Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.b. Emerald Isle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Commission Regular Meeting: February 26, 2020 Tentative City Council Meeting: March 17, 2020 AGENDA ITEM: 20-09-PUD, 20-10-PP, 20-11-RZ, 20-12- CP: Request by CNC Development IV, LLC., for Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Approval to develop 151 single-family lots. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.b. ATTACHMENTS: Site Location; Existing Conditions; Site Plan; Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Preliminary Plat; Phasing Plan; Erosion Control Plan; Grading and Drainage Plan; Utility Plan; Landscape Plan; Tree Preservation Plan; Engineer’s Memo dated February 26, 2020; Parks and Recreation Memo Dated February 18, 2020 APPROVED BY: KL RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment to reguide 20 acres of the development site from MDR-Medium Density Residential to LDR-Low Density Residential and the southeast 10 acres of the site from CC-Community Commercial to HDR-High Density Residential. 2. Motion to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Emerald Isle, subject to the following conditions: a. Approval of a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning. b. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the site to LDR and HDR. c. Conformance with all the requirements of the City Engineer as detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 26, 2020. d. Payment of $513,400 as cash-in-lieu of park dedication. 3. Motion recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with rezoning of the property for AG-Agriculture to R1 PUD-Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development and R4 PUD-High Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: a. Execution of a PUD agreement. b. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the site to LDR and HDR. 2 c. The front building elevation design shall include one of the following elements: i. Three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting, excluding doors, windows or the wall behind the front porch; ii. A front porch with railing that extends at least 30% of the width of the front elevation, including the garage; iii. A side entry garage; iv. Or, no more than 70% lap siding, excluding doors and windows. d. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.1. to reduce the interior lot minimum area of 10,000 to 8,125 square feet and corner lot minimum area from 12, 000 to 10,625 square feet. e. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.2. to reduce the minimum lot width from eighty (80) feet to sixty-five (65) feet for interior lots and from ninety (90) feet to seventy-five (85) feet for corner lots. f. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.5. to reduce the side yard setback from ten (10) feet to seven and one half (7.5) feet except in areas where existence of larger drainage and utility easements require additional setbacks. g. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.6. to reduce the rear yard setback from thirty (30) feet to twenty-five (25) feet. h. A deviation from City Code Section 11-4-5 F.9. to increase the maximum lot coverage from thirty percent (30%) to thirty-five percent (35%) lots more than 9,750 square feet in area, forty percent (40%) lots under 9,750 square feet in area. i. Incorporation of the recommendations from the City Engineer in a review memorandum dated February 26, 2020, relative to drainage, grading, street design, easements, utilities, and the adjacent sidewalks. j. A temporary cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the stub of Street D. k. Subdivision monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. l. The applicant shall receive approval from the Metropolitan Council for any connection to the Met Council sanitary interceptor line. m. Payment of a landscape surety in the amount of $97,020. n. The applicant must receive final site and building plan approval for the R-4 high density residential portion of the project. SUMMARY The City received a request from CNC Development for approval of a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning to develop 151 single-family lots. Because the southern half of the site is guided for Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial, the applicant is also requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to reguide the northern sixty acres of the site to LDR Low Density Residential and the 10 acres in the southeastern corner of the site to HDR-High Density Residential to accommodate the future development of an approximate 150-unit apartment building. The dividing line between the two uses is the Connemara Trail road alignment. Finally, the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for the 151 single-family lots and an outlot over the site of the future apartment building. A concept plan for that portion of the development is included, but formal site and building plan approval is required prior to construction on the outlot. Staff is recommending approval of the requests. 3 Owners: Margaret Eustice Residential Developers: CNC Development IV, LLC. Preliminary Plat Acres: 70.07 Met Council Net Acres: 70.07 Residential Lots Created: 151 lots Gross Density: 2.52 Units/Acre (single family 151/60 acres) Net Density: 2.52 Units/Acre Comprehensive Plan Guiding: LDR-Low Density Residential, MDR-Medium Density Residential, CC- Community Commercial Requested Guiding: LDR-Low Density Residential and HDR-High Density Residential Current Zoning: AG-Agriculture Requested Zoning: R1 PUD-Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development and R4 PUD- High Density Residential Planned Unit Development Surrounding Land Uses North: Low Density Residential East: Agriculture South: Public/Institutional West: Medium Density Residential BACKGROUND The subject parcel is currently used for agricultural purposes. The 70-acre parcel has been guided for a combination of Community Commercial in the southeastern ten acres, Low Density Residential in the northern forty acres and Medium Density Residential between the two (20 acres). The applicant is requesting that the site be reguided for Low Density Residential in the northern sixty acres and High Density Residential in the southeast ten acres. The proposed reguiding removes the commercial land use designation from the site. Staff is supportive of the reguiding the city’s primary focus for commercial has been at the intersection of Akron and County Road 42. Additional land for commercial has been identified in the concept plan for the UMore site also. The presence of the DCTC site between the commercial property and the current site also make development as commercial more difficult. As the Commission is aware, Flint Hills Refinery owns much of the land immediately east of the subject property meaning that the ability to develop at urban densities is questionable. This also makes development as commercial more difficult. The addition of a High Density Residential use within the site also fits the policy goal within the Comprehensive Plan to allow for greater diversity in housing types within Rosemount. The concept of high density residential in the vicinity of Dakota County Technical College has been discussed for quite some time. The proposed amendment wasn’t included in the 2040 update to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan because it was unknown what the timing of the proposal submission would be. Because staff had spoken with the applicant about the site, a potential reguiding of the site was brought up at a Planning Commission work session where it was discussed. While the Planning Commission was hesitant to support a reduction in land guided for commercial uses, there was an acknowledgment that ultimately development is driven by the market and that there is still more favorable undeveloped commercial land nearby at Akron and 42. The high density development in the southern portion of the site is shown in concept form on the plans submitted by the applicant. A full review of any development on that site will come before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The owner of the pipeline running through the property is in the process of abandoning the line. If the easement is also abandoned or shifted closer to the parcel boundaries, the ultimate layout of the apartment building site will likely change. 4 ISSUE ANALYSIS Legal Authority . Amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan and approval of Planned Unit Development Master Development Plans are legislative decisions because the City is formulating public policy. The City may amend the Comprehensive Plan after a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a two-thirds majority vote by the City Council. These applications also require notification to the surrounding communities and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Preliminary plat approvals, as well as rezonings, are quasi-judicial decisions for the City meaning that the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if these applications meet the City’s established requirements they must be approved. Staff review of each application is provided below. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The 70-acre site is currently guided for three different uses. The northern forty acres of the site is currently guided LDR-Low Density Residential, and the twenty acres south of that portion of the site is currently guided MDR-Medium Density Residential. The applicant is proposing amending the comprehensive land use plan to reguide the Medium Density Residential portion of the site to LDR-Low Density Residential. The overall development site also includes a 10-acre section along County Road 42, east of DCTC landholdings (former city hall site), that is currently guided for CC-Community Commercial. The applicant is proposing that this portion of the site be reguided to HDR-High Density Residential. The proposed reguiding results in an increase in the overall maximum density for the development site. As it is currently guided, the 70-acre site can accommodate a density of 6.86 dwelling units per acre. The reguiding would result in a maximum density of 9.43 dwelling units per acre. Staff is supportive of reguiding the Community Commercial portion of the site for several reasons. The first reason being that the market has been slow to develop commercial east of Highway 3, and the other existing commercial areas at Akron and 42 will remain available for commercial development. Additional land is being allocated for commercial use with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, in higher quality locations like the southwest quadrant of Akron Avenue and County Road 42 and the corner of 145th and County Road 42. These locations are more visible, have higher adjacent traffic counts and are sited near traffic signals, which are all more desirable to future commercial users. The second reason staff support the request is that Flint Hills has purchased the right of first refusal on the land immediately east of the subject property. With development unlikely east of the site, the subject parcel is even less likely to develop as a commercial use in the foreseeable future. The presence of the DCTC site makes a continuous commercial corridor less likely and less desirable. It is staff’s belief that additional residential development on the subject property will spur development of commercial uses at the intersection of Akron Avenue and 42. The figure below shows the proposed changes. 5 When evaluating a Comprehensive Plan amendment request, the Planning Commission should consider whether or not there are existing goals and policies in place that support the request. Below, staff has highlighted a number of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that support guiding the southern ten acres of the site to High Density Residential and removing the Medium Density Residential guidance from the northern portion of the site. Executive Summary: Ten Guiding Principles 2. Preserve existing rural residential areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan and increase housing opportunities in the community to attain a balance of life cycle housing options, with special attention to changing community demographics and demands of increasing senior and millennium populations. Staff response: Apartment units provide a housing choice that is appealing to residents not needing large larger housing units (or prefer a smaller amount of space) or may find it difficult to take care of a single-family home and associated yard. Apartments provide options to family units that do not want to invest long-term into their home or may not be able to afford purchase of a single-family home at this time. While there have been recent apartment buildings approved, the pace of multi- family construction in the City has not kept pace with single-family construction over the past decade and more. 3. Promote commercial renewal and rehabilitation in Downtown and along Highway 42 while attracting new commercial development along County Highway 42 at key intersections: Highway 3, Akron Avenue, and US Highway 52. Staff Response: The land currently guided Community Commercial is located approximately 2,000 feet east of Akron Avenue. Reguiding that land from commercial to high density residential will consolidate commercial development at Akron Avenue and County Road 42, especially when considering that land in the southwest quadrant of that intersection has been guided for commercial uses with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Construction of additional residential and future high density residential will continue to add rooftops drawing more commercial interest at Akron Avenue and the community at large. Housing: Goals and Policies 4. Provide a mixture of rental and home ownership opportunities to provide life cycle housing. Staff Response: The proposed amendment would allow for a mix of for sale and rental units that will help meet the needs of Rosemount residents at various ages, from recent college graduates, to young families, to seniors. 6 5. Locate different housing styles within the appropriate areas. B. Disperse high density residential in appropriate areas throughout the community to avoid entire neighborhoods of high density residential. Staff Response: There are currently no other high density residential developments in this part of the City, and the presence of DCTC will create demand for rental apartments. C. Locate high density residential with access to the collector and arterial street network. Staff Response: The site of the apartment building will be accessed from Connemara Trail along the north site boundary, a collector street identified in the City’s transportation plan, and presumably pedestrian access will be made to County Road 42 in the future. D. Locate high density residential in conjunction with Downtown and the commercial areas along County Road 42 to create mixed-use neighborhoods and transit-oriented districts. This site is located in close proximity to land guided for commercial uses as well as Dakota County Technical College. Staff acknowledges the desire of the City Council and Planning Commission to allow for more commercial development within Rosemount, and therefore would not, and has not in the past, support a comprehensive plan amendment that would remove the commercial land use designation at the intersection of Akron and County 42. Given the changes occurring in the commercial market place, strategic placement of commercial nodes is desired to maximize business attraction. General Subdivision Design The overall development is approximately 70 acres, with the single family lots comprising 60 of the acres. The 151-lot subdivision will be bound on the south by an extension of Connemara Trail, from which two streets will provide access into the subdivision. Additional access will be provided via Addison Avenue near the northwest corner of the site. The street system contains only a single cul-de-sac in the northeast portion of the site, although a stub that will provide access to future development east of the site occurs at the end of Street C. Signage indicating this is a future public road extension will be installed by the developer. The majority of the stormwater management will take place in ponds located along the northern site boundary. The ponds will be contained within outlots, which will alleviate some of the encroachment issues staff has observed in other subdivisions with regard to stormwater infrastructure. A Metropolitan Council sanitary line runs through the middle of the site, which the developer has accommodated with increased rear and side setbacks as needed. The existing topography is rolling, and the developer plans to provide a combination of walkout, lookout, and full basement sites. Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning The subject property is currently zoned AG-Agriculture. The subdivision proposal for the single family residential portion of the site is inconsistent with the standard R-1 zoning district standards but is consistent with recent small lot single family neighborhoods in the Akron Avenue area. To facilitate the project, the applicant is requesting rezoning to R1 PUD-Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. The deviations from the R1 standards requested by the applicant include a reduction in the minimum lot size from 10,000 square feet to 8,125 square feet, reduction in the minimum lot width from 80 feet to 65 feet, reduction in the side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.5 feet. In order to make the preliminary plat work with the number of lots proposed, the applicant is not requesting a deviation from the front yard setback since the lot width is measured from the setback line. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the rear lot setback from 30 feet to 25 feet, which staff supports. Additionally, the City Code does permit encroachments into a required setback for building appendages such as balconies and decks. The applicant has also requested maximum lot coverage that is based on the size of a given lot. In this case, the applicant is proposing a maximum lot coverage of 35% for lots over 9,750 square feet and 40% for lots under 9,750 square feet. The standards proposed by the applicant accommodate the proposed preliminary plat and are acceptable to staff. Finally, the applicant’s plans indicate a reduction in the street side yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet, which is only an issue on Lot 13, Block 1. Staff does not support 7 nor recommend approval of this reduction as it impacts the adjacent property’s front yard visibility. The applicant has indicated that they will be able to accommodate the required street side yard setback for that lot by a slight extension of the cul-de-sac, for which there is room on the site. Comparison of Lot Requirements and Standards Category Standard R-1 Zoning Emerald Isle Greystone Meadow Ridge Min. Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 8,125 sq. ft. 8,600 sq. ft. 7,800 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width 80 ft. 65 ft. 60 ft. 65 ft. Min. Front Yard Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Min. Side Yard Setback 10 ft. 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft. Min. Rear Yard Setback 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. Max. Lot Coverage 30% 35% to 40% 35% to 40% 30% to 45% The applicant is also requesting the ten acres in the southeast portion of the site be rezoned to R4 PUD- High Density Residential Planned Unit Development in anticipation of the future development of an apartment building on that site. The exact standards that will be contained within the Planned Unit Development agreement for the apartment site will be reviewed and approved with the apartment building. Phasing and Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to allow for the development of 151 single- family lots. Additional outlots are provided in the preliminary plat to accommodate the stormwater ponding as well as the future apartment building. Development of the single family lots will take place in three phases. The first phase of development will occur in the northwest portion of the site, and it will utilize the extension of Addison Avenue that was constructed with Lennar’s townhome development west of the site. This will allow time for Connemara Trail to be constructed in order to serve the second and third phases. Street and Sidewalk System Once the site is fully developed, the main access to the site will be from two intersections along Connemara Trail, with secondary access via the Addison Avenue extension from the northwest. The site contains only one permanent cul-de-sac, and a temporary cul-de-sac is not shown, but will be needed, at the eastern stub of Street D until development takes place east of the site. Sidewalks are provided throughout the development on at least one side of all streets, which is consistent with City policy. A sidewalk is shown on the north side of Connemara Trail and a bituminous trail will be constructed along the south side. This is consistent with the pedestrian facilities elsewhere along Connemara in this vicinity. Sidewalk connections are provided to the adjacent neighborhoods. One condition contained within the engineer’s memo and called out in the staff recommendation is that the sidewalk along the northern side of Addison Avenue (Street A) be continued to at least the intersection with Street C. Parks The Rosemount Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the plans for Emerald Isle and is recommending cash in-lieu of land to meet the park dedication requirement for the proposed development. The requirement for 151 single family units is $513,400 (151 x $3,4300). The Parks and Recreation department is also recommending that accommodations be made for a trail to be added along County Road 42 in the future, and access to that trail should be provided in the plans for the apartment development. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The landscaping plan provided by the applicant shows one tree on the front yard of each interior lot and two trees on each corner lot as required by the City Code. The landscaping plan also includes boulevard 8 trees along Connemara Trail at a spacing of every fifty feet, while this isn’t a requirement for the single family portion of the overall development, the City Code does require boulevard trees at 50-foot intervals for apartment buildings. Additional trees and shrubs will be planted around the perimeter of the stormwater infrastructure and where the local streets intersect with Connemara Trail. A tree inventory was conducted by the applicant and a total of 67.5 caliper inches of significant trees were identified. The significant trees are all located within the tree line along the parcel boundaries at the southwest corner of the site. A single 12” elm tree will be impacted by the construction of the Connemara Trail extension. Because developers are allowed to remove 25% of the significant trees on a site before replacement is required, no additional trees must be planted to meet the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. Stormwater Management The developer will be managing the stormwater on site with the use of retention and infiltration basins. The Assistant City Engineer and the City’s stormwater consultant have reviewed the plan and provided comments in the attached memo dated February 26, 2020. The location of some of the catch basins will need to be relocated from the cul-de-sac to the backyard storm pipe to avoid a second inlet to the pond. Stormwater infiltration basins and retention ponds will be located within outlots to help discourage encroachment into those areas, as has been observed in other subdivisions where ponds and basins have been incorporated into the plat. Utilities The applicant is proposing connecting to the Met Council’s sanitary sewer that runs from west to east through the site. The plans show two connections to that line. Staff prefers that only one connection is made, but any connections to that line will need to be approved by the Met Council. The applicant will also have to provide a sanitary sewer stub along the eastern property line that is located at a depth that can serve the adjacent parcel should development occur there. Additional utility stubs shall be provided to the outlot in which the future apartment building will be located. These are included as conditions within the City Engineer’s Memo dated February 26, 2020 that is included with the attachments. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the plans and materials provided by the applicant and presented in this report. Based on that information, staff is recommending approval of the requests for a preliminary plat, a planned unit development master plan with rezoning, and a comprehensive plan amendment that will allow the applicant to develop 151 single-family lots. 145TH ST E (CSAH 42)AKRON AVE ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 2/14/2020 T:\Project\CommDev\LandUse\LandUseChanges.aprx I:\GIS\Map_Library\CommDev\LandUse\ProposedAmendments\02142020.pdf Proposed Land Use Change 0 500 1,000250Feet 145TH ST E (CSAH 42)AKRON AVEAG Agriculture DT Downtown NC Neighborhood Commercial RC Regional Commercial CC Community Commercial AGR Agricultural Research RR Rural Residential LDR Low Density Residential TR Transitional Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential PI Public/Institutional PO Existing Parks/Open Space BP Business Park LI Light Industrial GI General Industrial WM Waste Management Existing Land Use Plan Proposed Land Use Plan DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PLM 121221 CAD FILE 233SS.GZJ PROJECT NO. 233 2.1 The East half (E1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 27, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom the following described parcel: The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SW1/4 of SE1/4 of NE1/4) of Section 27, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota PROPERTY DESCRIPITON EMERALD ISLEROSEMO8NT MINNESOTAPRELIMINARY PLATFORCNC DEVELOPMENT2 WEST C.R. 42 S8ITE 12 B8RNSVILLE MN 33P+ONE 2..44 PKDPSWRQ#MUKLQF.FRPPLANNERS  EN*INEERS  S8RVEYORSZZZ.MUKLQF.FRPJames R. Hill, Inc. Plat phasingGrading Ph 1Grading Ph 2Grading Phasing SB-1 SB-2 SB-4 SB-3 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-1 SB-1SB-2SB-4SB-3SB-5SB-6SB-7SB-8SB-9SB-10G RWO SB-1 SB-1SB-2SB-4SB-3SB-5SB-6SB-7SB-8SB-9SB-10 MEMORANDUM To: Anthony Nemcek, Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer From: Stephanie Smith, Assistant City Engineer Date: February 26, 2020 Subject: Emerald Isle Preliminary Plat - Engineering Review SUBMITTAL: The plans for Emerald Isle have been prepared by James R. Hill, Inc. Engineering review comments were generated from the following preliminary documents included in the submittal: ▫ Preliminary Plat (dated 12/12/2019) ▫ Existing Conditions Survey (dated 1/13/2020) ▫ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (dated 1/13/2020) ▫ Grading Plan (dated 1/13/2020) ▫ Street and Utility Plan (dated 1/13/2020) ▫ Stormwater Report (dated 1/9/2020) ▫ Phasing Plan (dated 1/13/2020) GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The development fees below are estimated based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. These fees are due with the final plat and subdivision agreement.  Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $1075/acre  Watermain Trunk Charge: $6500/acre  Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $6865/acre 2. Plans shall be signed by an engineer licensed in the state of Minnesota. 3. Outlot A, B and C shall be covered by drainage and utility easement and shall be dedicated to the City. STREET AND SIDEWALK The development consists of internal, local streets that connect to the existing Addison Avenue stub at the eastern property line and Connemara Trail, a collector roadway, that bisects the southern third of the site. 5-foot sidewalks are on one side of the streets throughout the development. 5-foot sidewalk and 8-foot trail will extend on either side of Connemara Trail to the property line. 4. Sidewalk shall be constructed on both sides of Addison Avenue from the intersection with Street B to the western property line to match the existing Addison Avenue section. 5. Construction plans for Connemara Trail and associated utilities, including trunk stormwater pipe, shall be designed by the City. 6. Connemara Trail shall be constructed at one time, as opposed to the 200-foot section proposed by the applicant’s phasing plan. 7. Street names shall be labeled on the construction plans. 8. Street slopes and profile drawings shall be included in the construction plans for review for consistency with the Engineering Guidelines. 9. Lot 50, Block 1 shall have the driveway constructed on the west side of the property to allow the occupant vehicles to turn around on the dead end street. 10. Type-three barricades with “Future Thru Street” signage shall be placed east of the intersection of Connemara Trail and Street G and the end of Street D on the Preliminary Site Plan. 11. MnDOT standard detail plates for ADA pedestrian ramps shall be included in the plan set. Street signage and lighting plan shall be submitted for review. 12. Connemara Trail typical street section shall match the section for the proposed City Project 2018-09. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER 13. Utility stubs shall be provided to Outlot D, the future apartment site. 14. Sanitary sewer shall be stubbed to the eastern property line at an elevation to provide service to future development. 15. The applicant proposes two connections to the Metropolitan Council’s interceptor sewer line. Applicant must obtain permits for these connections. Staff recommends one connection. 16. Sanitary sewer connections shall be core-drilled. 17. Staff recommends using a 0.50% slope for 8” sanitary sewer to ensure that construction minimums are met. 18. Applicant’s engineer shall work with staff to reduce the number of sanitary manhole structures. 19. Watermain under Connemara Trail shall be 12” diameter. 20. All watermain shall be ductile iron pipe. 21. Number and locations of valve shall be adjusted to meet Engineering Guidelines. 22. Connections to active mains shall be wet taps. 23. As-built are not available for the utility connections to the Prestwick Place 17th development. Applicant’s engineer shall verify locations in the field. STORMWATER The applicant proposes to meet the City’s stormwater requirements by construction retention and infiltration basins on their site. 24. Applicant proposes a swale and stormwater pipe within the Metropolitan Council easement. Applicant shall obtain permits for this work. 25. Catchbasins on the cul-de-sac shall be relocated and connect to the backyard storm pipe to avoid a second inlet to the pond. 26. Access routes to ponds and yard catchbasins shall meet Engineer Guidelines and be shown on the plans. 27. Upon completion of the infiltration basin, the applicant’s engineer shall submit infiltrometer testing to certify the functionality of the basin as modeled. 28. Applicants consultant shall work to reduce the number of storm structures. The City’s stormwater consultant reviewed the submittal and their comments are listed below. The full memorandum is attached. 29. No operation and maintenance plan was included with this submittal. 30. There are many errors in Stormwater Narrative. 31. The Drainage Area Maps do not match the stormwater narrative. 32. The total drainage to each basin is correct when comparing the drainage maps and HydroCAD, however the stormwater narrative varies in drainage area totals multiple times to pond 101P and 107P. For calculations on our end, we used the drainage area provided in HydroCAD, which matches the areas on the drainage map. 33. Offsite Drainage from DCTC and CSAH 42 should be modeled to 47P/107P. Appears this area is being bypassed in the proposed conditions to Future Regional Basin 3037. This basin should be included in Model to show any changes in HWL. 34. Narrative states 104P but we assumed 104P is actually 107P as shown in HydroCAD and the drainage maps. 35. No “fugitive areas” were seen on the drainage map. Please identify where these areas are coming from, Prestwick 17th, 18th, and Greystone show no drainage area coming onto the Courteau property. 36. HydroCAD model 10-day depth used is 7.1 inches. Please updated to match the Engineering Guidelines Value of 7.2 inches for the 10-day event. 37. HydroCAD outlet pipe differs in length and size for 102P. The plan says its 15 and 18 inches and 170’ in length, but HydroCAD is 15-inch for 168 feet. 38. Regional Outlet control structure will be required for basin 107P and 101P. 39. Please include drainage of proposed right of way for Street 20 in drainage to 103P. The centerline looks to be included in plans, but not its drainage. See attached PUD plans for more info. 40. Please state in Narrative that 104P is sending overflows to Future Regional Basin 3037, and 101P is sending overflows and offsite runoff to Future Regional Basin 1787. 41. Provide a designated EOF section for 101P, 103P, and 107P. 42. Developer must submit a SWPPP for City review. 43. Add the following comment in the erosion control sequencing: Construct the NURP pond in the initial phase of grading to act as pretreatment of runoff during construction. Clean out any accumulated sediments before final restoration. 44. Post construction testing of infiltration basins will be required using an ASTM approved method after final restoration of the contributing drainage area. 45. Block 3 lot 5 has a driveway slope of 9.3%, we recommend driveway slopes of less than 9%. 46. Provide all pipe sizing calculations for City review, along with casting types. It is recommended to have a drop of 0.1 feet across all manholes, and matching crowns. 47. Gutter flow must not exceed 300-feet and flow rates to each CB must not exceed 3.0 cfs. 48. All storm sewer pipe must be RCP, even in backyards. 49. Storm sewer pipe runs must not exceed 300 feet. The following pipe runs are not in compliance. CBMH 102-101, CBMH 101-100. 50. No profiles were given with this submittal, therefore utility easements couldn’t be checked and utility crossings weren’t verified. Please include profiles in next submittal. 51. Include regional outlet control structure and detail in the plan for 101P and 107P. 52. No detail is given for the OCS for 107P. 53. CBMH 303 and CBMH 107 should be moved to be along lot lines and not within a driveway. 54. Include proposed storm sewer for draining 1070S to verify drainage area of 107P. 55. Please verify if the submittal needs permits for creation of ponding on top of a gas line and over easement at 107P, and 103P. 56. All NURP basins should be lined with a 1’ clay liner. 57. Provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard from the basin HWL and the basement floor elevation. The following buildings are not in compliance: 1. Block 4, Lots 1, 2, and 44 58. Provide a minimum of 1.5 feet of freeboard from the Emergency Overflow Route and the Low Opening. The following buildings are not in compliance: • 1. Block 2, Lots 1, 9, and 11 • 2. Block 3, Lots 3-5, 7-8, and 12-16 • 3. Block 4 lots 3-4, 7-8, 27, and 31 • 4. Block 5 lot 1 • 5. Block 6 Lots 1, 6-7, 13 59. Block 1 Lots 34 and 35 low opening are lower than the low point in the road. 60.Infiltration area listed on the plans does not match the stormwater narrative nor the total area shown. 61.Soil infiltration rate must be less than 8.3 in/hr, soil underneath the media will need to be amended. 62.Narrative should be updated with the following methodology - 1/12 ac-ft per ac per day calculation is used to calculate the required infiltration surface area in the infiltration basin. Currently with the drainage areas given in HydroCAD this is being met. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. Attached: WSB Memorandum RE: Emerald Isle – Courteau Property Plan Review dated February 18, 2020 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner Anthony Nemcek, Planner From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: February 18, 2020 Subject: Emerald Isle - CNC Development Master PUD and Preliminary Plat The Parks and Recreation Department recently reviewed the plans for the Emerald Isle development. After reviewing the plans, the Parks and Recreation Department staff has the following comments: Local Trails and Sidewalks The trail and sidewalk amenities appear to be designed in a manner that works toward the City’s goal of having a well-connected community. The proposed trail and sidewalk system is designed to match up to the existing/proposed system. Staff does recommend that accommodations are made for a trail to be added along County Road 42 in the future. Parks Dedication The parks dedication requirement for 151 single family units is either 6.04 acres of land, cash in-lieu of land or a combination of the two. Staff is recommending that the City collect cash in-lieu of land for the single-family development that is currently being processed. The cash dedication for 151 units would be $513,400 (151 x $3,400 per unit). Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo.