and profile sheets showing street grade and utility locations
prior to issuance of a grading permit. The storm sewer structure schedule and final
sanitary sewer schedule must be completed and shall include structure number, RIM and
invert elevation, type of pipe, pipe diameter, pipe length, and pipe slope, prior to final
plan approval.
6. There appears to be a few utility conflict points that the project engineer and the city
engineer will need to address before the city grants final plan approval.
Miscellaneous
I. The city's environmental planner has prepared separate comments regarding tree
replacement and wetland buffer and mitigation issues.
2. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will require a building permit and shall
include a safety fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall
provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction before the city
issues a grading permit and before the city issues a building permit for any of the walls.
3. The developer or developer's engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction
stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city issues a grading permit.
4. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to
ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the basins,
rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features common to the
development. Depending on the terms of the Developer Agreement between the City and
Developer, the City may maintain some of the basins and rain gardens - especially those
that accept drainage from the public street. The final terms would be reflected in the
Developer Agreement.
5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for the
gardens, basins, and sumps that would not be publicly maintained.
6. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat, drainage and utility easements for the
location of the permanent dual purpose basins and raingardens accepting runoff from the
public roadways if the Developer Agreement reflects that these are to be publicly
maintained.
7. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City that details the
requirements of the public improvements and necessary requirements of the
development.
71
Page 5 of5
8. The developer, project engineer, and contractor shall satisfy the requirements of all
permitting agencies as identified in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
9. According to as-built drawings for the Carver Heights development (1987), the dead end
street on Heights Avenue was built as a temporary cul-de-sac with the anticipation that
the road would be extended in the future. Since the proposed development does not
include the extension of Heights Avenue into the project site as a public street, the City
will require the developer, as part ofthe overall public improvements, to make the
existing cul-de-sac permanent after the contractor makes the utility connections. This
would include reconstructing the street, adding concrete curb and gutter, making the trail
connection, and possibly making drainage improvements. These requirements shall be
included in the Developer's Agreement.
.
72
Attachment 22
Wetland Review
Project: Carver Crossing of Maplewood
Date of Plan: March 31, 2008
Date of Review: April 9, 2008
Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwalltlilci.maDlewood.mn.us
Wetlands: There are four wetlands located on the site: Two Class 4 wetlands located
south of Carver Avenue and two Class 5 wetlands located north of Fish Creek. The
applicant proposes to fill the small Class 5 wetland (8,879 square feet) and replace the
wetland at the required 2 to 1 replacement ratio (17,758 square feet) around the two
most northerly wetlands. The original planned unit development required the applicants
to maintain a 25-foot buffer from the Class 5 wetland located in the center of the site and
establish a 25-foot buffer around the modified Class 4 wetlands adjacent Carver Avenue.
The grading plan reflects possible encroachments into the existing and required buffer.
Wetland Recommendations:
1. The applicant must submit revised grading and drainage plans that reflect that
there will be no grading encroachments, except for approved best management
practices, within the 25-foot buffers.
2. The city naturalist must approve all plantings for within the buffers and these
plant materials and buffers must be maintained by the owner/developer until fully
established or reestablished.
73
-
~
RAMSEY COUNlY
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Attachment 23
Department of Public Works
Kenneth G. Haider, P,E., Director and County Engineer
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933. (651) 266-7100. Fax (651) 266-7110
E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
Ken Roberts
City of J\1aplewood
Dan S~~
Ramsey 1C{rty Public Works
Carver Crossing of Maplewood
August 24, 2006
The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the revised preliminary plat and
site plan for a new residential development in south Maplewood proposed by Copar Companies.
The County previously reviewed and EA W for this project and made comments in April 2006.
Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this revised development.
1. The proposed construction now consists of 191 detached townhome units. This is a reduction
from the original proposal of 386 housing units and the EA W proposal of 299 senior (55+)
housing units.
2. The traffic study that was part of the EA W identified a trip generation of 1203 trips per day
for the 299 unit senior housing. The new proposal has over a hundred less units but they are
not restricted to seniors. I would expect a trip generation of about 8 trips/unit or 8 x 191 =
1528 trips. This is not a relatively high number of trips for such a large development.
3. The intersection of Carver A venue at Henry Street will be critical to the operation of the
transportation system as this housing gets constructed. All trips in and out of this
development will be required to use this intersection. The County concurs with the
recommended improvement of an eastbound right turn lane and westbound left turn lane. The
relocation of Hemy Street an additional 112 feet to the west provides additional space from
the 494 overpass and is agreeable to the County. The County will monitor this intersection to
determine if an all-way stop is warranted in the future.
.
74
RECEIVED
AUG 2 g 2.006
Minnesota's First Home Rule County
printed on recyeled paper with a minimum of 10% post-consumer content
................~-
-
4. The County concurs with the recommendation to construct a right turn lane on westbound
Carver A venue at McKnight Road.
5. The recommended improvements on Carver A venue will require plan approval from Ramsey
County. The developer will be required to obtain a right of way permit for construction on
County right of way.
Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or
need any additional information please give me a call.
Cc: Chuck Ahl - City of Maplewood
RECE!\> '
AUG 2, g 200b
75
0.............."".
Attachment 24
August 22, 2006
Linda & Terry Baumgart
2445 Carver Ave
Maplewood, MN 55119
Home #651-731-9664
Linda Day #651-303-4004
Map1ewood : Ken Roberts, Copar Development, Maplewood Planning Commission,
Maplewood City Council
RE: Response to New Development Proposal; Carver Crossing of Maple wood
This will be a short letter since you have all seen our previous concerns about the density
and the realignment of Henry Lane. We can see that the developer is making an effort to
satisfy and address some of the problems that have come up during the review process.
With the proposed 112 foot shift in the Henry Lane alignment: The only thing this
accomplished is to put the road into our neighbors and our front yards, neither of us are
very comfortable with this plan either.
We still do not see a reason the existing road cannot be utilized in this development, this
scenario was never mentioned in the EA W except that the new alignment would improve
site distance. Strange the road has been there for how many years (30-40)7 Well you see
our point. (stop sign) justified if you look at public safety issue.
We also stated in a previous letter to place the new alignment across from 2413 Carver
Ave. (CITY OPEN SPACE). This way the planned sidewalk /walkway would actually
lead somewhere. This brings up the safety issue. This is on a longer tangent to the curves
at 1-694 thus longer site distance, and affecting less driveway entrances than the current
proposal. I only state this because I do not wish the city to make a mistake in the
placement of the new Henry road entrance. I know it is close to a wetland but I am sure it
can be re engineered to accommodate a road entrance.
.
We know other people have mentioned the parking of vehicles in front of the assisted
living home (2465 Carver Avenue), no one is very comfortable with this situation.
(dangerous) A school bus is parked in the westbound driving lane twice a day for 15 to
20 minutes (loading/unloading) not good, but this we will have to live with until
something is figured out. / / There is already a traffic problem in this area that has not
been addressed yet.
After all this said, I think the City should NOT APPROVE the Preliminary Plat as
submitted and ask that the contractors' engineers and the city staff to address these issues.
76
Now the short part: We still believe the density is too high. The only area this
development blends in with is the Carver Heights area. The isolated homes (as they are
referred to in Copar's letter) are just homes on larger lots and that is what people like
about this part of South Maplewood.
Thanks for your time:
Terry & Linda Baumgart
(2445 Carver Avenue)
77
Attachment 25
To: Kenneth Roberts &
Planning Commission
City of Maple wood
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN. 55109
August 24th, 2006
Re: Comments Neighborhood Survey - South Crossing
General Comment - Neil!:bborbood Survey:
1 must express my grave disappointed with the limited distribution of this neighborhood
survey. Apparently, the strongly stated request by the Planning Commission to expand
the scope of any future mailings relating to Carver Crossing fell on deaf ears. This is not
a simple request for a variance. It is a proposal whose outcome will have a profound
effect on current and future South Maplewood development as well as its residents. I now
realize why the city so often finds itself in such an antagonistic position with local
residents. It simply fails to engage and inform those residents who are close, yet
indirectly affected by development plans. I'm sure someone from some department will
stand up and proclaim that the letter of the law was followed as it relates to providing
notification. In short, they will make excuses for not engaging surrounding residents that
most certainly would be impacted by a project of this magnitude.
The city needs to step back and realize that at the end of the day they are the ones that
shoulder the responsibility to inform. This is a major proj eel with a minimal mailing
notification. At the very least, the city should have included those residents who
successfully petitioned the city just a few short years ago to place a moratoriUlll on
development in South Maplewood. Perhaps there is concern that those voices would
sound off loud and clear yet once again.
Furthermore, I could find no trace of the revised project on the City website as of August
24, 2006, nor did I receive any automated email updates on the Carver Crossing proj ect.
All in spite of the fact that I am a subscriber.
All of the above said. I do wish to commend the current City Council for taking many
significant first steps to improve communications and engage the residents of
Maplewood. These actions have not gone unnoticed but there is still much work to be
done.
Site Backl!round:
.
CoPar Development states: "Among the many valuable pieces of information gleaned
from the E.AW. site research and findings it has been detennined that the entire site can
be reasonably developed without a potential for significant environmental effects."
78
An E.AW. by i1s sheer nature is valid only as it applies to a specific development
proposal. Without a clearly defined proposal (which has just been submitted) it is
impossible to accurately accesses environmental impact. Any statement to the effect that
the initial E.AW. represents"Best" or "Worsf' case scenarios is not reflective of sound
judgment, common sense or scientific fact. It is instead pure, unadulterated, rhetoric. If
CoPar wishes to tout the E.AW. as an end all, I would urge the Ci1y to have CoPar
resubmit the "new revised proposal" to the litmus test of another E.A W. In fact given
the significant changes to the proposal I believe another E.AW. is warranted.
City Land Use Plan:
CoPar Development continues to state 1hat the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan
identifies the entire site as a Single Dwelling (R-l) development area eligible for
development at a densi1y of 4.1 homes per acre.
What CoPar Development fails to state is that in December of 2002 the City of
Mavlewood adovted a one-vear moratorium on deyelovment in South Mavlewood as a
result of three sevarate vetitions by South Mavlewood residents. The net result of the
moratorium and subsequent study was the creation by the Ci1y of Maple wood in 2003 of
a Rural Residential Zoning classification or RI-R. A sil!1lificant vortion of the vroverty is
currently zoned Rl-R at a density of one home ver two acres.
Furthermore this property was not ovtioned for vurchase based on the obtainment of a
change in zoning as is a common practice wi1h developers; instead, it was vurchased
outriflht bv CoPar with the fUll knowledfle of the current Rl-R & Farm zoninfl
restrictions. It is important to understand that CoPar can freely develop this property
within i1s current zoning at any time. Instead, CoPar appears to be attempting to hold the
ci1y hostage by leveraging a discrepancy between Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and
the current zoning on this property. Perhavs the city should exvlore amelidinfl the cities
Comvrehensiye Plan to match the current zoninfl.
It is my understanding that the Ci1y of Maple wood is fully Compliant with the
Metropolitans COImcil's development guidelines (a fact the Ci1y should be most proud
of) and it is under no legal obligation to change the current zoning.
I would request that the Ci1y of Maplewood issue a directive to the Planning Commission
to carefully study South Maplewood and develop a master plan that would reflect the best
interests of it current and future residen1s as this plan most certainly does not.
PUD Development Overview:
The reduction in development densi1y to 191 uni1s appears to be centered on the
elimination of two (2) condominium residences (117 units) from CoPar's last proposal
which was rejected by the Planning Commission. Ifmemory serves me correctly, it
79
would have taken a 4 to 1 vote to ratiJ)' the cities current Comprehensive Plan to
construct the condominiums. In light of this, 1 tend to view the reduction in density not as
a developer being more sensitive or cooperative, but as a developer adopting a more
realistic view.
Stonn water Manll2ement:
Even with the reduction of 117 units I do not believe the footprint of the development is
smaller or less invasive. If anything, by CoPar's own admittance, it appears to be
substantially more invasive than the previous plan. As way of example it is calling for an
increase in estimated earthwork from 217,000 yards to 290,000 yards. It then tries to
convince us that and I quote: "As was concluded in the E.A.W. the amount of earthwork
associated with this project is not unusual when considering the size of the properly. It is
reasonable to make the same conclusion with this revised earthwork and storm water
plan" I beg to differ. No one can reasonably draw the same conclusion without another
E.A. W. Once again, more marketing driven rhetoric. Show me the scientific data to
support their claims.
Park Dedication:
I have always been a strong advocate of increasing the Park & Recreational offering in
South Maplewood. It would appear that CoPar has presented two options. I am concerned
over the following:
It has been brought to my attention that CoPar adopted a very non-traditional approach
having presented these two options (Cash vs. Land) to the Department of Park &
Recreations well before the current plan was formalizing and submitted to the city. I
believe the term used was "fronting" the concept. Frankly, this concems me. When this
kind of money is being placed on the table it should always follow a very' clean and
straight forward process. '
I also would like to have the city prepare a cost analysis projecting the net cost to the city
over say 5, 10 & 20 years for both options.
LandscaDe. Wetlands. Noise:
As I have stated previously. Given the significant amount of change presented in this
revised plan it warrants another E.A.W. review. Even the scope of the project has
changed from a Senior Development to individual town homes.
Public Utilities & Roads:
I agree with CoPar Development's stance that the extension of utility connection points
east under Interstate 494 should not be included in any way with this project. The city
does not need to expend precious tax dollars to supplement possible future development
80
east ofInterstate 494. Those projects, if and when they come to light, need to be
evaluated on their individual merit and absorb the direct costs to any development
without subsidies at the expense of Maplewood tax payers.
Traffic:
Once again the perception I get is that because the failed intersections of Sterling/Bailey
and CarverlPoint Douglas fallout side of the city boundaries it's just not our problem
Almost a see no evil, hear no evil; speak no evil approach to traffic management. The
traffic issue is not going to crawl under a rock, it needs to be addressed and a plan needs
to be set forth. With the exception of a couple token turn lanes nothing has been really
dealt with.
Fish Creek. MississiDDi River Critical Area Corridor:
I will be submitting additional comments in the near future on these two very important
areas. I am also keenly aware that several environmental groups are monitoring these
highly controversial topics.
Conclusion:
I'm not really sure there is a conclusion to be reached here. I don't believe anyone is
against CoPar developing this area within the current zoning density of Rl-R (one home
per two acres). After all an estimated 36 sites at 350K each translates into $12.6 million
dollars. Yet CoPar does not appear to be satisfied with what they bought. I also question
why any developer would have paid so much money outright without first having some
assurance that their larger scale project would be green lighted. A question I have been
wrestling with for some time.
Respectfully Submitted;
Mark 1. Bonitz
.
81
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 26
Ken Roberts
From: Kathy Urban [k_a_urban@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:26 PM
To: Ken Roberts
Subject: Carver Crossing
I am very disappointed in the change from an active senior housing to housing for everyone. Will the next
change be to accomodate low income housing if this plan is not approved?
I feel this will greatly increase traffic on Carver and center turn lanes will be needed from the current underpass
at Henry west to McKnight road. How will this now impact the school district, bus traffic on Carver, and our
future property taxes?
From the plans now received it appears as if the homes are closer to existing properties and the wet lands.
Kathy & Rick Urban
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2~/min or less.
13S-~
D912=- L- --f\N D
gf) S.
8/24/2006
82
Carver Crossing
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 27
Ken Roberts
From: Telin, Peggy [Peggy.Telin@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 3:28 PM
To: Ken Roberts
Subject: Carver Crossing
On page 7, paragraph 2 of the proposal dated August 14, 2006, 'he adjustment of 112 feet to the west to avoid aligning
with homes on the north side of Carver". This is not acceptable because at that point it will align with our house.
If, on page 9, the new homes will be available to "all qualified buyers" that could possibly mean drivers of all ages will be
using the new road.. The population could be as many as 554. They would be coming and going at all hours. That would
mean headlights and noise at all hours.
As properly owners of 2431 Carver, we are concerned about headlight glare affecting our home. We are more concerned
about the traffic noise. If Henry Lane MUST be moved from its present location, to directly across from our properly, we
would reasonably expect a sound and light barrier to be put on our property.
Don & Peggy Telin
2431 Carver
Mailing address
835 E. Magnolia
St. Paul, Mn. 55106
.
8/25/2006
83
Attachment 28
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
5:00 P.M. Thursday, September 28,2006
Continuation of Monday, September 25, 2006 Meeting
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 06-25
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, and was called to order at
5:00 P.M. by Mayor Longrie.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Diana Longrie, Mayor
Rebecca Cave Council member
Erik Hjelle, Councilmember
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember
Will Rossbach, Councilmember
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
L. NEW BUSINESS
1. Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane)
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Street Right-of-Way and Easement Vacations
Preliminary Plat
a. Planner Roberts presented the report.
b. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Development presented the Carver Crossing of Maplewood proposal
and answered council questions.
b. The following persons were heard:
George Gonzales, 2359 Heights Avenue, Maplewood
Steve Mylnarczyk, 1364 Dorland Road South, Maplewood
Don Tellin, owner of 2431 Carver Avenue (across from the new road)
Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood
Rick Urban, 1356 Dorland Road South, Maplewood
Council member Cave moved to denv the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development for Carver CrossinG (Carver Avenue and Henrv Lane) based on the issues of traffic.
impact on the neiGhborhood. and the chanGinG of the character of the neiGhborhood.
Seconded by Mayor Longrie
Ayes-Mayor Longrie, Councllmembers Cave
and Hjelle
Nay-Councilmembers Juenemann and
Rossbach
84
09-28-06
(Continuation of the 09-25-06 City Council Meeting)
1
Findings of Denial
Mayor Longrie:
Under City Ordinance 44-1091, the city is not obligated to approve a conditional use permit. Under City
Ordinance 44-1097, the applicant has the burden of proving that the use would meet all of the standards
required for the approval of a conditional use permit.
The applicant has not proven the use would meet all of the standards required. Looking at the plain reading of
the ordinance creating R-1 (R) zoning and its intent, the applicant's request is inconsistent with the intent of the
ordinance. The proposed PUD would not be located, designed or maintained or constructed and operated to be
in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and the code of ordinances. While the use of single residential
dwellings in the proposed PUD is consistent for the land use under the comprehensive plan, it would not be in
conformity with Maplewood's public policy to preserve this property for rural residential R-1 (R) as it is currently
zoned. R-1(R) is consistent with the comprehensive plan as a subcategory of single dwelling residential and is
to preserve a low density housing option in Maplewood. Specifically, the primary purpose for the R-1 (R) zoning
district that was applied to this area was to prevent overcrowding. This statement is from the memorandum of
October 28, 2003.
The R-1 (R) zoning ordinance specifically says that the intent of the ordinance is that Maplewood intends to
protect and enhance the character of those areas of the city, because of topography or other factors, do not
have, or does the city expect to have, sanitary municipal sanitary sewer or water service. This is not the only
reason this zoning was placed on the property. Maplewood also has the intent to allow for, and protect, a very
low density, semi rural, residential life style and that is why the city created an R-1 (R) zoning district. This
zoning district is for those areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because
of topography, vegetation, or other factors. The city finds that the most suitable use for these areas is with single
dwellings on large lots in that these low density residential developments will lessen grading and soil erosion and
will help protect ground water and vegetation in wooded areas. There has been a lot of testimony regarding the
special factors of this property, including being within the Mississippi Critical Area. We have not heard any
particular reasons why the public policy should change for what has been used to land guide this property in the
past.
Councilmember Hjelle:
The proposed plan conflicts with the following required condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit:
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.
Councilmember Cave:
Councilmember Cave concurred with Mayor Longrie's findings.
Mr. Kantrud, City Attorney, followed up the Council's Findings by stating that there is no conflict between the
City's comprehensive plan designating the property's use as single dwelling residential and the current
R-1 (R) zoning since R-1 (R) zoning, as a subcategory of single dwelling residential, further delineates the land
use as to a specific type of single dwelling residential. R-1 (R) provides for the orderly development of the
properly within the framework of the designation of single dwelling residential within the comprehensive plan.
E. ADJOURNMENT
. Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
85
09-28-06
(Continuation of the 09-25-06 City Council Meeting)
2
Attachment 29
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, applied for a conditional use
permit (CUP) for the 165-unit Carver Crossing of Maplewood residential planned unit development
(PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the area south of Carver Avenue and west of 1-494.
WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the properties are:
Commitment No. 242035
PARCEL A:
The West One-half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section
Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), lying Westerly of the Westerly
right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota;
Except the North 150 feet of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the
Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two
(22) lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494;
And also except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4), Section
24, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 24
and the Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right-of-
Way line of T.H. #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be
herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393
a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line of said T.H. #393, a distance of
195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of-Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line
drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at
right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the
North line of said SW 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East
along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning.
And the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section
Twenty four (24), Township Twenty-Eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), except the North Five Hundred
feet (500 ft.) thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westerly Right-of-Way line of State Trunk Highway 494,
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
.
And the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW
1/4) of Section Twenty-four (;24), TownshJp Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey
County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in Final Certificates filed as Document
No.'s 2254933 and 2256730.
PARCEL B:
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
86
Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and the
Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right-of-
Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract
to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-Way line of
Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line; thence
deflecting Southwesterly 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right-of-Way line of
said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of-Way
line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said
Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its
intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly
from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more
or less, to the actual point of beginning.
PARCEL C:
The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW
1/4) of Section Twenty-four (24), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-two (22), Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
Commitment No. 240565
PARCEL D:
The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24; being 33.00 feet either side of the following described centerline:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4
of Section 24; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 49 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the
North line thereof a distance of 33.00 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence
Northeasterly on a non-tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a chord bearing of North 33
degrees 43 minutes 49 seconds East with a radius of 120.00 feet, central angle of 67 degrees, 28
minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 141.37 feet; thence North 67 degrees, 28 minutes 49 seconds
East; tangent to last described curve a distance of 217.69 feet, more or less, to the Right of Way of
Inter-State Highway No. 494 and there terminating.
Commitment No. 249737
PARCEL E:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE 1/4 of NW 1/4) of Section 24,
Township 28 Range 22, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (N. line SE Y.
of NW 1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty eight (28), Range Twenty two (22), a
distance of 325.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof thence West along said North line a
distance of 975.93 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 24 (NW corner SE 1/4 of NW 1/4); thence Southerly, along the West line of said Quarter-
Quarter section line, a distance of Five Hundred (500) feet; thence East, and parallel with the North
line, a distance of 974.93 feet; thence Northerly Five Hundred (500) feet to the point of beginning;
except the East 150 feet of the North 290.4 feet and except the West 110 feet of the North 396 feet,
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
87
2410 Carver Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota
Abstract Property, Ramsey County
Commitment No. 242032
PARCEL F:
The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township
28, Range 22, according to the government survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota
1501 Henry Lane S
Maplewood, Minnesota 55119
Abstract Property, Ramsey County
All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as
Carver Crossing of Maplewood)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On April 15, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning
commission recommended that the city council the conditional use permit.
2. On May 5, 2008, the Maplewood City Council discussed the proposed conditional use permit.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
88
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 31,2008, except where the city
requires changes. These plans include only having emergency vehicle and trail access from
the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include:
a.Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the
watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the
engineering department requirements.
(2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees.
(3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district.
The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor
changes to the plans.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in Michael Thompson's memo dated April 9, 2008,
and the plans shall include:
a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree
preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulbs and round - about
shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn
around.
b. Provide for staff approval a final detailed storm water management plan.
c. The following for the streets and driveways:
(1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary.
(2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans.
.
4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed
off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
89
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements
and meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any remaining debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site.
d. Provide the city with verification that all the units or town houses on the proposed site plan
will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other
documentation. For any units that are within the 65-decibel noise contour, the contractor
will have to build the units or town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This
may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-
deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this
documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD
shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
'maximum - 35 feet.
b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none.
c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line.
d. Side-yard setback: 15 feet minimum between buildings.
7. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2008.
.
9U
Attachment 30
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, CoPar Companies applied to the city for the vacation of the following-described parts of a
public right-of-way and the following easements:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF HENRY LANE
That part of Henry Lane turned back to the City of Maplewood per Document Number 1843272 and
according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of Way Plat No. 62-19, Document
Number 352354 and Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of Way Plat No. 62-20, Document
Number 3548682, and that part of Legislative Trunk Highway 393, currently known as Trunk Highway
494 as described in Final Certificate, Document Number 1565350, all filed in the office of County
Recorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 24, Township 28, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West
607.01 feet on an assumed bearing along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 52 minutes 01 seconds East 238.73 feet; thence
easterly 169.04 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 184.00
feet and a central angle of 52 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds; thence South 53 degrees 30
minutes 13 seconds East 42.60 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence southeasterly,
southerly and southwesterly 152.16 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having
a radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 72 degrees 38 minutes 56 seconds; thence
southwesterly 283.33 feet along a reverse curve concave to the southeast having a radius of
7,800.93 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds; thence South 17
degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 520.45 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A and
said line there terminating;
Together with that part of said Henry Lane lying westerly, northwesterly and southeasterly of the
following 60.00 foot strip. Said strip lies 30.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline:
Commencing at the hereinbefore described Point A; thence continuing South 17 degrees 03
minutes 52 seconds West 157.55 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East
31.51 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52
seconds West 194.51 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly 218.59 feet along a tangential
curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 200.00 feet and a central angle of 62 degrees
37 minutes 19 seconds; thence, South 79 degrees 41 minutes 11 seconds West 236.08 feet and
said centerline there terminating.
Easements and Right-of-ways to be Vacated:
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A 30-foot-wide drainage and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2499330
The drainage easement as defined in Document No. 2499331.
A 60-foot-wide driveway easement as defined in Document No. 2060364.
A 66-foot-wide roadway and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2060365.
The Henry Lane right-of-way per MN DOT right-of-way Plat No. 62-19.
The Henry Lane right-of-way per MN DOT right-of-way Plat No. 62-20.
91
All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows:
1. On April 15, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation.
The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting
property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and
recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council
the proposed vacations.
2. On May 5, 2008, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports
and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following
abutting properties:
1. 2410 Carver Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota
PIN: 24-28-22-24-0010
2. 1481 Henry Lane
Maplewood, Minnesota
PIN: 24-28-22-31-0017
3. 1461 Henry Lane
Maplewood, Minnesota
PIN 24-28-22-31-0002
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way
and easement vacations for the following reasons:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right-of-ways for
their original purposes.
3. The existing easements and right-of-ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout.
4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right-of-ways with the final plat.
These vacations are subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and
utility easements and right-of-ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city
engineer.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2008.
~
2030 Comprehensive Plan
City of Maplewood
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Acting City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Plan
April 9, 2008
INTRODUCTION
At its AprillSt meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concepts for the
proposed Future Land Use map. This discussion included reviewing the new land use
designations on the city map, as well as taking a closer look at future land use for a few
select areas of the City. The Planning Commission was asked to give Staff and the City's
consultant's guidance on what they would like to see for guided land use in these areas.
To conclude the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed how they want to see the city
guide the land uses for the area south of Carver Avenue. There was a consensUs among the
Planning Commission members that a rural-density land use category would be
appropriate for the area south of Carver Avenue. The Planning Commission also said that
they would like to see the city use a Natural Resources overlay district to promote
conservation of the natural resources in the area. The creation of an overlay district would
take place after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan (as part of the zoning code update).
DISCUSSION
At the April 15th Planning Commission meeting, city staff and MFRA will present density
ranges for the proposed residential land use categories as well as definitions for each
designation. MFRA will present the proposed Future Land Use map to the Planning
Commission, showing the proposed density ranges. The map also will reflect the land use
discussions from the past few meetings. Staff and MFRA will then lead a discussion about
the Parks and Open Space designations and ask for the Planning Commission's direction
on what it would like to see. Finally, Staff and MFRA will give a brief overview of the April
22nd Open House at Carver Elementary School.
RECOMMENDATION
.
Be prepared to give your thoughts and opinions on the information the City staff and
consultants have presented to date. The Planning Commission will need to react and to
discuss proposed density ranges and land use definitions. Reviewing notes from previous
meetings and bringing any materials that staff has provided you will help you in
preparation for the meeting on April 15th.
If you have any questions about the comprehensive planning process, please contact Tom
Ekstrand, Senior Planner, at 651-249-2302 or Tom.Ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us or Ken
Roberts, Planner at 651-249-2303 or Ken.Roberts@cLmaplewood.mn.us.
,~~
CJf1'O.f'';\L.u>L.C\H.IOD
2030
CO,lIPREHIONSHTPL4JY
Knaak & Kantrud, P .A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
OF COUNSEl.
Tom Dailey
Don Kohler
H. Alan Kantrud
hakantrud@klaw.us
alan.kantrud@maplewood.ci.mn.us
direct: 612-743-4242
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
RE:
31 March 2008
Commission & Board Chairs
Review of Broadcast and Recoriling Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
In the Fall of 2007 a request was made by Council to have an Ordinance prepared calling
for the broadcast and recording of all meetings of government in Maplewood. This
Ordinance would affect Committees, Boards, working-groups and any other body whose
meeting would be deemed public pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
A draft Ordinance was presented to Council in late 2007 for fIrst reading and it was
passed for second reading with some changes recommended for inclusion in the second
versIOn.
I have attached the original, as passed, as well as the one that I have modifIed, tracking
the changes in the margin. At the request of the Council, I am forwarding these to you as
Chairs of your respective groups for input. Please review with your group as you think
appropriate and respond with comments or recommendations before Wednesday April
16, 2008.
ORDINANCE NO. 207-
AN ORDINANCE ADDING ~ 2-9 TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE
BROADCASTING AND RECORDING OF ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE CITY
The City of Maplewood Ordains:
City Code ~ 2-9 is added to the Marlewood City Code to read as follows:
.'>eetion 1:.. Broadcast. ()f.~ublic Me"tiJIgs...
. (~~~~~!~~~~"i~~~~~=~~=~=:~:~.'. - - J
(a) City Policy. It is in the best interest of the public and the citizens of
Maplewood specifically that all meetings of the City and or its various
committees, boards or advisory groups be freely available for listening,
viewing, participation. review, or any combination thereof. Meetings ofthese
groups are already open to the public pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting
Law, & 130.0 I et seq'81l~Mal'lewoodc:;.0.d"tothe."xtentall"""e~...!tis....."..,.. ." CI)~I~~:.~"!'.~:"............J
however the policy and desire of the City of Maple wood to ensure access to "<..t~: .hOW'~.~.'.._.._.......,..,..J
all its meetings to those ,p,\,l:son~ .who.othef\Vise cannot,l'hysic"lly attend those'fli~i;;;:;;;;""""'''''''''''''::.J
meetings at the time scheduled. . ro;leted: ~l~Z~~- -- )
fJiJ...M!'etini!s subiect to this Section. All public meetings that would otherwise be +.... ..tFO!!"~,,,,~:.Bullets.an.d.~u:~~rl:i:::=J
subiect to the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, & 130.01 et
sea. under subdivision 1 thereof are subiect to this section.
M Ex.ccptions. Meetingu:.Q,midered exel1!!11.Rursljgnt to the Mi!!ill'jiota..QQQ.ll
Meeting Law, & 13D.OI et sea. under subdivision 2 thereofghall be
considered exempt fi'om this section. dd hoq,oIitical gllth"rings, orl'llrely n ."" t~~r.''!~,t1~:!?nt:.lt~IIC,..
informational meetings that otherwise would not be subiect to the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law. & 13D.0 I et sea. are exempt from this section as well.
0Jl.Broadcast of Activities. A'llneetings()ftl1ec:;ity.andlor.any.ofitsst.81ldinLm.'"
Committees or Boards that meet in.lVlajll""""odCity}I&lshall.b<;broadcast..ll1....
the time of the actual meeting or withiu 72 hours thereof and recorded at City '.
expense at the time ofmeetinl;)'he.c:ilY shalIlls" whate"e.r,a"aiIab.1emmn
technology exists and is readily available to the City at the time, e.g., local
cable.access and/or broadcast channels or their signals, to broadcast the
proceedings subiect to this section.
(eJ Recording of Activities. All meetings of the City or any of its standing
Committees shall be recorded at the time of the actual meeting using whatever
available technology exists and is readily available to the City at the timep'~~" /...-{ Deleted: as above-described )
copies of such meeting! s \recordin~.shall be available to anYJlerson. u . ,. , .,..' r~~!:~~~,'~, ',",''''''''''''"'~''"','','''''''''''''''''''''''''JJ
consistent with and pursuant tq.,~~.~_M~~~~~!~" 9'?_~~r.~_~~! J?,~!~. R~_~~_tA~~"~ 'lEeleted: member of the public
Act, ~ 13.03 et seq. ". ...{ De''';;;;;';' ,.,."",.. ....)
{fL,No Waiver. Nothing in this section is intended to render public any activities --.-{ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering_J
otherwise described in the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, ~ 130.01 et seq.
regarding allowable, "closure," of otherwise public meetings. The right of the
J
,,-...-""..'-----........-......J
1 Deleted: To the extent possible a
- {Deleted: the City Hall of )
-{~~~:~~~"~~~~~;~~~~~~=~~~~~"~:~.":~':~J
Delet~~_!_~..th~~ubliC ._._:.~~.= J
" Deleted: utilizing
" .
"
City to close its meetings for the purposes outlined and described in MS ~
130.03 and 130.05 are neither waived or abridged by this section.
(g) Pena/lv. Violations of this section shall be governed bv the same civil fines
and penalties as would applv were the violation a violation of the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law and be governed bv the penaltv provision contained
therein under & 130.06. Unless otherwise determined. dlC Citv Manager shall
ha.Y!U1rlm~!YrQ;;R!.m;;jpjliJLal!4)j~1?lll!YJQI.YlQl~!i2!l~_Q[!\1j!L""gllQ.!lo,
(h) Affirmative Defense. It shall be an aftlrmative defense to violations of this
section if a disruption or breakdown in the teelmologv being used at the time
for the broadcast and/or recording is experienced. Such disruption or
breakdown shall not be cause to terminate or reschedule thc meeting being
h'M and 14e offls:ial_ml!'-l)!Q~_Qf sai<i!]1.!!gting_~!]!!JillL"-~_tQ_,~~li.~.fyJ_~
relluirements of this section and the requirements of the Minnesota Open
Meeting Law. & 13D.OI el sea. as applicable.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect following its publication in the official
newspaper of the Citv.
The Maplcwood Citv Council approved this Ordinance on:
,
, .
......-fR;;;;tt~d~-I.t:Flr~t"ii~~";"."O:'5;;,._-)
[-.'.'."'-.'.--------.-.-.'...'.'....'...'------'-.---J
/.., Deleted: 11
,1.._..,___._._.___.,.".,.........___.._,___..,_.,._.