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.