The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ Agenda Packet; 9-8-14 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3900 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, September 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. August 25, 2014 4. Public Hearing a. VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE – PRELIMINARY PLAT. GWSA Land Development, LLC, 10850 Old County Road 15 Suite 200 Plymouth, MN has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat to be called Village Park Preserve. The proposed development will be a 104-unit single family residential subdivision in the southeastern portion of the Village Planning Area. (PID’s 13.029.21.43.0004 and 13.029.21.44.0002). 5. Business Items a. SAVONA SECOND ADDITION – FINAL PLAT. The Planning Commission will consider a Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition. This application was previously reviewed at the meeting on 8/25/14. b. INWOOD PUD CONCEPT PLAN. The Planning Commission will be reviewing an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a proposed mixed-use development on a 157 acre site in Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area (PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002, 33.029.21.11.0001). This application was previously reviewed at a public hearing held on 8/25/14. c. HUNTER’S CROSSING FINAL PLAT – RYLAND GROUP. The Planning Commission will consider a Final Plat for Hunter’s Crossing. The Final Plat includes 22 single family lots that will be located on the present site of the Country Air Golf Practice Facility. (PID 36.029.21.32.0008). 2 6. Updates a. City Council Updates – September 2, 2014 meeting: i. Savona Conditional Use permit passed. b. Staff Updates i. Upcoming Meetings: • September 22, 2014 • October 13, 2014 c. Commission Concerns 7. Adjourn City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2014 Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Lundgren, and Haggard (arrived 7:15) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dorschner STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Johnson Approve Agenda: The agenda was accepted as presented. Approve Minutes: July 28, 2014 M/S/P: Dodson/Kreimer, move to approve the minutes as presented; Vote: 5-0, motion carried. Public Hearing: Savona Second Addition – Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Johnson presented an overview of the Savona Second Addition proposed Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit. Paul Tabone, Lennar Homes, introduced himself to the Planning Commission. Dodson asked about the structure of the Common Interest Communities proposed for the development. Tabone noted that the two areas, single family and townhome areas, are two separate Home Owners Association. Dodson asked how the common interest agreement is established and at what point does the builder transfer management of the association to the residents/property owners. Tabone noted that an employee of Lennar serves on the board. The management is not transferred until there is enough residents to properly manage the neighborhood. Williams asked why Lennar has not gotten a buffer easement or met some of the other conditions. Tabone stated that the easement process is complicated and that they are working on securing it. Johnson stated that these things will be addressed before the final plat is released for recording. That is what the City has to get compliance. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 2 Williams is wondering about the landscape plan and is disappointed that it isn’t completed. Public Hearing opened at 7:48 p.m. No one spoke. No written comments were received. Public Hearing closed at 7:49pm. Williams asked if everyone agrees with the draft findings. Williams recommended amending finding #4 to say with the exception of the items covered in the conditions. Larson noted that he is disappointed that the buffer is the minimum 100 feet and that the landscape plan is not available to show the landscaping there. M/S/P: Dodson/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the CUP with the finding related to design to be stricken, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Williams noted that he is not satisfied with the answers received this evening. M/S/P: Haggard/Lundgren, move to postpone consideration of the Final Plat until the items necessary for Final Plat as identified in the staff report are addressed, Vote: 4-2, motion carried, with Dodson and Larson voting no. Public Hearing: Inwood PUD Concept Plan Johnson presented an overview of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. This is a PUD Concept plan on 157 acres that has a mixed use of single family, single family attached, multi- family, senior townhomes and commercial use. John Rask, Hans Hagen Homes, spoke about the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. He spoke about the ponding proposed for the development, and the impact of removing these areas from density calculations. The berming and landscapes for the Hans Hagen developments are important. Rask spoke about the demographic that the development is intended for, including seniors, smaller families and singles. He also spoke about the island green spaces in the single family residential area. He continued by describing the Lifestyle Housing product that Hans Hagen is building, including strong architectural details. Moving forward, Rask addressed multiple questions posed by the Planning Commission. He noted that the applicants have conducted in-depth analysis on the shoreland provisions. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 3 Lundgren asked how the Hans Hagen product would be different than the product they are building in Woodbury. Rask stated that the Woodbury product is much different as it was one they took over from Ryland and had to retro fit into the neighborhood. Rask noted that the most comparable project to the one being proposed is the Lakes in Blaine. Lundgren also noted the Concept is lacking a community gathering place. Rask noted that each street has individual gathering places, but is not focused on ballfields as there are not many young families. Rask stated the park will change based on feedback from staff and Park Commission. Dodson asked what role the HOA has in maintaining the properties. Rask noted all of the grounds are maintained by the HOA. The homeowner is responsible to maintain their individual house. The applicants offer al-a-carte maintenance services, such as gutter cleaning. Dodson asked if there is an architectural control committee. Rask noted that the builder serves as the architectural control until the HOA is established well enough to control the architecture. Haggard thanked the applicant for providing the Concept Design Booklet. She asked about the location of streets and trails. In addition, she asked if the applicants considered incorporating theming. Rask talked about this being a walkable community with trails and sidewalks. They will look at the Damon Farber theming. Kreimer asked if the designer product allows basements. Rask confirmed that the designer product does allow basements and the lifestyle homes do not have basements. Kreimer asked about neighborhood amenities that are provided. Rask noted that neighborhood amenities, such as pool or clubhouse, are not as desired for the homeowner due to the fact that many of the buyers do not live there year-round. The expectation is lower HOA fees. Kreimer asked about landscaping provided. Rask noted that a base package is provided. If the owners want additional landscaping, they must pay extra and the design must be approved by the HOA. Kreimer asked about the setbacks. He noted that it is must be difficult to fit certain amenities. Rask said it is the minimum and there would typically be 8 feet combined and there are access easements. Lundgren asked about community gardens. Rask noted that they are exploring the possibility of community gardens in a project they are working on in Dayton. Lundgren noted if the developer provides storm shelters for homes with no basement. Rask noted that sometimes there is a request for a storm shelter or for a self-contained box that goes in the master bedroom closet that is storm proof. Public Hearing opened at 9:53 p.m. Nancy Andert, 697 Julep Ave. N., noted that they are appalled by the proposed development. They noted when looking for a home, they looked for 2.5 acre lots. She Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 4 noted that the City must be tired of hearing from Stonegate, but if you lived in Stonegate, you would fight against the density too. Stonegate has requested low density lots, not high density. Andert read the plan statement for Low Density Residential. There should be a smooth transition of density from urban land uses to rural land uses. She stated that the residents do not want this level of density near Stonegate. The Comprehensive Plan should not be changed. She complimented the Design and Concept Booklet, but noted that the result of such a development is not as nice. Mike Lancette, 832 Jasmine Ave. N., noted that he shares the same concerns as Ms. Andert. Lancette noted that if the density will be increased, then the buffer should be increased. He noted his concern that the area is inhabited by wildlife. Lancette added that the proposed trail should be located closer to the proposed neighborhood, not Stonegate. He added that the buffer is very important, and it should be done in a thoughtful way. He asked if there needed to be a tree inventory. Staff confirmed that the applicant will need to submit a plan at preliminary stage. Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave. N., lives adjacent to Stonegate Park. He noted that he is disappointed with the growth that has occurred this far. He asked that the City and Planning Commission be considerate for Stonegate. Monteith noted that parking would be appreciated on the southwest portion of the park. He asked questions about access to the site, particularly on 10th Street. He asked if 10th Street is planned for a four-lane road. Johnson explained the reasoning about the park area. He noted that the Park Commission will be reviewing the Concept Plan on 9/15/14. Monteith asked about trails to and from the park and asked about price point for single family homes. Rask stated that they are between 300-400K. 2 letters were received, one from Molly Shodeen, area Hydrologist for the DNR and one from Tom Fitzgerald, 877 Jasmine Place Ave Place N. The letter from Mr. Fitzgerald is opposed to the development because of impacts to Stonegate. The DNR has concerns that they will work with the applicant to resolve. The letters were entered into the record. Public Hearing closed at 10:19pm. The Planning Commission took a brief recess and returned at 10:23pm. Kreimer noted that he does not agree with finding #1 and #2. He does not believe that the multi-family area in the northwest corner is consistent. In addition, allowing single family areas that require exceptions is not acceptable. Larson noted that he thinks the land uses have moved slightly, but the areas are generally the same. He noted support for the commercial area along Inwood Ave. N., as well as the location of the multi-family. He noted that parking must be improved for Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 5 Stonegate Park. Larson encourages dialogue with the Stonegate neighborhood on the Park and the buffer. He noted support for the draft findings. Haggard noted that she thinks the plan may not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She would like additional time to visit the Blaine and other development sites completed by Hans Hagen. Williams noted that he has concerns about the residential details. He notes that he does support the draft findings, but has some conditions. His proposed condition is that the lifestyle home should not be located immediately adjacent to the Stonegate area. He noted that he supports the proposed uses in the plan except for the multi-family area in the northwest corner is too dense. He added that the trail should be concentrated on the west half of the buffer. Williams added that there should be some park/gathering area in the northwest portion of the development. Finally, he added that a 4’ sideyard setback is too small, that a 5’ would be a reasonable minimum. He thinks that the front and rear yard setbacks or ok. Kreimer notes he is concerned about the size of the lots. We require 8000 square feet and the applicant is asking for flexibility of 5000-6500 square feet. Haggard voiced her concern about the sideyard setbacks. She feels we should stay with ordinance which was already a compromise. Lundgren is concerned that 20% of the single family homes which are low density are at 38 feet when 60 feet is required. Larson noted that the proposed product is different than a typical single family home, as it is association maintained. Therefore, it is warranting an exception. Dodson asked if the highest density amount for low density can even be met with our standards. Johnson stated that it would be difficult. Dodson brought up possible coving to address the resistance to reduced setbacks. Johnson talked about the purpose of the PUD Ordinance. If a developer has a different concept or product type, sometimes deviations are warranted or necessary. Haggard stated that she likes the concept and the elements that they have included, but the sideyard setbacks are smaller than should be. Williams suggested condition 2a where the minimum setback would be 5’ for all single family detached housing. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to require a 5-foot sideyard setback for all of the single family detached housing, Vote: 4-2, motion carried, with Larson and Dodson voting no. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 6 Haggard noted that she wished to see the development before making a decision on the sideyard setbacks. Hans Hagen talked about the market demographic and future trends in housing. Hans Hagen talked about all the dynamics at play in new home construction. He invited the Planning Commission to go out and look at The Lakes in Blaine. Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave, spoke about why he came out to Lake Elmo. He feels that they were promised low density housing around Stonegate. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add to condition #6 “the location, size and design of the park will be subject to review by the Park Commission. It is recommended that the Park Commission consider the inclusion of a small park area or gathering space in the northwest portion of the development, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Haggard discussed her concern about garage dominant design. The Planning Commission engaged in a discussion about garage doors. M/S/P: Dodson/Lundgren, condition #19 move that the applicant must work with the City to submit their residential design standards to the City as part of the Preliminary Plat application, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Williams suggested that the plat should be revised to include 2 rows of designer product. M/S/P: Williams motion to require single family lots on east side of the development, motion fails for lack of a second. Hans Hagen noted that the applicant is happy to include increased landscaping and design standards, but if the City wants to require different product types on the east side of the development, then the proposed development will not work and the entire plan must be revised. Larson made presented strong support for the project and noted his concern about micro-management of the process. Lundgren noted that going beneath the standards does not feel right. Haggard stated that the City is getting things in return for the decrease in lot width and size. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to include the Theming elements consistent with the Damon Farber Branding and Theming Study should be included in the public amenities Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 7 throughout the proposed development, Vote 3-3, motion fails, with Haggard, Larson and Dodson voting no. There was a discussion about the multi-family area in the northwest corner of the development. Kreimer was wondering if a traffic light would be appropriate at the intersection on 10th street. Rask stated that an EAW is required and part of that is a traffic study. The traffic study does not require a traffic light at 10th Street. Johnson stated that at the recent transportation meeting with the County, this intersection came up and they were not confident that a traffic light was warranted at that intersection. M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren, condition #20 move to change the proposed land use of the area in the northwest corner to Commercial, Haggard offered friendly amendment to change to 15 units per acre maximum for commercial, Vote: 5-1, motion carried, with Dodson voting no. M/S/P: Larson/ Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the Concept Plan with the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report and the conditions of approval as amended. M/S/P: Williams/Haggard, move to postpone consideration of the previous motion until the September 8th Planning Commission meeting so that the Planning Commission is able to visit the Lakes development. Vote: 5-1, motion carried, with Larson voting no. Updates and Concerns Council Updates 1. RAD Alt Comprehensive Plan Amendment to eliminate the RAD Alt zoning passed. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. September 8, 2014 b. September 22, 2014 Commission Concerns – Haggard – more time to review packet. Williams – on breaks Meeting adjourned at 12:00pm Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 8 Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8-25-14 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 9/8/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING ITEM CASE # 2014-43 ITEM: Village Park Preserve Residential Subdivision – Preliminary Plat SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer Brett Emmons, Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc. Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County John Hanson, Valley Branch Watershed District Neil Ralston, Metropolitan Airports Commission SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a Preliminary Plat request from GWSA Land Development, LLC for a 104-unit single family residential subdivision to be located on approximately 64 acres immediately west of Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) and immediately north of 30th Street within the southern portion of the Village Planning Area. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 13 conditions as noted in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: GWSA Land Development, LLC (Craig Allen); 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200, Plymouth, MN 55441 Property Owners: Schiltgen Farms, Inc.; 10880 Stillwater Blvd. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042 and Mark Holliday; PO Box 243, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Location: Part of Sections 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, north of 30th Street and immediately west of Manning Avenue (CSAH 15). PID Numbers: 13.029.21.43.0004 and 13.029.21.44.0002. Request: Application for preliminary plat approval of a 104-unit single family residential subdivision to be named Village Park Preserve. Existing Land Use: Agriculture Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning Surrounding Land Use: North – vacant/agricultural land, planned for Easton Village single family residential subdivision; west – Reid Park and Rural Single Family PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 2 parcels; south – Heritage Farm open space preservation (OP) subdivision; east – Lake Elmo Airport. Surrounding Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional; OP – Open Space Preservation; PF – Public Facilities Comprehensive Plan: Village Urban Low Density Residential (1.5 – 2.49 units per acre) and Rural Area Development – City has submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council to change the land use guidance of the Holliday parcel from Rural Area Development to Village Urban Low Density Residential. Proposed Zoning: LDR – Urban Low Density Residential History: The subject properties are included in Village Planning Area boundary and municipal sewer service area as defined in the 2013 Village Land Use Plan. Site has historically been used for faming activities, including the growing of agricultural crops. The Sketch Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 6/30/14. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 6/30/14. Both Land Use Applications were reviewed by the City Council on 7/15/14, where the CPA was approved (Resolution 2014-60) Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/14/2014 60 Day Deadline – 10/12/2014 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 12/11/14 Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR) §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from GWSA Land Development, LLC for a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 64 acres of land located within the Village Planning Area into 104 single family lots. The proposed plat would be located on property currently owned by Schiltgen Farms, Inc. and Mark Holliday, and would be located immediately west of Manning Avenue North (CSAH 15) and immediately north of 30th Street North. The two subject parcels have historically been used for agricultural purposes. The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which guides the property owned by Schiltgen Farms, Inc. for Village Urban Low Density Residential (V-LDR) development. It should be noted that the Holliday parcel is currently guided Rural Area Development (RAD). However, the City approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to change the Holliday parcel from RAD to V-LDR on July 15, 2014 (Resolution 2014-60). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment request has progressed through adjacent jurisdiction review period, and the CPA application has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council. If approved, the proposed plat would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The plat is designed to incorporate 104 single family lots, all of which are designed with minimum widths of 65 feet. In terms of access, the preliminary plat shows a connection to 30th Street via the Village Parkway minor collector road in the southern portion of the plat. As shown on the proposed plat, the Village PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 3 Parkway minor collector road will serve as the primary access and circulation route for the development, extending from 30th Street in the south to the Easton Village residential subdivision in the north. In addition to the 30th Street connection, the proposed neighborhood would also benefit from temporary access to Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) through the southeast portion of Easton Village. However, this access will be closed off at some point the future. Therefore, Village Parkway, with connection to 30th Street and eventually Trunk Highway 5 (TH 5) to the north will serve as the primary access. The proposed Village Park Preserve subdivision is the third subdivision in the Village Planning Area to submit Preliminary Plans. In terms of utilities, the subject parcels have access to City watermain within the 30th Street right-of-way north of Heritage Farms, as well as at the sanitary sewer lift station site immediately east of Reid Park. Existing sanitary sewer facilities are also located at the lift station site and will need to be extended to the subdivision to serve the residential development. As proposed, both the sewer and water services enter the subdivision in the southwestern portion of the development. Watermain is also extended to the existing watermain in 30th Street, providing a hydrological loop. The proposed subdivision also includes a series of outlots that will provide for storm water management, open space, trails and a significant expansion of Reid Park. It should be noted that all of the outlots that are planned for parkland or storm water use will be deeded to the City. According to the project narrative, the applicant is proposing to construct homes within the subdivision in two phases, with each phase consisting of 50+ residential lots. In addition, the narrative notes that the site will be mass graded during the first phase of construction. The mass grading would include preparation of the streets and storm water facilities. As the site is relatively flat, it is the goal of the applicant to balance the site with as much on-site material as possible. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Village Park Preserve site is guided for Village Urban Low Density (Schiltgen Farms parcel) and Rural Area Development (Holliday parcel). While presenting a Sketch Plan for the proposed development, the applicant applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel to change the land use guidance from Rural Area Development (RAD) to Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on 6/30/14 and unanimously approved by the City Council on 7/15/14. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment has since been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for consideration after undergoing adjacent jurisdictional review. In order for the applicant to apply for a Final Plat, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved by the Metropolitan Council in advance of any Final approvals by the City. In addition, the site will be required to be zoned LDR – Low Density Residential prior to Final Plat approval. The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in order to comply with the standards for the LDR zoning district in terms of lot size, lot widths, building setbacks, and other design criteria. The applicant notes in the project narrative that no variances are being sought for the proposed subdivision. The arrangement of lots and blocks generally follow a grid-like pattern with the Village Parkway minor collector road running north-south through the center of the subdivision. The eastern half of the subdivision has three east-west streets, while the western half has two east-west streets. The proposed spacing of the local roads that intersect with the minor collector road generally meet the recommended spacing of 330 feet for neighborhood collector roads. It should also be noted that the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 4 proposed subdivision includes three “eyebrow” or mini cul-de-sacs, two of which are located in the northeast and northwest corners of the subdivision, while the third is located in the southern portion of the development with direct access to the minor collector road. All local streets have been designed to comply with the City’s current street standard with a 60-foot right-of-way and 28-foot wide street. Sidewalks are planned on one side of all residential streets within the subdivision per the City standard. In addition, the Village Parkway minor collector road includes a 6-foot walk on the west side and an 8-foot bituminous trail on east side, which is consistent with the City’s typical section for the collector. Finally, a trail connection to the proposed expansion of Reid Park is planned in the southwest corner of the subdivision, providing direct access to recreational facilities. A typical lot building plan (detail) is included as part of the attached subdivision packet, and each lot as depicted in the plans includes a description of the lot size, dimensions, and all required setbacks. All of the lots proposed meet the City’s minimum area requirement of 8,000 for single family lots in a LDR district, with the smallest lot (Lot 4, Block 3) proposed at 8,342 square feet. The largest lot in the development (Lot 7, Block 2) is proposed at 27,055 sq. ft. in size. The Project Narrative notes that the lots will average 11,421 square feet in size, which exceeds the minimum requirements by a fairly wide margin. As an overview of the proposed lots, 60 lots are designed at 65 feet in width with the rest designed at widths of 75 or 81 feet. Generally speaking, the smaller lots of the subdivision are located on the eastern side of the development, and the larger lots are located west of the collector within closer proximity to the proposed park area adjacent to Reid Park. The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have been proposed as part of the Village Park Preserve preliminary plat and plans: Zoning and Site Information: • Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District • Proposed Zoning: LDR - Urban Low Density Residential • Total Site Area: 63.6 acres • Total Residential Units: 104 • Proposed Density (Net): 2.20 units/acre Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards: • Min. Lot Width: 65 ft. • Lot Depth: 130 ft. typical • Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (8,342 min. proposed) • Front Yard Setback: 25 ft. • Side Yard Setback: 5 ft.to garage, 10 ft. to living space • Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft. Proposed Street Standards: • ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance) • Street Widths – Local: 28 ft.(per City standard) The standards listed above are all in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations. Based on Staff’s review of the preliminary plat, the applicant PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 5 has demonstrated compliance with all applicable code requirements at the level of detail that is required for a preliminary plat. As with any new subdivision, the City Code requires that a portion of the plat be set aside for public park use. In this case, the applicant has indicated that the western portion of the subdivision adjacent to Reid Park will be dedicated to the City for this purpose. Dedication of the proposed parkland is supported by the Village Land Use Plan, as the land offers a significant expansion of Reid Park and is identified as ecologically sensitive land in the Village Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR), the adopted environmental review document for the Village Planning Area. As proposed, access to the park area will be provided via a trail connection in the southwestern portion of the development. As the internal trail connections to Reid Park have not yet been determined, additional work with the Park Commission to determine trail routing will be necessary once plans for the expansion area are further developed. The Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as parkland, which in this case amount to 6.36 acres (10% of 63.6 acres of total land). The Preliminary Plat (PP-6) indicates that Outlot 2, the proposed park area adjacent to Reid Park, is 686,961 square feet, or 15.77 acres, which is 9.41 acres above the required amount. However, it should be noted that two wetland areas exist in the proposed parkland, the area of which would not be eligible to count toward dedication. Removing the wetland areas from the calculation results in a dedication amount of 15.37 acres. Based on the level of proposed dedication, it is clear that the amount of land provided would far exceed the required amount of dedication required under the Subdivision Ordinance. When the amount of parkland provided exceeds the amount required under the ordinance, it is not uncommon for the applicant to receive a credit for the amount above what is required. It should be noted that the applicant is working on two other residential subdivision in the Village Area. The first, Village Preserve, is a 97-unit single family residential subdivision on approximately 40 acres of land in the northern portion of the Village Planning Area that has received Preliminary Plat approval. The second planned residential subdivision is on land owned by Schiltgen Farms, Inc. across Lake Elmo Ave. (CSAH 17) from the Village Preserve residential subdivision. If provided with a credit for land dedication above and beyond the required amount, it stands to reason that the credit could be utilized for the other two residential projects in which the applicant is engaged. Staff has contacted the City Attorney to confirm that this type of credit can be utilized off-site and can be granted via an approved developers agreement with the City, and the City Attorney confirmed that it is possible and legal under state statutes. In this case, the parkland credit amount would result in 9.01 acres (15.37 acres provided – 6.36 acres required = 9.01 acres of credit). REVIEW AND ANALYSIS City Staff has reviewed the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any deficiencies or additional modifications that are needed are noted as part of the review record. In addition, the City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, the Fire Chief, the City’s Landscape Consultant, Washington County and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, all of which are attached for consideration by the Commission. In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following review comments as well: • Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the City’s approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 6 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for this area. The net density proposed for the development fall within the range allowed for the Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR) land use category (1.5-2.49 units/acre). However, before proceeding to Final Plat, the applicant must receive formal approval of the Comp Plan Amendment from the Metropolitan Council (Condition #1). Other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Village Park Preserve subdivision as follows: o Density Calculation. The subject property is guided Village Urban Low Density Residential (V-LDR) in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for a density range of 1.5-2.49 units/acre (net). The applicants have completed the density calculation using the methodology consistent with the City’s adopted practice. The resulting net density calculation resulted in a net density of 2.20 units/acre (104 units/47.38 net developable acres). Therefore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the density requirements of the Village Urban Low Density Residential land use category. o Parks. The City’s Park Plan identifies proposed location for neighborhood parks based on the anticipated population that should be served by each park, the location of existing City parks and areas that are currently underserved. Given the proximity of the subject parcels to Reid Park, the Park Plan does not call for a neighborhood park in this portion of the Village Planning Area. However, it should be noted that the Village Land Use Plan encourages the dedication of the land east of Reid Park as a park expansion. In March of 2014, Gonyea Development presented plans for the Village Preserve subdivision in the northern portion of the Village Planning Area to the Park Commission. As part of the broader review of the area, Gonyea presented their plan to expand Reid Park as part of the Village Park Preserve subdivision. The Park Commission was supportive of this approach, as it would allow for the creation of a destination park in the Village. As part of the Village Park Preserve subdivision, the applicants are proposing to dedicate 15.77 acres of land for the expansion of Reid Park. Therefore, the Reid Park expansion would be consistent with the Village Land Use Plan and has been supported by the City’s Park Commission. o Water. Water will be provided to this area via existing watermain along 30th Street. In addition, the applicant proposes to pull watermain from the lift station, creating a hydrological loop of the system. It should be noted that the City has more than adequate capacity to serve the future subdivision on the subject property as a result of the construction of Well #4. Well #4 was recently connected to the broader water system as a result of a recent watermain extension north of the Village Planning Area. o Sanitary Sewer. The Village Preserve subdivision will be served by the sanitary sewer extension from the existing facilities located at the Village lift station site to the west of the proposed development. All wastewater for the proposed development would be directed via forcemain to the Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor located to the east of Lake Elmo Ave near Interstate-94, which is part of the regional wastewater treatment system administered by the Metropolitan PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 7 Council. It should be noted that there is adequate capacity of the wastewater system to serve the proposed residential development. o Phasing/Staging Plan. According to the City’s Wastewater Plan, the Village Planning Area is in Stage 1 of the City’s planned service areas. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s Staging Plan. • Zoning. The proposed zoning for the Village Preserve site will be LDR – Low Density Residential. The submitted development plans demonstrate compliance with the City’s urban residential zoning requirements. Single family detached housing is a permitted use within the LDR zoning district. • Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks, lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. Staff, as well as the City Engineer, have not identified any existing conflicts with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. • Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm water facilities, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development. • Phasing – Grading and Construction. The applicant noted in the submitted Project Narrative (Attachment #2) that the subdivision will be split into two phases of construction with regards to residential. However, the applicant intends to mass grade the site as part of the first phase of construction. As part of Final Plat and final construction documents, more detailed plans with regards to phasing of all improvements will be required. The City Engineer has also requested additional detail related to the phasing of improvement for the next stage of City approval. • Wetlands. The submitted narrative indicates that there are three wetland on the site. Two of the identified wetland are located within the proposed park area and will not be impacted by development activity. The third wetland, 782 square feet in size, is located on the Holliday parcel. The applicant has noted that this wetland is eligible for a de minimis exemption. The applicant is proposing to mitigate this smaller wetland through the Valley Branch Watershed District permitting process. Typical for any preliminary plat approval, the applicant will be required to meet all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and Valley Branch Watershed District (Condition #5). • Trails. The applicants are proposing two segments of trails within the development. The first trail is contained within the Village Parkway minor collector road and is consistent with the City’s approved typical section. The north-south trail segment will eventually provide direct pedestrian connection through Easton Village to the downtown area to the north and west. The second trail segment proposed is in the southwest portion of the development to provide connection to the proposed park expansion area next to Reid Park. Ultimately, staff would recommend that the Park Commission engage in a broader planning effort for the future use and design of Reid Park. Once a broader plan is PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 8 established, effective trail connections can be made to the existing park area to the west of the proposed development. In addition to the sidewalks proposed for the residential subdivision, there should be ample facilities and for walking, biking, and other recreational activities, offering effective connections to Reid Park and the broader Village Area. • Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The landscape and tree preservation plans have been reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect, Stephen Mastey. Mr. Mastey’s review memorandum related to the landscape and tree preservation plans is found in Attachment #9. Mastey has requested additional calculations pertaining to street trees. In addition, he makes several recommendations related to native ground cover and other plant selections. Staff is recommending that the Final Landscape Plan be updated per the recommendations of the landscape consultant (Condition #9). In addition, it should be noted that the Tree Preservation information is located on the provided Tree Survey (TS1). As noted in the tree survey, the proposed removal amount of significant trees is 22.6%, which is under the 30% removal threshold permitted under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Finally, with regards to tree preservation, the submitted landscape plans do not include tree protective fencing or other measures around the trees to be saved on the site. As part of the Final Landscape Plan, staff would recommend that tree protection measures be included. • Buffering. Buffering for the proposed subdivision is applicable in two areas: o Village Greenbelt. As part of the Village Land Use Plan, the southern and eastern portions of the development are guided for a greenbelt to create separation of residential lots from 30th Street and Manning Avenue. As proposed in the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat, this area is currently being utilized for stormwater management purposes, which is allowed under the City’s Land Use Plan. In addition, the Village Land Use Plan does not specify a set distance for the greenbelt. As shown in the plans, the separation between residential lots and 30th Street right-of-way ranges from 40 feet up to 130 feet. The separation between residential lots and Manning Avenue is greater. In addition, the Landscape Plan includes a more robust planting schedule along the greenbelt area for both Manning Avenue and 30th Street, including coniferous and evergreen trees for year-round screening. A cross section of the proposed plantings is also provided. o Mcleod Property. In addition to the recommended buffering along 30th Street and Manning Avenue, buffering and screening around the Mcleod property in the southwest portion of the development, particularly the east boundary, is required as a condition of approval for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Resolution 2014-60 – Attachment #4). Once again, a more aggressive planting schedule has been provided around the east and north boundary of the Mcleod property, providing year round screening. In addition, the lots on the east side of the Mcleod parcel are of greater size and depth than most of the lots in the development. Nevertheless, staff would recommend that the applicant install an additional row of trees in the rear of 1-3, Block 1 to provide additional screening. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 9 Staff is recommending that this requirement be included as a condition of approval (Condition #11). • Streets. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. All of the proposed cul-de-sacs meeting the minimum turning radii specified under the Subdivision Ordinance. It should be noted that the City Engineer has recommended some modest changes related to the southernmost intersection of Street 2 and the minor collector road. This recommendation is included in as a requested modification in his report, to which staff is recommending be included as a condition of approval (Condition #3). • Secondary Access. The primary access to the site will be provided from 30th Street via the Village Parkway minor collector road. Temporary secondary access may be achieved through the temporary connection to Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) through Easton Village. However, as this access is planned to be temporary, the permanent secondary access will be the connection of the Village Parkway minor collector road to Trunk Highway 5. The City must consider the timing of the closure of the temporary access on Manning Avenue with the broader interest of secondary access in mind. Coordination with both property owners/developers will continue in this regard. • Street Names. Staff is recommending that the street names for the proposed subdivision follow the Washington County street naming system. Staff has provided the applicant with proposed street names that are consistent with the Washington County system. In conversation with the applicant, they are amenable to the provided street names. Staff will work with the applicant to incorporate the correct street names in advance of Final Plat. • City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a detailed comment letter (Attachment #5) as a summary of his review of the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat. In addition, the City Engineer obtained additional review of the proposed storm water system through Brett Emmons of Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. In the memorandum, the Engineer highlights several of the critical path issues or modifications that must be resolved for the proposed design to move forward. One of these issues remains the discharge of storm water to a new location within a new culvert to the south of 30th Street. As a condition of approval (Condition #6), staff is recommending that the necessary permissions related to this stormwater discharge be provided in advance of Final Plat application. In addition, the other necessary revisions and modifications identified in the City Engineer’s memorandum must also be made in advance of Final Plat (Condition #3). • Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the Village Park Preserve plat and provided specific comments to the City in a letter dated September 3, 2014 (Attachment #7). The most significant of the County’s comments relate to the need for additional right-of-way for both Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) and the Manning-30th Street intersection. As a condition of approval (Condition #8), staff is recommending that the applicants observe all requirements in the review memorandum submitted by Washington County. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 10 • Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). The Valley Branch Watershed District has not provided any formal comments for the proposed plat at this time. It should be noted that the developer must meet all the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act and VBWD and will need to secure permits from the VBWD in order to proceed with the development as planned (Condition #5). • Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat (Attachment #6) and found the hydrant locations to be sufficient in terms of spacing and operation effectiveness. In addition, the Fire Chief is requesting that the street names follow the Washington County street naming system. Staff will work with the applicant to update the street names per the input of the Fire Chief in advance of Final Plat. • Metropolitan Airports Commission Review. Neil Ralston of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has submitted a review memorandum documenting the concerns and requests for additional work related to the subdivision’s location adjacent to the Lake Elmo Airport. The memorandum is found in Attachment #8. The most critical issues relate to the design of the stormwater management facilities on the site. In addition, MAC is recommending that an aeronautical study be filed with the FAA for any structures over 35 feet in height utilized in the construction of the subdivision. Staff is recommending that the applicant address all review comments in the memorandum submitted by MAC as part of any final plat submittal (Condition #13). Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with 13 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) The Metropolitan Council must approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel in advance of the City’s consideration of an application for Final Plat for the Village Park Preserve Subdivision. 2) In advance of Final Plat application, the applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney. 3) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review memorandum dated September 4, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a Final Plat. 4) The Preliminary Plat approval is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all minimum City standards and design requirements. 5) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from Valley Branch Watershed District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 11 6) Related to the proposed storm water discharge to the south, the applicant must provide written permission from all property owners of the affected parcels located south of the proposed 30th Street culvert consenting to the discharge location, volume and rate(s) in advance of submitting Final Plat. 7) The applicant shall be responsible for the submission of final plans and the construction of all improvements within the 30th Street right-of-way as required by the City and further described in the review memorandum from the City Engineer dated September 4, 2014. 8) The applicant shall observe all right-of-way and other requirements included in a review memorandum from Washington County dated September 3, 2014. 9) The Landscape Plan shall be updated per the recommendations of the City’s Landscape Consultant, describe in a memo dated September 4, 2014. Tree protection measures for trees intended to be saved according to the submitted Tree Survey must be included in the Final Landscape Plan. 10) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 11) The applicant shall install an additional row of trees in the rear of Lots 1-3, Block 1 to provide additional screening for the eastern boundary of the Mcleod property to satisfy the condition of approval related to the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 12) The developer shall obtain all required permits from Northern Natural Gas to perform construction work over the gas line that runs from north to south across this site. 13) The developer shall address any comments from Metropolitan Airport Commission documented in a review memorandum dated September 3, 2014 as part of a final plat submission for any portion of Village Park Preserve. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat: • That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area conditioned upon receiving final approval for the Metropolitan Council for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Holliday parcel. • That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s LDR- Urban Low Density Residential zoning district. • That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 12 • That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, and other ordinances, except where noted in the conditions of approval or the attachments to this report. • That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s comments documented in a letter dated September 4, 2014. • That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides effective and safe pedestrian facilities, providing access to Reid Park and a future connection to downtown Lake Elmo, contributing to a walkable community as guided by the Village Land Use Plan. • That the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat provides a significant expansion of Reid Park, as recommended by the Village Land Use Plan. • That the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision will allow for the completion of the Village Parkway minor collector road from 30th Street to Easton Village, providing a critical transportation improvement needed for the Village Planning Area. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat with the 13 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Village Park Preserve preliminary plat with the 13 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application Form and Project Narrative 3. Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans (34 Sheets) 4. Resolution 2014-60 5. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 9/4/14 6. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 8/27/14 7. Washington County Review Letter, dated 9/3/14 8. Metropolitan Airports Commission Review Letter, dated 9/3/14 9. City’s Landscape Consultant Review Memo, dated 9/4/14. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ..................................................Community Development Director - Report by Staff ................................................................................ City Planner - Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A 13 - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission ........................... Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A - 1 – 9/5/2014 VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE Development Narrative September 2, 2014 Developer Introduction: GWSA LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Craig Allen 10850 Old County Road 15 Suite 200 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55441 Telephone: 952-270-4473 Email: craig@gonyeacompany.com The developer is proposing a community of 104 single family homes on +/- 63.6 acres of land located on the west side of Manning Avenue North (CASH15), north of 30th Street North. The Schiltgen parcel and the Holliday parcel comprise the 63.6 acres of land. This proposed residential development will consist of higher end single family homes. It is anticipated that these homes will range in price from $400,000 to $650,000. The development is located in an area of Lake Elmo with easy access to the transportation system. This will provide the future home owners a secluded place to live that is located within minutes of all the amenities Lake Elmo has to offer with the regional facilities of the larger metropolitan area. - 2 – 9/5/2014 “VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE” The project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases, of 50-60 lots per phase. The primary access is the proposed Village Parkway from 30th Street North. Over 15.7 acres of land is proposed to be dedicated as parkland to add to the existing Reid Park. A trail connection to the park area is proposed in the southwest corner. Over seventy five percent of the homes in the community will have a walkout basement. The project is located within the Stillwater School District #834. Development Team: Civil Engineering, Surveying & Land Planning Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. Robert S. Molstad, P.E. David B. Pemberton, P.L.S. 150 South Broadway Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: 952-476-6000 Facsimile: 952-476-0104 Email: molstad@sathre.com Email: pemberton@sathre.com Wetland & Biological Sciences Kjolhaug Environmental Services Melissa Barrett 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Telephone: 952-401-8757 Email: Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com Soil Sciences Haugo GeoTechnical Services Paul Haugo 13570 Grove Drive #278 Maple Grove, MN 55311 Telephone: (612) 554-4829 Email: p.haugo@gmail.com Property Ownership: Per Schedule A of Title Commitment No. HB-26627A (northerly property) The North 50 acres of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, except that part which lies easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 45 minutes 30 seconds West along the South line of said Southeast Quarter, 159.73 feet (bearings are based on the Washington County Coordinate System); thence North 01 degree 14 minutes 30 - 3 – 9/5/2014 seconds West, 33 feet, thence North 43 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds East, 142.10 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 00 degrees 45 minutes 51 seconds West, 1188.14 feet to said North line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating. Abstract Property. Per Schedule A of Title Commitment No. HB-26880 (southerly property) The South 498.6 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter (S1/2 of SE1/4); Section Thirteen (13),Township Twenty Nine North (29N.), Range Twenty-one West (21W.); except the West 1273.0 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section Thirteen (13). And excepting therefrom that portion of the above tract conveyed to the County of Washington by that certain Quit Claim Deed dated March 30,1987, and filed of record in the Office of the Washington County Recorder on April 2, 1987 as Document No. 535377. Abstract Property. Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, Density, & Variances: The site consists of the Schiltgen parcel +/- 49 acres and the Holliday parcel +/- 14.8 acres. The Existing Land Use is classified as Rural Area Development. On the Village Land Use Plan, the planned Land Use for the Schiltgen parcel is Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR) and Rural Area Development (RAD) for the Holliday parcel. The attached preliminary plat shows 104 single family lots that are a minimum width of 65 feet. There are 60 lots that are in the 65’ lot width, 4 lots in the 75’ lot width, and 40 lots that are 81’ in width. The smallest lot area is L4B3 (65’) – 8,342 sf and the largest lot area is L7B2 (81’) at 27,055 sf, with an average lot area of 11,421 for the entire project. Lake Elmo Zoning: Both parcels are currently zoned RT. The Schiltgen parcel is currently planned as Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR) and the Holliday parcel is currently planned as Rural Area Development (RAD). A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Holliday parcel from RAD to V-LDR was approved by City Council and is currently being reviewed by the MET Council. The V-LDR district has the following requirements: V-LDR District 1.5 – 2.5 units per acre Minimum Lot Area – 8,000 square feet Minimum Width – 60 feet Front Yard Setback – 25 feet Side Yard Setback – 5 feet to garage and 10 feet to living space Corner Yard Setback – 15 feet Rear Yard Setback – 20 feet - 4 – 9/5/2014 Density: Gross Site Area: 63.55 acres Gross Density = 104/63.55 = 1.64 units per acre Wetland Area: 0.40 acres Proposed Park Area: 15.77 acres Net Area: 63.55-0.40-15.77 = 47.38 acres Net Density = 104/47.38 = 2.2 units per acre Variances – No variances are proposed. A preliminary plat lot area tabulation sheet is in Appendix A of this narrative. Site Analysis: The site is currently being used for agricultural purposes. Please refer to the ALTA Survey and the aerial photos. Utility service, sanitary sewer will be provided to the site as part of the proposed Trunk Sanitary Sewer project that will extend sewer service from the new lift station at Reid Park, north to the Site, the current plan is to provide sanitary sewer from the stub in the proposed Village Parkway, from the Easton Village project. A 12” trunk watermain will be installed with the proposed trunk sanitary sewer system, that will provide a watermain connection for the proposed development. Storm water will be managed and outlet from the site in accordance with the City and Watershed requirements. The proposed stormwater plan would outlet with a new storm sewer pipe down the west side of Manning Avenue North to the culvert about 850 feet south of 30th Street North. The site is within the Valley Branch Watershed District. Minor utilities (gas, electric, phone, and TV) will need to be extended to service the site. The topography of the site is relatively flat on most of the site, 914 to 926 for the proposed development area. The proposed park area drops in elevation from 926 to +/- 892. There are three existing wetlands on the site, two wetlands are within the proposed park area and no impacts are proposed by the residential development. The third wetland qualifies for a de minimis exemption and an application has been filed with Valley Branch Watershed District. Once approved the de minimis classification would allow us to fill without replacing. The USDA Soil Survey of the project site indicates Antigo Silt Loams, Campia Silt Loams, and Mahtomedi Loamy Sand. The soils that are present consist of mostly moderately well drained loams and sandy loams with a moderate permeability. Street Design: “Village Park Preserve” proposes a north south parkway (Village Parkway), the parkway will be 32’ B-B within an 80’ ROW. The other public streets within the project would be 28’ B-B, with a sidewalk along one side of the street, within a 60’ ROW. The cul-de-sacs will have a 44’ Radius to the back of curb. All streets will be constructed to the City of Lake Elmo standard street section. - 5 – 9/5/2014 Utility Services: City sanitary sewer and watermain will need to be extended to the site, please see the notes above. Site Grading: The site grading is planned to begin in the fall of 2014. The project will be graded in one phase. The overall graded area is +/- 45.5 acres. We are proposing to grade all streets to the proposed hold downs and prepare corrected building pads for all home sites. We are creating five stormwater ponding areas and one infiltration area to meet the stormwater treatment requirements of the City and the Watershed. The excavation of on-site material is estimated at +/- 180,000 cy. It is our design objective to balance the site with on-site material, some import of suitable structural fill material may be necessary for building pad, street, and retaining wall construction. As the final design analysis is completed we will provide detailed construction plans for the project to the City of Lake Elmo. Stormwater: The stormwater facilities proposed in “Village Park Preserve” are illustrated on the enclosed preliminary plans. Runoff from the site will be directed to storm sewer inlet locations, collected and conveyed to the proposed treatment pond(s) and filtration area(s). The ponds and filtration areas will provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff, treatment of stormwater and sediment removal. The stormwater plan will provide adequate treatment and storage to meet the City of Lake Elmo and the Valley Branch Watershed District requirements. Traffic: “Village Park Preserve” proposes one primary access point (Village Parkway) off of 30th Street North. Traffic Generation – (anticipate 10 trips per day per home site) 104 Lots = 1,040 trips per day Trail System: Six-foot concrete sidewalks are proposed along residential streets within the site. In addition, there are 8.5 foot trails proposed to promote neighborhood connectivity. Woodland Areas & Protection: I. Introduction A current tree survey in accordance with City of Lake Elmo requirements has been completed for this site and is included in the submittal. The tree inventory plan is shown on the Erosion Control Plan. 25 trees were identified, per the City requirements. - 6 – 9/5/2014 II. Tree Species, Distribution and Size: The site has 467.5 caliper inches of significant trees, with 100.0 caliper inches of exempt trees for a net total of 367.5 caliper inches. The trees located throughout the site. The species include Cherry, Box Elder, Hackberry, Ash, and a few others. A table containing data on the trees, as well as a map which shows tree location, species, size and condition, are shown in the preliminary plans, please see the Erosion Control Plan. Tree Removal & Restitution: The “Village Park Preserve” development will impact approximately 22.6% of the significant trees on the site. The development is under the 30% threshold. Landscape Plan, Monuments, & Entrance: This development will have a parkway access from 30th Street North. Many of the lots will have pond views or overlook views, due to the site topography. The stormwater ponds and treatment areas will have landscaping to create unique water treatment facilities for the proposed project. A custom entry monument may be designed and constructed at the proposed entrance. This will create a sense of luxury and livability for the new single family residents, while providing safer access to the site. Landscaping, monuments and other furnishings will be designed to conform to the Lake Elmo Branding and Theming Study. Homeowner’s Association and Restrictive Covenants: The developer will prepare restrictive covenants and standards that will apply to this 104 lot project. The restrictive covenants will be tailored to the developer’s vision of the project. Each home will be required to meet the specifics of building types, landscaping, and overall goals of the development. A master HOA will be created for the “Village Park Preserve” project. This association will be in charge of the monumentation, entrance, landscaping, and infiltration basins. The HOA will also be responsible for maintenance issues within the subdivision. These may include special landscaping, mailboxes, signage, and other common elements. APPENDIX A: Village Park Preserve– Preliminary Plat Lot Area Summary BLOCK 1 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 1 22,997 s.f. 0.53 acres 0 s.f. 22,997 s.f. 0.53 acres 86.9 +/- l.f. Lot 2 15,466 s.f. 0.36 acres 0 s.f. 15,466 s.f. 0.36 acres 74.8 +/- l.f. Lot 3 16,238 s.f. 0.37 acres 0 s.f. 16,238 s.f. 0.37 acres 74.8 +/- l.f. Lot 4 21,309 s.f. 0.49 acres 0 s.f. 21,309 s.f. 0.49 acres 86.6 +/- l.f. - 7 – 9/5/2014 Lot 5 15,634 s.f. 0.36 acres 0 s.f. 15,634 s.f. 0.36 acres 120.1 +/- l.f. Lot 6 14,347 s.f. 0.33 acres 0 s.f. 14,347 s.f. 0.33 acres 95.1 +/- l.f. Lot 7 12,999 s.f. 0.30 acres 0 s.f. 12,999 s.f. 0.30 acres 82.1 +/- l.f. Lot 8 12,034 s.f. 0.28 acres 0 s.f. 12,034 s.f. 0.28 acres 80.9 +/- l.f. Lot 9 11,518 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,518 s.f. 0.26 acres 81.8 +/- l.f. Lot 10 10,677 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,677 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 11 13,329 s.f. 0.31 acres 0 s.f. 13,329 s.f. 0.31 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 12 14,784 s.f. 0.34 acres 0 s.f. 14,784 s.f. 0.34 acres 81 +/- l.f. Total 362,664 s.f. 8.33 acres 0 s.f. 362,664 s.f. 8.33 acres BLOCK 2 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 1 18,200 s.f. 0.42 acres 0 s.f. 18,200 s.f. 0.42 acres 81.5 +/- l.f. Lot 2 21,102 s.f. 0.48 acres 0 s.f. 21,102 s.f. 0.48 acres 82.1 +/- l.f. Lot 3 16,406 s.f. 0.38 acres 0 s.f. 16,406 s.f. 0.38 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 4 16,691 s.f. 0.38 acres 0 s.f. 16,691 s.f. 0.38 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 5 18,012 s.f. 0.41 acres 0 s.f. 18,012 s.f. 0.41 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 6 26,509 s.f. 0.61 acres 0 s.f. 26,509 s.f. 0.61 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 7 27,055 s.f. 0.62 acres 0 s.f. 27,055 s.f. 0.62 acres 80.7 +/- l.f. Lot 8 12,112 s.f. 0.28 acres 0 s.f. 12,112 s.f. 0.28 acres 80.7 +/- l.f. Lot 9 12,164 s.f. 0.28 acres 0 s.f. 12,164 s.f. 0.28 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 10 11,894 s.f. 0.27 acres 0 s.f. 11,894 s.f. 0.27 acres 81.2 +/- l.f. Lot 11 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 12 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 13 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 14 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,988 s.f. 0.25 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 15 13,012 s.f. 0.30 acres 0 s.f. 13,012 s.f. 0.30 acres 96 +/- l.f. Total 474,218 s.f. 10.89 acres 0 s.f. 474,218 s.f. 10.89 acres BLOCK 3 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 1 10,852 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,852 s.f. 0.25 acres 80 +/- l.f. Lot 2 8,813 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,813 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 3 8,680 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,680 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 4 8,342 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,342 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f. - 8 – 9/5/2014 Lot 5 10,457 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,457 s.f. 0.24 acres 66.9 +/- l.f. Lot 6 10,407 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,407 s.f. 0.24 acres 72.9 +/- l.f. Lot 7 11,345 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,345 s.f. 0.26 acres 77.8 +/- l.f. Lot 8 13,467 s.f. 0.31 acres 0 s.f. 13,467 s.f. 0.31 acres 68.9 +/- l.f. Lot 9 11,462 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,462 s.f. 0.26 acres 71 +/- l.f. Lot 10 10,266 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,266 s.f. 0.24 acres 72.9 +/- l.f. Lot 11 10,042 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,042 s.f. 0.23 acres 69.5 +/- l.f. Lot 12 8,862 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,862 s.f. 0.20 acres 66 +/- l.f. Lot 13 8,630 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,630 s.f. 0.20 acres 65.1 +/- l.f. Lot 14 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 15 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 16 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f. Total 313,950 s.f. 7.21 acres 0 s.f. 313,950 s.f. 7.21 acres BLOCK 4 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 1 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,450 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 2 8,827 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,827 s.f. 0.20 acres 72.7 +/- l.f. Lot 3 9,883 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,883 s.f. 0.23 acres 77 +/- l.f. Lot 4 11,251 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,251 s.f. 0.26 acres 74.8 +/- l.f. Lot 5 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f. Lot 6 10,166 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,166 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f. Lot 7 10,196 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,196 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f. Lot 8 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,903 s.f. 0.23 acres 64.9 +/- l.f. Lot 9 9,577 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,577 s.f. 0.22 acres 78.1 +/- l.f. Lot 10 8,915 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,915 s.f. 0.20 acres 77 +/- l.f. Lot 11 8,547 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,547 s.f. 0.20 acres 67.3 +/- l.f. Lot 12 8,999 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 8,999 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.2 +/- l.f. Lot 13 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f. Lot 14 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f. Lot 15 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f. Lot 16 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,135 s.f. 0.21 acres 65.4 +/- l.f. Total 302,314 s.f. 6.94 acres 0 s.f. 302,314 s.f. 6.94 acres BLOCK GROSS AREA WETLAND NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK - 9 – 9/5/2014 5 AREA Lot 1 9,240 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,240 s.f. 0.21 acres 78.7 +/- l.f. Lot 2 9,108 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,108 s.f. 0.21 acres 78.7 +/- l.f. Lot 3 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 76.7 +/- l.f. Lot 4 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,020 s.f. 0.21 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 5 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 64.9 +/- l.f. Lot 6 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,262 s.f. 0.21 acres 64.9 +/- l.f. Lot 7 8,675 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,675 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 8 11,717 s.f. 0.27 acres 0 s.f. 11,717 s.f. 0.27 acres 77.1 +/- l.f. Total 150,608 s.f. 3.46 acres 0 s.f. 150,608 s.f. 3.46 acres BLOCK 6 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 1 11,333 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,333 s.f. 0.26 acres 96.7 +/- l.f. Lot 2 8,509 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,509 s.f. 0.20 acres 66.4 +/- l.f. Lot 3 9,388 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,388 s.f. 0.22 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 4 10,729 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 10,729 s.f. 0.25 acres 74.4 +/- l.f. Lot 5 9,749 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,749 s.f. 0.22 acres 75 +/- l.f. Lot 6 11,229 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,229 s.f. 0.26 acres 85 +/- l.f. Total 121,874 s.f. 2.80 acres 0 s.f. 121,874 s.f. 2.80 acres BLOCK 7 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 1 11,671 s.f. 0.27 acres 0 s.f. 11,671 s.f. 0.27 acres 80.1 +/- l.f. Lot 2 9,380 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,380 s.f. 0.22 acres 64.9 +/- l.f. Lot 3 9,270 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,270 s.f. 0.21 acres 74.1 +/- l.f. Lot 4 9,925 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,925 s.f. 0.23 acres 84.9 +/- l.f. Lot 5 9,342 s.f. 0.21 acres 0 s.f. 9,342 s.f. 0.21 acres 74.9 +/- l.f. Lot 6 10,430 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,430 s.f. 0.24 acres 80 +/- l.f. Lot 7 9,667 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,667 s.f. 0.22 acres 70 +/- l.f. Lot 8 10,140 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,140 s.f. 0.23 acres 86.9 +/- l.f. Lot 9 11,087 s.f. 0.25 acres 0 s.f. 11,087 s.f. 0.25 acres 100.8 +/- l.f. Lot 10 11,343 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,343 s.f. 0.26 acres 97.7 +/- l.f. Lot 11 9,609 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,609 s.f. 0.22 acres 80.7 +/- l.f. Lot 12 8,579 s.f. 0.20 acres 0 s.f. 8,579 s.f. 0.20 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 13 8,454 s.f. 0.19 acres 0 s.f. 8,454 s.f. 0.19 acres 65 +/- l.f. Lot 14 10,400 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,400 s.f. 0.24 acres 80 +/- l.f. Total 278,594 s.f. 6.40 acres 0 s.f. 278,594 s.f. 6.40 acres - 10 – 9/5/2014 BLOCK 8 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 1 12,831 s.f. 0.29 acres 0 s.f. 12,831 s.f. 0.29 acres 96 +/- l.f. Lot 2 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 3 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,279 s.f. 0.26 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 4 11,189 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,189 s.f. 0.26 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 5 10,164 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 10,164 s.f. 0.23 acres 91.8 +/- l.f. Lot 6 9,736 s.f. 0.22 acres 0 s.f. 9,736 s.f. 0.22 acres 84.3 +/- l.f. Lot 7 11,407 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,407 s.f. 0.26 acres 109.1 +/- l.f. Lot 8 11,408 s.f. 0.26 acres 0 s.f. 11,408 s.f. 0.26 acres 101.4 +/- l.f. Lot 9 10,606 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,606 s.f. 0.24 acres 83.8 +/- l.f. Lot 10 10,632 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,632 s.f. 0.24 acres 99.4 +/- l.f. Lot 11 10,546 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,546 s.f. 0.24 acres 98.7 +/- l.f. Lot 12 9,965 s.f. 0.23 acres 0 s.f. 9,965 s.f. 0.23 acres 85.3 +/- l.f. Lot 13 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 14 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 15 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 16 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 0 s.f. 10,530 s.f. 0.24 acres 81 +/- l.f. Lot 17 12,481 s.f. 0.29 acres 0 s.f. 12,481 s.f. 0.29 acres 96 +/- l.f. Total 371,286 s.f. 8.52 acres 0 s.f. 371,286 s.f. 8.52 acres OUTLOT GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK 1 14,417 s.f. 0.33 acres 0 s.f. 14,417 s.f. 0.33 acres 0 +/- l.f. 2 686,961 s.f. 15.77 acres 0 s.f. 686,961 s.f. 15.77 acres 0 +/- l.f. 3 50,900 s.f. 1.17 acres 0 s.f. 50,900 s.f. 1.17 acres 0 +/- l.f. 4 32,677 s.f. 0.75 acres 0 s.f. 32,677 s.f. 0.75 acres 0 +/- l.f. 5 45,019 s.f. 1.03 acres 0 s.f. 45,019 s.f. 1.03 acres 0 +/- l.f. 6 262,419 s.f. 6.02 acres 0 s.f. 262,419 s.f. 6.02 acres 0 +/- l.f. Total 2,184,786 s.f. 50.16 acres 0 s.f. 2,184,786 s.f. 50.16 acres R/W GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK 473,313 s.f. 10.87 acres 0 s.f. 473,313 s.f. 10.87 acres 0 +/- l.f. TOTAL GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA 4,730,142 s.f. 108.59 acres 0 s.f. 4,730,142 s.f. acres - 11 – 9/5/2014 PAGE 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM Date: September 4, 2014 To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Village Park Preserve Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner Preliminary Plat Review From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer An engineering review has been completed for the Village Park Preserve. A Preliminary Plan submittal was received on August 27, 2014. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Sathre‐ Bergquist, Inc.:  Village Park Preserve Site Plans, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Plans August 14, 2014.  Stormwater Management Plan, dated August 7, 2014. STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering review comments are as outlined below. AGENCY AND THIRD PARTY APPROVALS  The proposed drainage plan indicates the direct discharge of storm water runoff from the site to the property to the south, including the installation of a storm sewer outfall pipe. The applicant must submit written permission from the impacted property owner acknowledging and consenting to this discharge location, volume and rate(s).  A permanent utility easement must be provided in the City standard easement form for the outfall storm sewer pipe. The easement should be a condition of final plat approval.  The site plan is dependent upon and subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and regulations.  The City must receive written approvals from Washington County to verify the proposed work along Manning Avenue.  The City must receive copies of the written approvals from Northern Natural Gas for the proposed utility and trail crossings. Any conditions of approval must be provided.  Plan revisions are necessary to fully incorporate and comply with the Lake Elmo engineering design standards.  Easement widths appear to provide the 30 foot minimum utility width. Additional easements and amendments may be required as the plan continues to evolve through the process. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED  No phasing plan was submitted. A phasing plan must be submitted for staff review to verify feasibility of working infrastructure at each phase.  Existing conditions are incomplete. The Plans do not provide existing conditions in sufficient detail to allow staff to review the proposed grading and infrastructure as it relates to existing conditions at the Plat FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283 PAGE 2 of 4 perimeters, including the storm sewer outfall pipe south of 30th Street and the existing watermain along 30th street.  Grading contours must be fully completed at all Plat perimeters.  Overland Emergency Overflows (EOFs) must be provided throughout the grading plan to facilitate a complete review of the grading plan and storm water flood protection for storm water ponds and localized low points.  Stormwater facility maintenance access roads are not shown on the plans. GRADING PLAN  The grading plan is substantially complete however some contours remain incomplete near the plat perimeter. All contours must be completed to demonstrate a drainage design that does not negatively impact adjacent properties.  Additional plan review is necessary once EOFs are provided to review for adequate flood protection for each adjacent lot. It appears that 8‐10 lots have low floor elevations that do not meet the 2 feet of freeboard above the pond HWLs or 1 foot above an adjacent EOF.  The HWL for Infiltration Area 1SE encroaches into Lot 1, Block 1. The HWL area must be fully contained within an Outlot dedicated to the City.  The HWL for Stormwater Pond 1SE encroaches into the 30th Street R/W. The HWL area must be fully contained within an Outlot dedicated to the City and may not encroach the existing City R/W.  Maintenance access roads meeting City Standards must be provided to each Stormwater pond and infiltration basin. Plan revisions are needed to provide adequate maintenance access to all storm water facilities. Access must be accommodated without impacts to the proposed infiltration benches.  Stormwater Pond designs do not meet the City requirements, exceeding the maximum depth allowed of 10 feet. Additional design configuration concerns include maximum side slopes, maintenance of the infiltration bench, narrow constrictions within the ponds, and long term water levels.  Additional catch basins are needed along Road 3 to meet maximum curb runs of 350 feet. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT  The site plan is dependent upon and subject to a storm water management plan meeting State, VBWD and City rules and regulations. Storm water facilities proposed as part of the site plan to meet VBWD permitting requirements must be constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Design Standards Manual available on the City website.  The Stormwater model should be revised as documented in the attached EOR review memorandum and the Stormwater facilities revised accordingly.  Adjust assumed CN runoff coefficients and account for on‐site depressional areas.  Provide additional supporting documentation for assumed infiltration rates and adjust to lower rates as needed.  Provide additional documentation to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed new outlet and lowering of the outlet invert along Manning Avenue.  Update the model to include turn lanes improvements.  Update water quality value in table. MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY  Municipal water supply is available at the Reid Park lift station site and along 30th Street N. Connections to both locations will be required and have been shown on the Preliminary Plans.  Watermain alignment will need to be revised as part of the final construction plans to better align within the paved street surfaces.  Watermain stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City staff as the development progresses forward and oversizing routes may need to be changed as part of the final PAGE 3 of 4 construction plans. Watermain oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the development agreement.  Hydrant and system valve locations will be reviewed with the Fire Chief and Public Works as part of the final construction plans. MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER  Municipal sanitary sewer is available at the Reid Park lift station site. The applicant is responsible to extend the municipal sanitary sewer to the development site at developers cost.  To serve the property to the south, the invert at the 30th Street location must be at 905. This is required to remain responsive to future private ISTS system failures.  A review of alternative sewer alignments and pipe oversizing was previously completed by City staff and provided to the applicant for input. The preliminary plans show a pipe configuration that is not consistent with the staff plan recommendation.  Additional manholes will need to be incorporated in the plans to improve the street centerline alignment for the sanitary sewer and allow watermain at a 10 foot offset to remain within the paved street surface.  Sanitary sewer pipe stubs to adjacent property and pipe oversizing will continue to be reviewed by City staff as the development progresses forward. Revisions may need to be incorporated as part of the final construction plans. Sewer pipe oversizing has been accounted for through the Village East Trunk Sanitary Sewer project. Therefore, the sewer pipe oversizing must be installed at no cost to the City. RESIDENTIAL STREETS  All streets must be designed to meet the City’s Engineering Design Standards including R/W width, street width and cul‐de‐sac radii. The plans appear to substantially conform to this requirement.  The street grades and profiles must be adjusted to meet the minimum K‐value of 37 for vertical sag curves.  The eyebrow designs for Roads 5, 6 and 7 propose a unique design. The roadway geometry requires additional review to ensure adequate pavement width and turning radius for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Turning templates must be submitted.  The geometry for Road 5 requires particular attention to avoid conflicts along the higher volume roadway of Village Parkway. Road 5 should be shifter further north to align the south curb with Road 2. This would provide additional southbound left turn lane length for Village Parkway. VILLAGE PARKWAY (NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR STREET)  Village Parkway will serve as a neighborhood collector for the new development in the southeastern Village area, essentially becoming the primary access in and out of the future neighborhoods. Obtaining increased mobility from a typical residential street will be necessary to accommodate the new growth while providing additional access and circulation into and out of the Village Downtown. Between State Highway 5 and the UP Railroad, Village Parkway will provide parking along one or both sides of the street to accommodate the mixed use development planned for the west side of the collector road. South of the UP Railroad the street will be posted as “No Parking”.  Village Parkway must be constructed according to the Village Parkway design standards and typical section as prepared by City staff. The street design must also meet Municipal State Aid design standards for an urban collector with ADT < 10,000; 35 mph design speed. The projected 2030 ADT is 5,800. The City typical section must be placed on the Preliminary Street Plans.  The access management guidelines for Village Parkway must be established by the City and carefully planned out along its entire corridor from 30th Street to State Highway 5. Road 5 has been placed roughly 300 feet from 30th Street. A 330 foot access spacing is recommended. The additional 30 feet would help to provide additional turn lane length along Village Parkway.  Right and left turn lanes are required along 30th Street when the Village Parkway intersection is constructed. The Preliminary Plans should be revised to provide a turn lane Plan Sheet to detail the turn PAGE 4 of 4 lane dimensions, including pavement widths, lane widths, turn lane lengths and tapers for staff review. It appears that the proposed turn lanes will need to be lengthened to meet typical turn lane design standards.  The street grades and profiles must be adjusted along Village Parkway to meet the minimum K‐value of 49 for vertical sag curves and minimum K‐value of 29 for vertical crest curves. In addition, street grade changes along Village Parkway should be minimized and softened (not using minimum standards with every adjustment). The proposed profile must be revised to reduce the vertical curves to avoid a roller coaster effect along this high volume roadway. Street alignment transitions must be revised to rely on minimums only when necessary.  The minimum horizontal curve radius for Village Parkway is 375 feet. C1 is currently proposed with a 250 foot radius. 651 Hale Avenue North Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 telephone: 651.770.8448 facsimile: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. water | ecology | community memo Date | 9/3/2014 To | Jack Griffin Contact info |Lake Elmo cc | Contact info | cc | Contact info | From | Brett H. Emmons, Jay Hill Contact info |EOR Contact info | Regarding | Lake Elmo, Village Park Preserve Development – Respond to City’s List of Stormwater Review Issues The information in these review comments are based on review of the following stormwater issues, per the city’s request:  Stormwater model input assumptions.  Upstream runoff properly accounted for, including the pond discharge from Easton Village.  Stormwater routing management is a workable plan for the area. The system must be able to accommodate the Downtown Village drainage.  Flood protection (HWLs and Emergency overflows), including recommendations.  Pond configurations and depths from the city’s long term ownership and maintenance perspective (i.e. the deep storm water pond along Manning). Documents submitted for the development review include:  Preliminary Plan Set for Street, Utility, Grading, Landscape, and Drainage Area Plans, by Sathre-Bergquist, dated 8/8/14  Stormwater Management Plan including 3 soil borings, by Sathre-Bergquist, dated 8/7/14 Stormwater Management and Stormwater BMPs: 1. CN and Runoff Assumptions – Proposed existing conditions (predevelopment) CNs appear too high and on-site depressional storage is not accounted for, thus providing a less conservative standard/target for their postdevelopment design. Discussion: Predevelopment CNs are listed at 69 for agricultural areas (compared to post-development CNs of 74). The CN of 69 for existing conditions is high for the low runoff character of the existing lands. Also, observed runoff during rain events indicates that there is not much runoff until large events are experienced and/or snowmelt. Assuming higher predevelopment CNs leads to less conservative assumptions and reduced standards for peak rate control. For example, note that compacted yard/urban lawns are listed as CN 61 in post-development (much lower than existing CN of 69). Typically we would require a CN of 58 for predevelopment conditions to ensure memo 2 of 4 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com conservative assumptions for hydrologic routing and flood control. Areas in the model subcatchments for the open water pond with CNs of 100 do not appear in the model and should be included. On-site depressional storage is not accounted for in existing conditions and should be included. 2. Infiltration Assumptions – The assumed infiltration rate of 0.5 in/hr may be too high and is inconsistently applied and presented in the report and models. Discussion: The assumed infiltration rates do not appear to be consistent between the models (HydroCAD and P8) and the narrative (Report Summary) of the Stormwater Management Plan. The narrative mentions using 0.5 in/hr in one pond, #1SE (only pond where infiltration bench is shown), and states this rate is assumed as a “conservative” rate. The P8 model uses 1.0 in/hr instead of 0.5 in/hr. The HydroCAD modeling has infiltration in all the ponds in the development instead of just pond #1SE. The rate of 0.5 in/hr is not very conservative especially for the soils in the upper 24 ft – 29 ft (boring ST- 2 and ST-3, within the basin). Water table readings indicate a high water table may exist, although the readings between borings are inconsistent (possibly perched system). There is one (1) point infiltration testing result showing 4.32 in/hr. One reading alone is not sufficient for accurate infiltration estimating nor is it good practice (more samples are needed) and the infiltration method and results need additional review. 3. Stormwater Routing Using New Outlet – The new outlet is lower than the existing outlet under 30th St., but it is not clear what the downstream elevations and capacities are to ensure the new outlet is feasible, nor are details of the connection given. Discussion: The most downstream pond and one influencing HWLs on the other development ponds is pond 1SE. Pond 1SE has a listed NWL of 911.0, which is almost two feet below the existing culvert invert of 912.8 under 30th St. Details are needed on the new outlet for pond 1SE shown in the southeast corner (invert, size, type of pipe, permissions off-site, downstream conveyance elevations and capacity, etc.). No tailwater is used in the model for pond 1SE and this assumption should be verified. Provide information on the downstream conveyance to ensure that elevation and capacity exists for the proposed flows (186 or 331 cfs-? for 100-yr rainfall event) and associated calculated HWLs. 4. Stormwater Modeling – The information provided in the summary and modeling are inconsistent and details on where the upstream flow values originate from are lacking, making evaluation of flow routing difficult. Discussion: The model should be updated to better represent what is happening hydrologically in the system. Provide information on where the Existing Conditions peak flow rates come from and how they were derived. Comparing proposed peak flow rates to existing conditions is difficult without context on the existing flow rates – and the capacity of the system downstream to convey that flow. Show how and where upstream flows (2-yr 100 cfs, 10-yr 172 cfs, and 100-yr 331 cfs per Report Summary) will come into the site. Which values for incoming flows is correct, the Runoff Comparison table or the HydroCAD modeling, since they are factor of ~2X different (e.g., table 2-yr = 100 cfs, model 2-yr = 54 cfs)? The only inlet to pond 1SE is a 15” storm sewer in the northeast corner. Pipe size and inverts need to be shown for the proposed new outlet for pond 1SE (the regional flow path). Pipe sizes and inverts should also be labeled on the memo 3 of 4 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com grading plans. As noted above, no tailwater is shown in the model for pond 1SE and this assumption should be verified with downstream information. 5. Include Associated Improvements – Accounting for localized road improvements are not included. Discussion: If there are road improvements planned (development-specific) on city or county roads for access to the development (e.g., turn lanes, by-pass lanes, etc.), that additional runoff should also be accounted for in the analysis and sizing. 6. Flood protection – Surface Emergency Overflows (EOFs) are not shown or provided below critical building/home elevations. Discussion: All building lowest floors should be 2 feet above the 100-yr high water level or 1 foot above the overland emergency overflows (EOFs), whichever is greater. Show all EOFs on the plans and show the potential inundated areas if the pipes were blocked, since it appears many of the home elevations do not satisfy 1 foot above the emergency overflow. Emergency overflows should be provided for all low points and ponds. The lowest building opening should be set at a minimum of 1’ above t h e E O F . T h e preference is to adjust some of the grading to provide an overland overflow, but as an alternative we would consider installing a secondary (separate) EOF pipe from the ponds. The pipe would be set at or slightly higher than the HWL of the pond and should be sized adequately large enough to be considered non-clogging (36” minimum). Street low points should have an EOF that limits ponding/flooding depth to a maximum of 2’ in order to allow emergency access to all properties. With EOFs issue addressed, there are still proposed homes with their lowest floor not meeting the 100-yr HWL + 2’ freeboard standard, including: Block 1 lot 1; Block 7 lot 1; and Block 8 lots 1, 15, 16, 17. 7. Pond Configurations – Various aspects of pond configurations (maintenance access and relation to infiltration bench, infiltration design, and narrow portion for conveyance) need to be addressed and could impact future city maintenance. Discussion: Pond access for maintenance (20’ minimum width and maximum grade of 10%) should be shown for all facilities including access to inlet and outlet structures on the grading plans. For pond 1SE with the infiltration bench, how would access and maintenance be accomplished without impacting or destroying the infiltration BMP? Provide infiltration bench and infiltration area construction details for how the BMPs will connect to porous materials at depth. There is a narrow, shallow spot in pond1SE, which conveys regional flows, that could be susceptible to filling with cattails and obstructing flow and should be modified to avoid a restriction. Pond configuration should be reviewed by a city maintenance staff. 8. Pond Water Depths and Long-Term Levels – Pond depths exceed the city standard of 10’ maximum and uncertainty about water levels in pond 1SE along Manning Ave. raise some concerns. Discussion: Details on the pond configuration and construction are needed before the ponds can be accepted. Ponds 1SE and 2SE are proposed to be 13’ and 12’ deep respectively, exceeding the maximum depth of 10’ and should be reduced. A water budget should be performed for pond 1SE to determine if the proposed water levels will be acceptable for the city (safety, maintenance, aesthetics, etc.). memo 4 of 4 Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. 651 Hale Ave N, Oakdale, MN 55128 p: 651.770.8448 f: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com 9. Pond Side Slopes – Review pond side slopes for maintenance. Discussion: State the maximum slopes on ponds, specifically 1SE, on the grading plans. Notes on sheet GP1 mention maximum of 4:1 slopes, but grading plans appear steeper than that. Slopes greater than 3:1 typically are not allowed, and depending on where water levels stabilize, this also impacts the appropriate slopes and where 10:1 safety benches are appropriate. 10. Spring Runoff – Review if spring snowmelt would impact the design. Discussion: Depending on the final configuration of the regional flow system, determine if a spring snowmelt critical event should be evaluated in the design. 11. Drawdown Time – Demonstrate 48 hour drawdown is accomplished with regional flows. Discussion: Provide draw down time analysis in the infiltration basins. The drawdown requirement is 48 hours. These facilities appear to be on-line and would be subject to the regional flows from upstream, potentially impacting the draw down time. 12. Water Quality Report – Correct water quality value in table. Discussion: The Stormwater Report table Provided TP Removal Efficiencies (%) lists a value of 97.9% removal of TP which does not appear to match the model output so it should be updated. 13. Landscaping Plan – The provided landscape plan is incomplete for infiltration areas. Discussion: Provide landscaping plan and details for the infiltration areas. Seeding only of infiltration areas should be avoided; use at least 50% coverage of plugs for the plantings to enhance establishment. An alternative to seed mix 250, with invasive species such as smooth brome, should be used, except possibly in roadside areas. Other Considerations: 14. The VBWD should quantify and address the downstream flooding and/or water quality implications of the proposed development and increased runoff. 15. Coordination with VBWD on maximum bounce in the infiltration BMPs should be addressed since pond and infiltration area 1SE show a bounce of 4.5 feet for 100-yr event, exceeding VBWD’s maximum bounce of 1.5 feet. 16. Erosion and sediment control, once planning/design approach has been finalized, should be reviewed for protection of ponding and infiltration areas and downstream areas. Not all aspects of the submittal were reviewed. Additional items may arise as final design is reviewed. Please let us know if you have questions regarding the comments. 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE (PARCEL E) DESIGN REVIEW REPORT LAKE ELMO, MN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2014 REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED AUGUST 8TH, 2014 Required Action Items by Village Park Preserve Project Landscape Architect 1. Provide your calculations for street frontage trees on sheet LP1. 2. Please represent planting areas within centers of Cul-de-sacs. 3. Provide temporary and permanent groundcover vegetation utilizing 100% native landscape plants for all lots, commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas with the exception of the areas noted to be sodded, irrigated and managed as traditional turf bed areas. Suggested native cover for proposed home lots could be Little Bluestem with the addition of some (10+ species) native wildflowers depending on aesthetic look desired (all blue flowers, mix of flowering times, etc…). Suggested permanent native cover should provide the most appropriate ecologically correct mixes. A suggested example would be to reference the seed mixes offered by MN Native Landscapes (http://www.mnnativelandscapes.com/). Please provide the appropriate mix for each specific proposed landscape situation. For example the short dry upland mix for a non-irrigated upland outlot area where shorter grasses are desired adjacent to paths or streets. 4. Provide landscape irrigation plans for all commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas. 5. We would encourage the use of some native understory shrubs & flowering trees (clump or single stem) to add aesthetic interest and promote pollinator & wildlife food/habitat. Also, other native trees such as quaking aspen and tamarack would also be encouraged in a variety of sizes to replicate a natural planting pattern. SINCERELY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C DIRECTOR OF DESIGN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 9/8/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014-41 ITEM: Savona 2nd Addition Residential Subdivision – Final Plat SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to continue its discussion concerning a Final Plat request from Lennar Corporation for the second phase of a planned 310 unit residential development to be located on 112.6 acres west of Keats Avenue and within Stage 1 of the City’s I-94 Corridor Planning Area. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission at its last meeting, the developer has updated certain aspects of the final plat and final construction plans to address specific comments from the Commission. The plat now includes 45 single-family lots (down from 47) and 22 single- family attached units, all of which will be accessed via an initial extension of the 5th Street Parkway off of Keats Avenue. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit to allow single-family attached units that are accessed via a private road at its September 2, 2014 meeting. In the interest of conserving paper, Staff is not reproducing any materials from the last meeting that have not been updated for the September 8th meeting. The following report notes the specific changes that have been provided by the applicant, but does not restate previous Staff review comments included with the previous packet. A complete copy of the previous packet is available upon request. Staff is recommending approval of the Final Plat subject to compliance with a series of conditions as listed in this report. The list of conditions has been updated and reduced in number to reflect the revised plans and submission of additional information by the applicant. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS (UPDATE) Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has prepared a revised final plat, updated landscape plan, and revised sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and streets plan. In addition, the City’s landscape architecture consultant has been able to review the landscape plan for Savona 2nd Addition and had drafted review comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. The changes that have been made include the following: 1) The City Attorney has reviewed the title work for the site and has found that the developer has fee interest in the project and the plat can be recorded as submitted. Condition #2 as previously recommended is no longer needed with this action. BUSINESS ITEM 5A 2 2) The final plat has been revised to eliminate two lots in the extreme northwestern portion of the site that were previously located within the 100-foot buffer from the adjacent residential development. These lots are now platted as “Outlot Q”, and could be replatted in the future into two buildable lots provided the applicant secures a trail/open space easement from the adjoining property owner. This action eliminates the need for Condition #7 in the previous Staff report. 3) The partial trail improvements within Outlot A have not been included in the final construction plans based on a mutual agreement between City Staff and the developer that this trail segment should be built as part of future additions. In addition, leaving this trail off of the plans is also appropriate due to the creation of Outlot Q, since any homes within the Outlot will not be constructed (if at all) until a later addition. This update to the plans addresses Condition #8. 4) The street and utility plans have been updated to add a sidewalk along the eastern side of James Avenue, which will connect to a planned sidewalk with the Hammes West subdivision. The addition of this sidewalk to the plans addresses Condition #9 from the previous meeting. 5) The landscape plans have been revised to reflect the additional sidewalk and to add tree protective fencing to the plan. The updated plans will allow Condition #10 from the previous Staff report to be eliminated. 6) The City’s landscape architect has reviewed the landscape plans and submitted the attached review comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. With this review completed, Condition #11 can be revised. In addition to the revisions listed above, the applicant has indicated that the new single-family lots will be annexed into the Homeowner’s Association for the first addition, which has been previously reviewed by the City. The townhouses will be subject to a separate association in order to deal with issues unique to this portion of the plat (i.e. private roads). At the request of a member of the Commission, the City Attorney has been asked to address additional questions regarding the structure and provisions of the HOA documents. Staff will provide an update concerning these questions if it is available prior to the meeting. The previous condition related to this matter is a very standard condition for these types of developments, and ensures that the appropriate HOA documents are filed with the County once the plat has been recorded. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, including all staff review comments and materials concerning the Savona 2nd Addition final plat submitted to the Commission as part of the Commission’s August 25, 2014 meeting, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat with a revised list of conditions consistent with the comments noted above. The conditions are intended to address any outstanding issues and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to proceed with the recording of the final plat. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm water management plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications BUSINESS ITEM 5A 3 to the plans requested by the City Engineer in review memo dated 8/21/14 shall be incorporated into these documents before they are approved. 2) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required improvements with financial guarantees therefore. 3) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials. 4) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Savona and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. The applicant shall also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat 5) Any final plat for future townhouses will take into account land previously credited as parkland, and will not reduce the size of any area that was depicted for park land on the preliminary plat. 6) The developer shall revise the final landscape plan to address comments from the City’s landscape architect dated September 4, 2014. 7) The developer shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the south of Savona 2nd Addition to allow the proposed drainage improvements and discharge of storm water on to their property. In conjunction with this permission, the proposed drainage and utility easement across this site shall be recorded with the Washington County Recorder’s office. As an alternative, the final plat maybe updated to include a drainage and utility easement across this property. 8) The construction plans must be updated to include all portions of 5th Street adjacent to the subdivision that will, at a minimum, extend the current limits of 5th Street west beyond Junco Road North. The developer shall update the final plat to include the portion of the 5th Street right-of-way necessary to meet the associated construction limits for Savona 2nd Addition west of Junco Road North. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat: • That the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on August 8, 2013 and revised on November 25, 2013. • That the Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. BUSINESS ITEM 5A 4 • That the Final Plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential zoning districts. • That the Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, with the exception of the items identified in the Staff report. • That the Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. • That the Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the plan revisions as requested by the City Engineer. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat for Savona 2nd Addition with the 8 conditions of approval as listed above. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Savona Final Plat with the 8 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff” ATTACHMENTS: 1. REVISED – Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat 2. REVISED – Construction Plans: Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Sewer and Streets 3. REVISED – Savona 2nd Addition Landscape Plans 4. Review Comments – Landscape Architecture, Inc. 9-4-14 ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5A 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM SAVONA 2nd ADDITION – DESIGN REVIEW REPORT LAKE ELMO, MN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2014 REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED AUGUST 28TH, 2014 Required Action Items by Savona 2nd Addition Project Team  Where Colorado Green Spruce is specified please replace with Norway Spruce.  The colonial foundation planting plan templates and colonial row home plan templates need to designed to match this specific site with current landscape and horticultural standards and practices and resubmitted for review.  Alternate Mailbox Monument, Sub Monument and Column Monuments with Thin NATURAL STONE veneer to be specified on all entry elements and included in mailbox design to match geology of specified natural boulder outcroppings adjacent to same elements. Manufactured (fake) stone veneer not allowed. Please remove the “OR” reference on these details on sheet 2 of 3. Additionally, the post mount Mailbox Unit is not approved, only the Alternate Mailbox Monument will be allowed. (per signage ordinance 154.212.A.4 purpose & 154.212.E.2 gen. design)  Savona Project Landscape Architect to provide landscape irrigation plans for all commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas. SINCERELY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C DIRECTOR OF DESIGN 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 x 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 9/8/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014-42 ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District Molly Shodeen, MN DNR Emily Shively, City of Oakdale SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a new mixed-use development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan includes 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan with 17 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on at their meeting on 8/25/14 and postponed consideration of the planned development. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley, MN 55432 and Inwood 10 (Tom Scheutte), LLC, 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117-7830 Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117-7830 Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo, immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), immediately north of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and immediately west of Stonegate residential subdivision. PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002 and 33.029.21.11.0001. BUSINESS ITEM 5B 2 Request: Application for Concept Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) containing 281 single family lots, 144 townhome units, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior living townhome units and multiple sites intended for commercial uses to be named Inwood of Lake Elmo. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant land used for agricultural purposes. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR – Low Density Residential, HDR – High Density Residential and C – Commercial (all with PUD overlay) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant agricultural land and two residential homes – RR and PF zoning; West: Oak Marsh Golf Course, urban single family subdivision, commercial – City of Oakdale jurisdiction; South: Offices in Eagle Point Business Park (including Bremer Bank facility) – BP zoning; East: Stonegate residential estates subdivision – RE zoning. Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre), Urban High Density Residential/Mixed Use (7.5 – 15 units per acre) and Commercial. History: The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The applicants have submitted a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for publication to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on September 15th, commencing the 30-day comment period. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/12/14 60 Day Deadline – 10/10/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 12/9/14 Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (§154.450) Article 12 – Commercial Districts (§154.550) Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (§154.800) Article 17 – Shoreland Management Overlay District REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a mixed-use project that will be located on 157 acres of land located south of 10th Street (CSAH 10) and east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) in Lake Elmo. The proposed project will include 273 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses, in addition to storm water facilities, trails, and park areas as depicted on the attached site development plan. While the planned uses for the site generally match those shown on the City’s future land use map for the property, the applicant is proposing a slightly different configuration of the various land uses. Most notably, the developer is asking BUSINESS ITEM 5B 3 that the commercial area be moved further south along Inwood Avenue to the intersection of 5th Street and that a small area of multi-family development be allowed at the intersection of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and held a public hearing on 8/25/14. At the public hearing, testimony was received from Nancy Andert (697 Julep Ave. N.), Mike Lancette (832 Jasmine Ave. N.) and Curt Montieth (331 Julep Ave. N.). In addition, the City received letters from MN DNR and Tom Fitzgerald (877 Jasmine Ave. N.), both of which were entered into the public record. For further detail on the content of the testimony during the public hearing, please refer to the draft minutes for the 8/25/14 Planning Commission meeting, which is attached to the 9/8/14 Planning Commission Agenda Packet. In addition to holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed many different elements of the proposed planned development. Over the course of discussion, the Planning Commission made several motions related to review of the Concept Plan. The summary of the Planning Commission review on 8/25/14 can be found in the Planning Commission Review, Analysis and Recommendations Section. After significant discussion of the proposed planned development, the Planning Commission postponed consideration of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan until the next meeting to allow the Planning Commissioners to visit a similar Hans Hagen development containing Lifestyle Homes, The Lakes in Blaine, MN. The site visit was useful in becoming familiar with the requested residential product (Lifestyle Homes) and the requested setbacks. In response to many of the questions and discussion items at the Planning Commission meeting on 8/25/14, the applicant has submitted an updated Concept Plan and cover letter (Attachment #2) to address many of the questions/discussion. The updated Concept Plan is generally consistent with the original version submitted to the Planning Commission with a couple modifications. The modifications are noted in the Planning and Zoning Issues Section. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES Staff provided a complete analysis of the proposed planned development from a planning and zoning perspective in a Staff Report dated 8/25/14. The previous Staff Report is attached electronically to this report for reference. In the original Staff Report, staff recommended 18 conditions of approval related to the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. For the purposes of the Planning Commission’s second review of the proposed development, it should be noted that staff still supports the originally recommended conditions of approval with one exception. Original Condition # 12 required the applicant to remove two residential lots that encroached on the required 100-foot greenbelt buffer. With the submittal of an updated Concept Plan, no residential lots encroach on the required buffer area. Therefore, Original Condition #12 has been removed as a recommended condition of approval, leaving 17 recommended conditions, all of which are referenced in this Staff Report. To address some of the questions and discussion topics from the 1st review of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan, the applicants have submitted an updated Concept Plan, an Open Space Plan and a response letter detailing some of the changes and responding to some of the discussion topics. These materials can be found in Attachment #2. Many of the changes or discussion items are identified in the response or cover letter provided with the updated plans. The changes in the updated Concept Plan include the following: BUSINESS ITEM 5B 4 • The updated Concept Plan includes increased park area in the area adjacent to Stonegate Park. The applicants acknowledge that the plan must be reviewed by the Park Commission in advance of solidifying an acceptable design and location of the park areas. • The single family lot count has been reduced from 281 to 273 to account for additional park space and protection of existing man-made wetlands on the site. • The updated net density calculation is 3.14 units/acre, as opposed to 3.22 units/acre in the previous plan. As noted in the cover letter, this density calculation does not include any of the larger ponding areas associated with the development. These areas would typically be included according to the City’s net density definition, as has been the case in other single family subdivisions. Staff is extremely confident that the single family area proposed in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is well within the acceptable range required under the City’s Comprehensive Plan. • The applicant provided three notes with regards to lot area, lot width and setbacks that relate to the allowed variations or flexibilities from the Zoning Code that can be achieved through the PUD Ordinance. After reviewing the comments pertaining to the lot area, lot width and setbacks, staff finds that the applicant’s analysis of the City’s PUD Ordinance is accurate. Therefore, applicants are permitted to request such variations from the Zoning Code as long as they are meeting one or more of the identified objectives for planned developments per the ordinance. • The applicants have provided an Open Space Plan to demonstrate that they are meeting the 20% open space requirement for PUDs. The Open Space Plan is included in Attachment #2. • The length of Cul-De-Sac L has been reduced to provide more park area adjacent to Stonegate Park. Staff still has some concern that it may exceed 600 feet in length, the maximum allowed length of cul-de-sac for an urban subdivision. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure conformance to the rules of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. • The original Concept Plan included two residential lots that encroached on the required 100-foot greenbelt buffer. The updated Concept Plan has corrected this issue, maintaining, and in many cases far exceeding, the 100-foot buffer requirement. As a result, staff would recommend removing the condition related to removing Lots 27 and 28, Block 7 from the greenbelt buffer area (Condition #12 on the 8/25/14 Staff Report). It should be noted that although the applicant is providing an updated Concept Plan, the recommended conditions of approval in the original Staff Report still apply (with the exception of Original Condition #12). The applicant is providing the updated Concept Plan to be responsive to questions and discussion items posed by the Planning Commission. In addition, the updated plan includes a concept of increased park area adjacent to Stonegate Park. Staff is still recommending that the applicant present these plans to the Park Commission on September 15th. Overall, the updated plan is consistent with the previous plan with the exceptions noted. Given the limited scope of the changes in the updated plan, the previous Staff Report, dated 8/25/14, and conditions (with exception of Condition #12) still apply. BUSINESS ITEM 5B 5 In addition to the planning and zoning issues that were outlined in the previous Staff Report, it should be noted that the City of Oakdale submitted a comment letter noting opposition to potential future restrictions of access at Oak Marsh Drive and 9th Street North. As indicate in the letter, staff is meeting with both the City of Oakdale and Washington County on September 12th to continue to work through access related concerns on Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). As Inwood Avenue is a Washington County facility, the County will continue to take the lead on working with the applicant and both communities on proper access spacing and design. As a condition of approval (Condition #14), staff is recommending that the applicants work with Washington County to address all issues pertaining to street and intersection design for the County roads (CSAH 13 and CSAH 10). In addition, City staff will continue to work with the applicant, Washington County and the City of Oakdale related to access considerations on Inwood Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to holding a public hearing on the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan, the Planning Commission discussed the planned development at great length, making multiple motions to add or amend conditions of approval for the development. As these additional or amended conditions were never included in a broader recommendation to the City Council, staff is asking the Planning Commission to reaffirm the following motions: 1. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to include Condition #19 to require a 5-foot sideyard setback for all of the single family detached housing, Vote: 4-2, motion carried, with Larson and Dodson voting no. The applicants have noted that the requested 4-foot sideyard setbacks are important to making the Lifestyle Home single family product work. Staff is confident that the reduced setback will work from a land use perspective, as long as the site is carefully engineered to properly account for storm water management. 2. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to add to Condition #6 “the location, size and design of the park will be subject to review by the Park Commission. It is recommended that the Park Commission consider the inclusion of a small park area or gathering space in the northwest portion of the development”, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. If affirmed, planning staff will present the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Park Commission at the 9/15/14 meeting. 3. M/S/P: Dodson/Lundgren, move to include Condition #20 that the applicant must work with the City to submit their residential design standards to the City as part of the Preliminary PUD Plan application for the City’s use in reviewing building permits, Vote: 6-0, motion carried unanimously. Staff would note that Hans Hagen has identified themselves and the sole builder of the Lifestyle Homes, which is the product that raised greater concern over garage- dominated front elevations. 4. M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren (with friendly amendment from Haggard), move to include Condition #20 to change the proposed land use of the area in the northwest corner to Commercial or multi-family with a maximum net density of 15 units per acre, Vote: 5-1, motion carried, with Dodson voting no. BUSINESS ITEM 5B 6 In addition to the above approved motions, there was discussion and/or failed motions pertaining to requiring typical single family lots on the east side of the development and incorporating theming elements into the development. There was also discussion about requiring the greenbelt buffer trail to be located within the western portion of the buffer. However, no formal motion was made related to the trail location. Finally, there was general discussion about the proposed findings listed in the 8/25/14 Staff Report. As no formal motions were made, staff has included the same draft findings that were listed in the previous report. However, staff did include recommended language proposed by Chairman Williams to note that the Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the applicable zoning districts “with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Report.” Based on the above Staff Report and analysis, as well as the analysis completed on 8/25/14, Staff is recommending approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with 17 conditions intended to address future considerations related to the submission of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner, Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to the submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications. 2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission. 3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the project area. 4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the development. 5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in a location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction with the platting of the Inwood PUD. 6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the existing Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The location and size of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park Commission. 7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped landscape medians and cul-de-sacs. BUSINESS ITEM 5B 7 8) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision, and the land is located outside of any restrictive easements. 10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014. 11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood planned development site. 12) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying responsibility for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single family residential streets. 13) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). 14) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10). 15) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single family residential area. 16) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th Street and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be incorporated into the plans. 17) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of designated public waters. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan: 1) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 2) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts with the exception of the issues identified in the Staff Reports. 3) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. BUSINESS ITEM 5B 8 4) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development. 5) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August 13, 2014. 6) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective and connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout the site. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the 17 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the findings of fact and 17 conditions of approval as drafted in the Staff Report.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report, dated 8/25/14 (hard copy not included) 2. Updated Inwood PUD Concept Plan, Open Space Plan and Cover Letter 3. City of Oakdale Review memorandum ATTACHMENTS FOUND IN 8/25/14 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET: 1. Location Map 2. Application Form and Project Narrative 3. Inwood Concept Planning & Design Booklet 4. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14 5. Washington County Review Memorandum ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ...................................................................................Planning Staff - Report by Staff ..............................................................................Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission ......................... Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission................................ Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/25/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-42 ITEM: Inwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) – General Concept Plan SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District Molly Shodeen, MN DNR SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing for a request from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a new mixed- use development on 157 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street in Lake Elmo. The concept plan includes 281 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Concept Plan with 18 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Hans Hagen Homes (John Rask), 941 NE Hillwind Rd. Suite 300, Fridley, MN 55432 and Inwood 10 (Tom Scheutte), LLC, 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117-7830 Property Owners: Inwood 10, LLC (Tom Scheutte), 95 S Owasso Blvd. W., St. Paul, MN 55117- 7830 Location: Part of Section 33 in Lake Elmo, immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), immediately north of Eagle Point Business Park, immediately east of Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and immediately west of Stonegate residential subdivision. PIDs: 33.029.21.12.0001, 33.029.21.12.0003, 33.029.21.11.0002 and 33.029.21.11.0001. Request: Application for Concept Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) containing 281 single family lots, 144 townhome units, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior living townhome units and multiple sites intended for commercial uses to be named Inwood of Lake Elmo. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant land used for agricultural purposes. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR – PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 2 Low Density Residential, HDR – High Density Residential and C – Commercial (all with PUD overlay) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant agricultural land and two residential homes – RR and PF zoning; West: Oak Marsh Golf Course, urban single family subdivision, commercial – City of Oakdale jurisdiction; South: Offices in Eagle Point Business Park (including Bremer Bank facility) – BP zoning; East: Stonegate residential estates subdivision – RE zoning. Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre), Urban High Density Residential/Mixed Use (7.5 – 15 units per acre) and Commercial. History: The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The applicants have submitted a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for publication to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on September 2nd, commencing the 30- day comment period. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/12/14 60 Day Deadline – 10/10/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 12/9/14 Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (§154.450) Article 12 – Commercial Districts (§154.550) Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (§154.800) Article 17 – Shoreland Management Overlay District REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Hans Hagen Homes and Inwood 10, LLC for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a mixed-use project that will be located on 157 acres of land located on south of 10th Street and east of Inwood Avenue in Lake Elmo. The proposed project will include 281 single-family residential lots, 144 townhouses, 150 multi-family units, 120 senior townhouse units, and approximately 68,814 square feet of commercial/office uses, in addition to storm water facilities, trails, and park areas as depicted on the attached site development plan. While the planned uses for the site generally match those shown on the City’s future land use map for the property, the applicant is proposing a slightly different configuration of the various land uses. Most notably, the developer is asking that the commercial area be moved further south along Inwood Avenue to the intersection of 5th Street and that a small area of multi- family development be allowed at the intersection of Inwood Avenue and 10th Street. The overall project can be divided up into three distinct areas on the plans, which includes a multi- family area south of 5th Street, a single-family “lifestyle housing” neighborhood north of 5th Street, and commercial areas with frontage along Inwood Avenue. Within the residential areas, the developer plans a mix of different housing options, including single-family detached housing, townhouses, senior townhomes, senior multi-family, and standard multi-family housing. The planned single-family areas differ from typical residential neighborhoods in that the lots are smaller than otherwise allowed in the LDR zoning district, with reduced setbacks from the LDR standards as PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 3 well. The homes to be built in these areas are intended to appeal to a different market then a typical neighborhood by incorporating common open areas, association-maintained lawns and driveways, and other services, and with amenities that are more typical in a townhouse type of development. As indicated in the application narrative, the developer does not have detailed plans for any of the multi-family portions of the site, and the plans as submitted depict a general development concept for these areas. These structures planned for much of these areas are intended to serve seniors, including a proposed 120-unit senior building that would be located in the southern portion of the site. All of the planned commercial areas are located along Inwood Avenue, and would be separated from the residential development by the internal road system or storm water ponds. At this time, the plans do not call for any vertical mixing of uses; however, the proposed multi-family buildings would be located adjacent to commercial activities, allowing for easy access to goods and services. As opposed to following the City’s normal subdivision procedures, the applicants have determined that a planned development approach offers the best method to achieve their development vision for their property. The purpose of the City’s PUD ordinance is to provide flexibility in development and zoning standards for large parcels under unified control with the goal of achieving higher quality development. More specifically, the General Concept Plan phase of the PUD procedure allows the applicant to submit a general plan to the City demonstrating his or her basic intent of the development, including general density ranges, location of residential and nonresidential land uses, and location of streets, paths and open space. The purpose of approving the Concept Plan is to provide the applicant with conceptual approval related to the requested flexibilities or variations from the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, or other City standards, before incurring substantial costs related to submitting a full Preliminary Plat application. In terms of procedure, the planned development path is similar to the normal subdivision process in that Preliminary and Final PUD Plan approvals must follow parallel track to Preliminary and Final Plat. However, one critical difference between the planned development process and standard subdivision process is that the PUD Concept Plan phase requires a public hearing and the approval of the City Council. The applicant is proposing to develop the site as a large Planned Unit Development, and is requesting flexibility from the underlying zoning in a number of areas including the following: • The lot sizes and setbacks for the “lifestyle housing” that is planned for most of the single- family detached houses. • The construction of multi-family buildings on a portion of the site that is presently guided for commercial development. It should be noted that the zoning ordinance does allow multi- family buildings in commercial zoning districts as a conditional use. • Moving certain land uses and densities across the entire site. The overall densities that are planned, and the overall size of the commercial, multi-family, and single family areas follow closely to the amount indicated in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the applicant is proposing to move the specific locations of these uses in accordance with the submitted plans. For instance, the City’s future land use plan depicts approximately 13 acres of commercial land uses at the intersection of Inwood and 10th Street. The developer is proposing to keep the overall size of the commercial area the same but extending it further south along Inwood Avenue as opposed to locating single family residential directly adjacent to the County arterial roadway. • Allocating the allowed densities across the entire site instead of reviewing densities on a project-by-project basis. This allows the developer to plan for storm water management, parks, and roadways in the appropriate locations, even though a smaller project within the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 4 planning area may exceed underlying zoning. The density projections for the site are reviewed in greater detail in the latter sections of this report. The flexibility that being requested by the developer is allowed under the City’s PUD Ordinance, and the developer has provided a response to the PUD objectives as listed in the Zoning Ordinance as part of the project narrative. The appendix of the submitted Concept Planning & Design Booklet (Attachment #5) also addresses how the proposed planned development is meeting the objectives of the City’s PUD Ordinance. Because the project is located at the intersection of two major roadways in Lake Elmo and includes the proposed construction of another, access issues will play a major role in how the site is able to develop. Internal to the site, the developer intends to connect to the planned extension of the 5th Street minor collector road that will extend through the Boulder Ponds development in the southeastern portion of the site. This road will then turn quickly to the west and eventually intersect Inwood Avenue about 500 feet north of the Eagle Point Business Park. While most of the internal traffic will be accessed via 5th Street, there are multiple planned connections along both Inwood Avenue and 10th Street, which includes a new north/south connection road that will provide a connection between Eagle Point Boulevard and 10th Street. While all of the roads have been designed to comply with City and County requirements, they will be subject to further review and analysis as more detailed plans are prepared for the site. One of the other major features of the project includes the preservation of the wooded area along the eastern project boundary. This area is guided for a green belt/buffer area between the Stonegate neighborhood and denser urban development on the applicant’s site. The developer is also proposing a series of trails within the project, including a trail in the eastern green belt/buffer running north and south along a linear park, an east-west trail running across the entire segment of the development connecting the residential area to the commercial areas, as well as the City’s planned regional trail section along 5th Street. In addition to the multiple trail systems, smaller park areas are shown in the southeastern part of the site near the existing Stonegate Park, which are proposed as a logical extension of the existing park area. The other open space areas within the development are predominately being used for storm water management purposes, with larger ponds being located south and east of the commercial area near the intersection of 5th Street and Inwood Avenue. Regarding next steps, the applicant is proposing to bring forward a Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application upon approval of the Concept Plan. Per the PUD Ordinance, the final approval of the proposed planned unit development will result in a zoning change to a specific PUD zoning district, with specific requirements and standards that are specific to the development. If the application moves forward, the change in the base zoning (LDR, HDR, C) of the property would occur at the time of Preliminary Plan approval, and the final PUD zoning with approved flexibility that is specific to the development would be established at Final Plan approval. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES The Inwood site is guided for Urban Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial land uses in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the developer is planning to keep the same general mix of uses on the property, but will be moving the specific location of certain elements to better suit the unique circumstances of this property. The most important consideration in this regard is the location of the commercial area, which is shown in the extreme northwest portion of the site in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. While the location of this commercial area at the intersection of two major roadways makes sense from a planning perspective, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 5 in reality access to this area is limited due to spacing requirements along and adjacent to a County road. The developer’s plans create a new commercial intersection at Inwood and 5th Street, which allows these areas to be accessed via a back road system while avoiding any driveways with direct access to either Inwood or 10th Street. The subsequent arrangement of uses makes logical sense given the access restrictions in place. In addition, it may be problematic to locate single family residential land uses directly adjacent to Inwood Ave. (CSAH 13) as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. Inwood Ave is a County arterial roadway that is anticipated to serve a substantial volume of traffic in the future. From a land use compatibility and noise mitigation standpoint, it makes sense to narrow and extend the commercial uses along Inwood Avenue. The other major break from the underlying Comprehensive Plan is the siting of two multi-family structures at the intersection of 10th Street and Inwood Avenue. Essentially, the developer is proposing to swap a portion of the high density/mixed use area north of Eagle Point Business Park with commercial development at this intersection. The overall balance of uses is therefore not being changed from the Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed reconfiguration appears to work well given the other site constraints, including storm water retention and infiltration requirements, that need to be addressed on the site. In addition, it should be noted that multi-family housing is allowed in the Commercial zoning district as a conditional use. The applicant is proposing to site the multi-family use in this location through the planned development process as opposed to the Conditional Use Permit process. Staff has reviewed the requested variations from the Comprehensive Plan and found that the master-planning of the 157-acre parcel as proposed in the Inwood PUD represents thoughtful planning and siting of the various uses proposed. After evaluating the master-planned development, Staff finds that the development is meeting the overall intent of the land use guidance of the Comprehensive Plan when considering the overall land use goals for the parcel. Regarding the density calculations of the Inwood planned development, the developer has provided density calculations at the request of Staff for the entire site using the City’s recently adopted net density definition. These calculations are summarized as follows: Use Area (in acres) Units Net Density (units per acre) Single Family Detached 87.17 281 3.22 Multi-family (south of 5th Street) 23.2 264 11.38 Multi-family (corner of 10th and Inwood) 5.16 150 29.1 The overall net density for all of the residential areas is 6 units per acre, while on a gross basis this number is 4.9 units per acre. However, all of these numbers are misleading because most of the ponding for the development is located on the outlots adjacent to the commercial parcels, which would add additional open space to the residential calculations. The developer has noted that by utilizing the density ranges permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the maximum number of residential units that could be built on the site would be 812 units, compared to the planned number of 695 included in the Inwood development. On an overall site development basis, the proposed Inwood PUD would be consistent with the overall range of planned growth according to the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the requested variation related to the Comprehensive Plan, the other flexibilities requested by the applicant include reduced setback requirements for the single family “lifestyle” housing product offered in the residential neighborhood of the development. The standards for the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 6 LDR zoning district and the requested flexibilities for the Inwood PUD single family lots are as follows: Setback LDR Zoning District Inwood PUD Front Yard 25 Feet 18 Feet to Principal Structure / 20 Feet to Garage Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure Side / 5 Feet Garage Side 4 Feet Rear Yard 20 Feet 20 Feet In addition to setback requirements, the applicants will be requesting flexibility from minimum lot size requirements and lot width requirements, particularly for the Village/Carriage residential product. The Inwood Concept Plan noted that 20% of these homes are slightly under 40 feet in width, while 60% are 50 feet in width and the final 20% are 58 feet in width. The LDR zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. By pursuing the PUD process, the applicants are requesting reduced lot sizes, which is allowed under the ordinance. They have noted that the unique housing type, which is completely maintenance free (HOA maintained), requires different design considerations and setbacks. The lot width of the designer product (46 lots in the southeastern potion of the development) are 65 to 85 feet in width, meeting the minimum standards of the LDR district. As an area tabulation of individual lots is not required at Concept Plan level review for a planned development, the applicant has not submitted an area calculation. However, given the size of some of the proposed lots, it is anticipated that many of the lots will be under the LDR zoning district standard of 8,000 square feet. As part of any preliminary PUD plan submittal, staff would require the applicant to submit a complete area tabulation of all the lots proposed in the planned development. Once again, the applicants have noted that in order to achieve a completely HOA maintained neighborhood with a single level product type, flexibility from standard lot width, size and setback requirements are necessary. Based on the residential product presented in the planned development, Staff would offer that the residential product proposed offers a residential product or type that is not currently represented in the Lake Elmo housing market. With regards to the proposed uses in the Inwood PUD, it should be noted that the master-planned development proposes to integrate low density residential, high density residential and commercial uses all within one development effort. Master-planning the entire development as part of a broad, single effort allows for much greater integration of street and pedestrian networks, providing greater connectivity within the development. In addition, planning the entire site allows for improved planning and utilization of storm water facilities for the area. In reviewing the proposed commercial uses included in the Concept Plan, it should be noted that all are allowed in the Commercial zoning district. However, it is anticipated that these uses may change according to market conditions and demand. It would be Staff’s expectation that the uses proposed in the Commercial areas of the development would be allowed under the Commercial zoning district. Finally, as the Inwood development is utilizing the PUD process, it is the burden of the applicant to explain how the proposed development meets one or more of the City’s identified objectives (§154.801) related to planned developments. In order to address this question, the applicant has provided a thorough explanation of which objectives are met within the back section of the Project Narrative (Attachment #3 – Also found in PUD Design Planning & Concepts Booklet). In the judgment of Staff, the proposed development meets the criteria for the following identified PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 7 objectives: A) Innovation in land techniques, B) Promotion of integrated land uses, D) Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment and/or commercial facilities and H) Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on transportation, etc. Arguments could be made for additional objectives being achieved. Staff was most confident in the aforementioned objectives being met. Per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant is required to provide parkland dedication in an amount equal to 10% of land developed residentially, fees equal to the market value of 10% of the land, or some combination thereof. The acceptable parkland solution is at the discretion of the City. Based on the submitted area calculations on the Inwood PUD Concept Plan, there is 78.1 acres of single family residential area and 29.5 acres of multi-family residential area, totaling 107.6 acres. Therefore, the required land dedication for the residential areas would be 10.7 acres. The applicants have noted that 12.2 acres of public parkland is provided, going above the required dedication amount. However, the outlots containing area labeled park also contain storm water facilities and one smaller wetland. In advance of preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan, it is recommended that the applicant work with Staff to clarify the correct amount of parkland provided given the City’s criteria for eligible parkland. In addition to the land dedication requirements for the residential areas of the Inwood planned development, the applicant would be required to submit a fee of $4,500 per acre of land developed for commercial purposes. Based on the area calculations, there is currently 27.7 acres of land being developed commercially, which would result in a parkland fee of $124,650. In developing more detailed plans for the Inwood development in the future, staff will work with the applicant to determine the correct parkland dedication amounts. In terms of the parkland provided in the Inwood planned development, the majority of the park areas are found in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to existing Stonegate Park and on the east side of the development with the linear greenbelt park. It should be noted that there is park proposed on both sides of the 5th Street minor collector road. The smaller park area on the southern side of the collector is intended to serve the townhome area immediately to the west. The park area north of the collector, along with the linear greenbelt park, could easily serve the single family residential portion of the development. While at this time it appears that the total required parkland dedication amount has been met by the applicant, Staff would recommend enlarging the park area north of 5th Street adjacent to existing Stonegate Park to an overall size of 5-10 acres. Increased park area in this location would give the City the ability to design more usable recreation space where organized recreation activities, such as baseball or soccer, could be held. Given the number of residential units proposed in the development, Staff believes that a larger park area is appropriate in this case. In addition, it is likely that the park should be served by an access off of 5th Street with a small parking area to serve the overall park. If the applicants have indeed met their land dedication requirements, Staff would recommend that the applicants be given credit or compensated for any parkland provided above the dedication amount. Credit and compensation could be achieved by reducing the parkland dedication fees due related to commercial development on the site by the equal market value of the land the City receives above the dedication amount. In order to get further direction regarding the appropriate park area for the development, Staff is recommending that the applicant present their plans to the Park Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which is on September 15th, 2014. It should also be noted that two portions of the site are subject to shoreland rules. The northwest corner of the site is located within the shoreland district of Armstrong Lake, which is located in the jurisdictions of both Oakdale and Lake Elmo. In addition, an unnamed stream or tributary exists in the southwest corner of the site running towards Eagle Point Business Park. To review the proposed PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 8 development in and around these areas, Staff completed a review of the Concept Plan against the City’s Shoreland Management Overlay District (Article 17 of Zoning Code). Regarding the northwest potion of the site, the proposed structures are not in close proximity to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Armstrong Lake. In terms of impervious surface, sewered lots without riparian dedication are subject to a maximum amount of impervious surface of 30% of lot area. This standard would apply to the commercial and multi-family residential uses proposed in the northwest and western portion of the site, as the shoreland district boundary is depicted on the Concept Plan with a bold dashed black line. In addition, Staff does have some concern about the amount of impervious coverage in Lots 7-14, Block 11. These lots may need to be revised to comply with the City’s shoreland standards. In addition to Armstrong Lake, the unnamed tributary flowing through the southeastern portion of the site, which travels to Wilmes Lake in Woodbury, is considered a protected water under DNR classification. The applicants have provided a significant buffer around the unnamed tributary. The City’s shoreland provisions require a structure setback of 75 feet from tributaries for sewered lots with no riparian buffering requirement. However, the MN DNR and South Washington Watershed District may provide additional review on this area. There may be a concern about the proximity of the commercial use labeled “pharmacy”. Regarding all the shoreland issues, Staff would recommend that the applicant work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR as a condition of approval (Condition #18). REVIEW AND ANALYSIS City Staff has reviewed the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan, which has gone through multiple iterations in advance of the formal application being made to the City. In general, the proposed plan will meet all applicable City requirements for PUD Concept Plan approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted for the purpose of inclusion in the review record. In addition there are several things happening in and around the Inwood planned development that will have an impact on the project, including the construction of 5th Street with appropriate access spacing and alignment, as well as the potential siting of a future water tower on the site. Given that some of these efforts are still underway, Staff recognizes that some modifications will be necessary from PUD Concept Plan phase to PUD Preliminary Plan phase. The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer and Fire Chief, in addition to comments by the Washington County Public Works, all of which are attached for consideration by the Commission. In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the following discussion areas as well: • Comprehensive Plan. In the judgment of Staff, the proposed planned development is consistent with the land use categories guided for this site as planned in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amount of residential growth is consistent with the range of residential development as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the land uses as proposed are generally consistent with the Urban Low Density Residential - LDR and Urban High Density Residential - HDR zoning districts. Finally, the total area intended for commercial uses on the site matches the amount planned under the Comprehensive Plan, with the locational changes noted as an acceptable variation through the PUD process. Other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Inwood PUD Concept Plan as follows: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 9 o Transportation. The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of a minor collector road (5th Street) that will connect the eastern and western portions of the I- 94 Corridor. Staff views this road as a critical piece of the transportation infrastructure that is needed to serve the densities that have been planned for this area. The applicant has incorporated the right-of-way at the width necessary to construct the minor collector as part of its PUD Concept Plan. As proposed, the provided segment of 5th Street will connect from Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to the Boulder Ponds development southeast of the site, eventually leading through the Savona subdivision to Keats Avenue (CSAH 19). Completion of this segment of the minor collector road will provide the infrastructure needed to properly distribute automobile traffic throughout Stage 1 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. o Parks. The City’s Park Plan identifies the subject property as a needed location for a neighborhood park. Given the amount of residential growth proposed for the site, it makes sense to provide enough parkland to adequately serve this portion of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. In addition to a neighborhood park as guided by the Comprehensive Plan, it should also be noted that the eastern portion of the site is guided for a 100-foot linear park known as the greenbelt buffer. The greenbelt trail provided on the eastern portion of the development is consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. o Water. Water will eventually be provided to this area via a future extension of the municipal system along Inwood Avenue. The Inwood planned development will be able to be served under the City’s current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood watermain extension is completed in 2015. It also must be noted that the subject property is identified as a future location for one of the two water towers needed to serve the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. As a condition of approval (Condition #5), Staff recommends that the applicant provide a location that meets the approval of the City Engineer within the development to site the necessary water tower. As an alternative, the applicant can provide the City with an alternative site, as long as the location works from a hydrological standpoint and meets the approval of the City Engineer. o Sanitary Sewer. The Inwood planned development will be able to connect into the existing sanitary sewer system within the Eagle Point Business Park. While this area is presently served via an interconnected system with the City of Oakdale, all of Section 34 will eventually be connected to the regional interceptor located immediately south of the business park. As noted in the City Engineer’s memo, the proposed sanitary sewer connection will need to be evaluated for capacity and overall system design. o Phasing. The Inwood planned development is located within the Stage 1 phasing area of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the City’s anticipated phasing of growth. • Zoning. The proposed base zoning for the Inwood site will be split between the Urban Low Density Residential – LDR, the Urban High Density Residential – HDR, and Commercial – C zoning districts. However, approval of PUD Final Plan will result in a zoning change to a specific PUD Zoning District, recording all of the permitted variations, such as minimum lot size and setbacks, from the Zoning requirements of the base zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 10 • Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks, lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. The City will work with the applicant to ensure that all standards specified in the Subdivision Ordinance are met, or that the appropriate variation is requested through the PUD Preliminary Plan. • Concept Phasing. The developer has indicated that the first phases of the project will be the single-family areas, with the multi-family and commercial areas proceeding based on market conditions. The narrative notes that Hans Hagen Homes will be the exclusive builder of the single family area, while Inwood 10, LLC will develop the commercial and multi-family areas as the market permits. In addition, Staff is requesting that the developer will be asked to provide a more specific phasing plan with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD submissions (Condition #4). • Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development. Storm water facilities should be platted as outlots and deeded to the city for maintenance purposes. Adequate access to public storm water facilities must be provided. • Tree Preservation and Protection. Based upon the limited tree cover of the site, it is possible that the applicant may not be required to complete a Tree Preservation Plan. If the applicant can demonstrate that significant trees on the site will not be negatively impacted by development activity, they would be allowed to submit a Woodland Evaluation Report in lieu of a Tree Preservation Plan. In addition to the trees along the eastern boundary, there are only two relatively small stands of trees on the site, located in the southwest and southeast corners of the site respectively. The Inwood PUD Concept Plan does not show development activity over these areas. However, potential impacts to existing trees will be better understood at the preliminary plat level with the submission of a grading plan for the development. Overall, the details at the preliminary plat stage will require a greater level of detail concerning trees on the site. • Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area on the east side of the Inwood planned development adjacent to the Stonegate residential subdivision as a green belt/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. As proposed in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan, the applicant is utilizing this space for the continuation of trail corridor from the Boulder Ponds planned development in the south. As proposed, the design of the greenbelt trail is consistent with City planning efforts to date. In addition, it should be noted that the applicants are proposing to maintain a significant amount of existing trees along the eastern boundary of the site, adding to the value and aesthetic of the proposed linear park area. The existing trees include a significant amount of evergreen species, which should provide ample year round screening to many portions of the development. It should be noted that the distance maintained between private lots and the Stonegate neighborhood exceeds 100 feet in many areas, where separation distances of 140 to over 200 feet are common. However, it should be noted that Lots 27 and 28, Block 7 do encroach on the minimum 100- foot buffer area. As a condition of approval (Condition #12), Staff would recommend that the two lots noted be revised to maintain the 100-foot buffer requirement. With the exception of the two lots noted, Staff believes that that green belt/buffer requirements of the Comprehensive Plan have been met, and often exceeded, by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 11 • Streets and Transportation. The Inwood PUD Concept Plan includes a substantial portion of the 5th Street minor collector road, as well as an extensive internal street network proposed to serve the mixed-use development. From a conceptual level review of the street system, it appears that the proposed internal public streets meet the City’s baseline subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. The right-of-way of local streets are 60 feet in width and local roads are 28 feet in width from curb to curb. In addition to the local road provided, the Inwood planned development includes a series of private streets and driveways to serve multi-family and commercial properties. The private streets and driveways as proposed are primarily accessed off 5th Street and Street D. Significant information regarding the proposed transportation network can be found in the City Engineer’s memo (Attachment #6). In addition to the Engineer’s review comments, staff offers the following additional comments related to streets: o 5th Street. The City Engineer presents a significant amount of design requirements related to the 5th Street minor collector road in his review memorandum. In addition to his comments, Staff would highlight the following:  Alignment. The proposed alignment should meet Washington County’s specifications for the touchdown on Inwood Ave. (CSAH 13). However, the alignment at the Boulder Ponds development includes slight additional impact to the Bremer Bank property, necessitating an additional 2,967 square feet of right-of-way from the Bremer site. In order to proceed with the alignment as shown, the applicant will need written permission from Bremer Bank (Condition #1).  5th Street and Inwood Avenue Signalization. Washington County will require signalization for the 5th Street and Inwood Ave. intersection at some point in the future. Given the anticipated traffic volumes generated by the Inwood planned development, Staff would recommend that the City require the applicant to participate financially in the City’s share of the traffic signal costs. As a condition of approval (Condition #14), Staff is recommending that the applicant work with the City to determine a fair and reasonable cost share for the City’s portion of the costs to signalize the 5th Street and Inwood intersection. o Residential Streets. For the single family neighborhood, the applicant is proposing unique street designs. The streets of the single family areas include Low Impact Development (LID) techniques of utilizing center islands and medians to incorporate infiltration and storm water management facilities allowing for enhanced and innovative storm water management within close proximity to streets and residential lots. The center medians will also allow for additional landscaping and pedestrian spaces, as demonstrated in the Concept Planning and Design Booklet (Attachment #5). It should also be noted that the islands would include a one way street design, requiring vehicle traffic to move in circular direction around the island. Due to the unique design of these streets, the City will require additional geometric details and exhibits demonstrating successful turning movements throughout the neighborhood streets. As a condition of approval (Condition #7), Staff is recommending that these details be submitted as part of the Preliminary PUD Plan. Additional details needed for review must address the review comments from the City Engineer documented in the review memorandum dated 8/13/14 (Attachment #6). Finally, it should be noted that Street C and Cul-De-Sac L exceed the maximum length of cul-de-sac for PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 12 sewered developments (600 feet) per the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The Engineer has recommended that this road section be revised to connect interior to the development. This could most likely be accomplished by connecting Street C to Neighborhood Street E. • Sidewalks and Trails. The proposed Inwood planned development offers a substantial amount and variety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the form of sidewalks and trails, offering alternative modes of transport throughout the development. Staff has the following comments pertaining to sidewalks and trails: o Sidewalks. All of the major streets serving the single family residential area have sidewalks on at least one side of the streets, and in some case both sides. In addition, the applicant is planning unique street design with center medians. The Concept Planning and Design Booklet note that these median areas include additional pedestrian facilities to access residential homes. However, this level of detail is not currently provided for all the individual islands and medians at the Concept Plan stage. Staff would recommend that this detail be provided to better understand how these residential areas are being served. In addition, one recommendation (Condition #16) that Staff would make is to include sidewalks on both sides of Street B, as this street is serving as a neighborhood collector for the single family residential neighborhood. Finally, the mutli-family and commercial areas often have direct sidewalk access to the streets. Staff would recommend that the applicant provide pedestrian access to the best extent possible to both mutli-family and commercial uses, as one of the benefits of a master-planned development is to ensure broad connectivity in between the various land uses included in the plan. o Trails. The applicants are proposing an effective system of trails to serve the planned development. In addition to the greenbelt linear park trail on the east side of the development, the applicant is planning a central east-west trail contained mostly in open space areas across the entire development. This should allow the development to achieve residential neighborhoods with easy access to employment and commercial services, resulting in an integrated development with a mix of uses. In order to augment the proposed trails provided in the Concept Plat, staff recommends that additional trail segments be provided within the Inwood Avenue and 10th Street right-of-ways (Condition #17). Staff recommends that the Inwood Avenue trail segment on the east side of the road extend from 5th Street to 10th Street (CSAH 10). In addition, the 10th Street (CSAH 10) trail segment should connect from Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail at the northeast corner of the development. These trail segments would ensure proper connection of the proposed trails and offer increased connectivity and access. • City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a detailed comment letter (Attachment #6) dated August 13, 2014 as a summary of his review of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan. Staff has incorporated the more significant issues identified by the Engineer as part of the recommended conditions of approval, and has also included a general condition (Condition #10) that all issues identified by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat. • Washington County Public Works Review. Ann Pung-Terwedo of Washington County Public Works has submitted a review memorandum that focuses on the proposed street PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 13 connections of the Inwood PUD to the surrounding arterial street network. Given that both Inwood avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10) are County arterial roadways that will directly serve the development, there are many considerations related to access management and intersection design that the applicants must consider in planning out the internal street system. The review memorandum from Washington County is found in Attachment #8. Staff is recommending that the applicants work with Washington County to address all review comments in the memo as a condition of approval (Condition #15). Finally, it should be noted that the Inwood planned development site is within proximity to one of the planned stations for the planned Gateway Corridor transit facility. In the judgment of Staff, the development as proposed would be compatible with elements or characteristics of transit- oriented development (TOD), offering further support for the Inwood Concept Plan. • Fire Chief Review. The Lake Elmo Fire Chief, Greg Malmquist, submitted a review letter for the proposed planned development. In the letter, he highlights the importance of an effective street naming system that follows the County system and has been utilized by the City. In addition, there are comments submitted on the proper location of fire hydrants and proper street design to allow for effective turning movements for fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles. Finally, he notes that many of the structures included in the plan may be subject to fire sprinkling requirements per State Building and Fire Codes. • Watershed Districts. The project area lies within the South Washington Watershed District. The applicants have started working with Matt Moore, the SWWD engineer, on preparing a stormwater management plan that will meet the treatment, rate and volume requirements for the proposed development. As a condition of approval (Condition #8), all specific development projects will need to comply with applicable watershed district requirements. As proposed, the project will impact man-made constructed wetlands on the site that were created related to agricultural activity. The applicant is currently working through the mitigation requirements for these impacts with the watershed district (which is the responsible government unit for wetland issues). • Environmental Review. Based upon the proposed scope of the Concept Plan, the project will meet the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), as the proposed development will exceed the threshold of 300 residential units. The developer has prepared a draft EAW that will be distributed for public comment starting on September 2, 2014. No subdivision of land can occur until this review is complete; however, the developer may proceed with simultaneous reviews at its own risk. • Design Review. Based on the proposed uses within the PUD Concept Plan, multiple structures within the Inwood Development will be subject to design and architectural review, including all multi-family residential (apartments, condos, senior living) and commercial buildings. Design and architectural review will be performed at Preliminary and Final PUD Plan stage for all applicable structures. • Theming. Staff has distributed the Branding and Theming Study completed by Damon Farber and Associates to the applicants previously. In completing a preliminary landscape plan for the site, staff would recommend that the applicants consider the inclusion of various theming elements and amenities identified in the plan for various locations within the development. For example, the 5th Street and Inwood Avenue Intersection presents a gateway opportunity for the City. Utilizing some of the elements described in the theming study would help the development and City achieve unique design that is consistent with the theme that the City is attempting to augment and achieve as private development moves forward. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 14 Based on the above Staff Report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with multiple conditions intended to address future considerations related to the submission of a PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat application. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) The applicant must obtain permission and consent from the adjoining property owner, Bremer Bank, related to the right-of-way and alignment of the 5th Street minor collector road in the southeast corner of the site. The final alignment must be determined prior to the submittal of PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat applications. 2) Request for flexibility related to lot size, width, setbacks and all other requirements per the City’s Zoning Ordinance or Design Standards must be clarified and documented as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat submission. 3) The application for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan approval will include an overall PUD planning document that addresses the flexibility requests noted in the preceding condition and that also specifies the specific design considerations to be used throughout the project area. 4) The Preliminary PUD plans will include a phasing plan for all portions of the development. 5) The Preliminary Development Plans shall include a water tower within the project development area in a location that is deemed acceptable by the City Engineer. As an alternative, the developer may identify an alternate location off-site for the water tower in a location deemed acceptable by the City Engineer provided the ownership of the site is transferred to the City and all required utility connections are constructed in conjunction with the platting of the Inwood PUD. 6) The Preliminary PUD plans shall be updated to include additional park land in the southeastern portion of the site. A larger park area of 5 to 10 acres adjacent to the existing Stonegate Park and with access to 5th Street is the preferred location. The location and size of this park will be subject to review by the Lake Elmo Park Commission. 7) All street and median geometrics must accommodate emergency vehicle access and maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate acceptable turning radii for all uniquely shaped landscape medians and cul-de-sacs. 8) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed district prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 9) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision, and the land is located outside of any restrictive easements. 10) The applicant shall observe all comments and recommendations from the City Engineer documented on the Engineer’s report dated August 13, 2014. 11) The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans will address review comments and issues that are identified within the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Inwood planned development site. 12) Lots 27 and 28, Block 7 must be revised to maintain the minimum 100-foot greenbelt buffer requirement along the eastern portion of the planned development. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 15 13) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City clarifying responsibility for all median landscaping and stormwater facilities internal to the single family residential streets. 14) The applicants must work with the City to determine fair and equitable cost share for City costs related to the future signalization of the intersection at 5th Street and Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). 15) The applicant must work with Washington County to address all review comments documented in the attached report dated 8/20/14 pertaining to access and intersection design for Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) and 10th Street (CSAH 10). 16) The applicant must provide sidewalks on both sides of Street B to better serve the single family residential area. 17) Additional trail segments along the east side of Inwood Avenue from 5th Street to 10th Street and along 10th Street from Inwood Avenue to the Greenbelt Buffer Trail must be incorporated into the plans. 18) The applicant must work with the City to ensure compliance with the City’s shoreland provisions and the standards of the SWWD and MN DNR related to shoreland areas of designated public waters. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Inwood PUD Concept Plan: 1) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 2) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the general intent of the City’s Urban Low Density Residential, Urban High Density Residential and Commercial zoning districts. 3) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan complies with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 4) That the Inwood PUD complies with the City’s PUD Ordinance, and specifically the identified objectives for the consideration of a Planned Development. 5) That the Inwood PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with exceptions as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated August 13, 2014. 6) That the master-planning technique utilized in the Inwood PUD Concept Plan provides thoughtful integration of multiple land uses, a variety of housing types and an effective and connected transportation system, allowing for different modes of travel throughout the site. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the 18 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Inwood PUD Concept Plan with the findings of fact and conditions of approval as drafted in the Staff Report.” PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B 16 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application Form 3. Project Narrative 4. Inwood PUD Concept Plan w/Details 5. Inwood PUD Concept Planning & Design Booklet 6. City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/13/14 7. Fire Chief’s Review Memorandum, dated 8/19/14 8. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 8/20/14 ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 9/8/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5C – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014-46 ITEM: Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Final Plat request from The Ryland Group for the first phase of a planned 51 unit residential development to be called Hunter’s Crossing. The proposed subdivision will be located on 23.10 acres immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and approximately ¼ mile north of Interstate 94. The final plat includes 22 single-family lots located within the northern portion of the overall subdivision area. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: The Ryland Group (Tracey Rust), 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, MN Property Owners: Nathan Landucci, 404 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN Location: Part of Section 36 in Lake Elmo, north of I-94, east of Lake Elmo Avenue, and south of the Cimarron Golf Course property. South of 404 Lake Elmo Avenue North. PID Number 36.029.21.32.0008 Request: Application for final plat approval of a 22 unit residential subdivision to be named Hunter’s Crossing. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Golf driving range and instruction and practice facility, including small nine-hole practice course. Current Zoning: LDR – Low Density Residential Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – vacant land and Cimarron Manufactured Home Park; East – Trans-City industrial building; West – The Forest residential subdivision; South – currently vacant/agricultural but future site of proposed Air Lake Development business park; also two existing home sites located adjacent to development along Lake Elmo Avenue Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 3.99 units per acre) History: Sketch Plan reviewed by Planning Commission on 9/23/13. The site has historically been used for a golf driving range and practice facility. The City approved a Conditional Use Permit for the driving range in 1990, and this permit, which is still BUSINESS ITEM 5C 2 active, has been amended at least twice since this date. At some point in the past, the home in the extreme northwestern portion of the site (and outside the area to be platted) was split off from the larger parcel. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on July 1, 2014. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/8/14 60 Day Deadline – 10/8/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 12/8/14 Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR) §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment Control REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from The Ryland Group for final plat approval of the initial phase of the Hunter’s Crossing residential subdivision. The area to be platted represents approximately half of the lots that were approved with the preliminary plat, and will include 22 single-family lots, outlots for storm water management facilities, and a larger outlot to be platted as part of the second addition. The City approved the Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat on July 1, 2014, and the final plat represents the northern portion of the overall area to be subdivided. The applicant has provided a detailed project narrative (attached) that provides summary of the request with information updated from the preliminary plat review where appropriate. Hunter’s Crossing will be located along the planned 5th Street minor collector route, and the preliminary plat indicated that the sole access into the development would be located off of 5th Street. One of the unique aspects of this project is that the planned location of 5th Street along the northern property line of the subdivision straddles the property line between the applicant’s site and the adjacent property to the north. At this time, there has been no agreement reached between these two property owners to build 5th Street as a private improvement, therefore, the applicant is proposing to construct the southern half of this road as part of Hunter’s Crossing, while leaving the northern portion to be constructed either when the northern property develops or when and if the City decides to complete this road as a public improvement project. The final construction documents do include plans for 5th Street, but these plans note that it will be built as a future City project. Based on recent conversations with the City, the applicant has agreed to build the southern half of the road as noted above, but is proposing to complete this work as part of the second addition. This proposed phasing plan would result on the construction of a road of sufficient width to allow two-way traffic, but that would later be expanded to the City’s full specifications for the road with one-lane of travel in each direction with turn lanes at full intersections. Because the applicant’s portion of 5th Street would not be constructed until the second phase of the project, the applicant is proposing to use the existing access to the site as a temporary access for the first addition. The City’s preliminary plat approval authorized the use of this temporary access to serve up to 25 lots, which falls within the number being proposed for the final plat. Washington County will also allow the temporary access provided this access is eliminated once 5th Street is in place. There are a few issues that the City is working to address concerning the construction of 5th Street in two phases, and most importantly, is asking the applicant and northern property owner to enter into BUSINESS ITEM 5C 3 an agreement to identify an area to handle storm water runoff from the road. The City will otherwise maintain control over the future platting in this area so that no further platting will be allowed either on the applicant’s property or on the site to the north without at least half of the road being completed. As part of the planned improvements for 5th Street, the applicant will need to comply with the comments from Washington County, and will need to incorporate improvements to Lake Elmo Avenue as part of this work. Consistent with the approved preliminary plat, the final plat does not include two exception parcels along Lake Elmo Avenue, both of which will be provided with potential future connections to the streets internal to Hunter’s Crossing. As depicted in the attached plans, the northeast exception parcel will have access to 4th Street via Outlot B; access to the other exception parcel will be platted as part of the second addition. In both cases, these parcels will still be allowed to access Lake Elmo Avenue until they are redeveloped at some point in the future (both are guided for Medium Density Residential development). The applicant has provided an updated landscape plan with all of the other required plans, and this plan has been reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect. In his review he notes that the applicant will need to either provide more trees with the project or increase the size of the ones that have been proposed. These changes will be fairly straight forward to make as the developer prepares final revisions to the construction plans. In terms of public park land dedication, the preliminary plat was approved without a specific land dedication, and instead, the developer is expected to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. Consistent with recent City approvals, the applicant may request a reduction in these fees in exchange for the construction of public trails within the project. Please note that the grading and utility plans do cover the entire preliminary plat area, and that the developer will be mass grading the entire site as part of these plans. The other street and utility plans also depict the entire site, and the City Engineer has asked for further clarification concerning which aspects of these plans will be constructed as part of the phase one improvements. The applicant has submitted detailed construction plans for related to sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, grading, drainage, erosion control, landscaping, and other details that have been reviewed by the City Engineer. The City’s subdivision ordinance establishes the procedure for obtaining final subdivision approval, in which case a final plat may only be reviewed after the City takes action on a preliminary plat. As long as the final plat is consistent with the preliminary approval, it must be approved by the City. Please note that the City’s approval of the Hunter’s Crossing Preliminary Plat did include a series of conditions that must be met by the applicant, which are addressed in the “Review and Analysis” section below. There are no public hearing requirements for a final plat. The City’s zoning map for all of the area included in the preliminary plat for Hunter’s Crossing has previously been updated to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. All of the site is zone LDR – Urban Low Density Residential, and the proposed lots, setbacks, streets, and other plan elements have been found to be consistent with the LDR district requirements. Staff has reviewed the final plat and found that it is consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved by the City. Please note that the final plat now includes proposed street names as recommended by the Planning Department. The City Engineer, Landscape Architect, and County Engineer have reviewed the final plat, and these comments are attached to this report. Although there are some additional revisions to the final construction plans that will need to be addressed by the applicant, the majority of these revisions can be made before the City releases the final plat for recording. BUSINESS ITEM 5C 4 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The preliminary plat for Hunter’s Crossing was approved with several conditions, which are indicated below along with Staff’s comments on the status of each. The applicant has also provided a response to these conditions as part of the attached application narrative. Staff is recommending approval of the final plat with conditions intended to address the outstanding issues that will require additional review and/or documentation. In order to assist the Planning Commission with its review, Staff is also including a summary the critical issues that need to be resolved for the subdivision to move forward. Critical Issues Summary: 1) The developer is proposing to construct half of 5th Street with their project, leaving the northern half to be constructed by another private party or of the City in the future. Staff has agreed that this is be best option for moving forward with development in this area given the unique site ownership and property boundaries that exist around the applicant’s site. There is minimal risk to the City in taking this approach since it will be relatively straight-forward to demonstrate benefit to the northern property owner if the City decides to build the road and asses the costs back to the abutting property owner. 2) 5th Street will be constructed with the second addition, at which time the applicant will need to prepare plans for the southern portion of this road that comply with City standards and also comply with Washington County requirements for the intersection of 5th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. The City is working with both the applicant and property owner to the north to secure an agreement concerning the storm water facilities needed to build the road. This agreement will be completed prior to a final plat for second addition. 3) The applicant will need to secure an easement from the property owner to the east related to storm water discharge in the southwest portion of the site. This property owner has not objected to the proposed easement, and this is an issue that can be finalized prior to release of the final plat for recording. 4) All other recommended conditions of approval relate to final details that must be addressed by the applicant and can be handled prior to release of the final plat for recording. Preliminary Plat Conditions – With Staff Update Comments (updated information in bold italics): 1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following: a) the applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney; and b) the applicant shall pay all fees associated with the preliminary plat. The above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an application for final plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on the site. Comments: a) all title work will need to be submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney before City officials sign the final plat; b) the applicant has submitted an escrow payment related to the preliminary plat application that is being used to cover Staff and consultant expenses related to the City’s review. 2) The landscape plan and tree preservation plan shall be reviewed and approved by an independent forester or landscape architect in advance of the approval of a final plat and final construction plans. Comment: the plans have been reviewed by the City’s landscape architecture consultant BUSINESS ITEM 5C 5 and his review is included as an attachment to this report. The applicant will need to further revise the landscape plan to comply with the City’s landscape ordinance by either adding more trees or increasing the size of the proposed trees. Staff has found that the proposed plan is generally acceptable and complies with the City’s expectations and requirements for street trees, and screening and buffering of adjacent properties. This is an issue that can be resolved through further discussions between the City and developer. 3) The final landscape plan shall incorporate additional planting where feasible adjacent to the shared property lines with the parcels at 404 and 275 Lake Elmo Avenue North. Comments: The final landscape plan includes additional plantings along the southwestern property boundary. The number of plantings along the northwestern property boundary is similar to the preliminary plat; however, the location of the future access in this location (Outlot B) limits the developer’s ability to add substantially more plantings along this boundary. 4) The applicant shall be responsible for updating the final construction plans to include the construction of all improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated June 17, 2014. The required improvements shall include, but not be limited to the construction of a northbound right turn lane and southbound center tum lane. Comments: Because the plans for 5th Street will be more fully developed as part of the second addition, this condition will be revised to note the most recent County review comments and to further clarify that the Lake Elmo Avenue improvements will be constructed with the 5th Street project in the future. 5) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. Comments: The applicant has received a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District (attached) for the grading work proposed in the final plans. This permit includes conditions that must be met prior to the commencement of any grading work on the site. 6) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat. Comments: The applicant has indicated that there will be a homeowner’s association created for this development; the declarations and HOA documents should be recorded with the final plat. A maintenance agreement and evidence that the HOA has been established should be retained as a condition of approval for the final plat. 7) The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City's Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording. Comments: The applicant will be required to pay the required fee in lieu of land dedication to recording the final plat. Because the project is being split into at least two final plats, the park fees will be pro-rated based on the percentage of lots being platted within the overall development. BUSINESS ITEM 5C 6 8) Any land under which paved public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the developer constructs said paved trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision. Comments: Staff is recommending that this condition be merged with the above condition for the final plat. 9) The temporary access to Lake Elmo A venue must be eliminated when access to 5th Street is provided. The City will not issue building permits for more than 25 lots within Hunter's Crossing until such time that the temporary access is closed. Comments: this condition will allow the developer to plat the requested 22 homes as part of the first edition before 5th Street is constructed. Only three additional lots may be platted and built upon before 5th Street is constructed. 10) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. Comments: the applicant is seeking approval to commence grading consistent with this condition; the City will likely be issuing a permit for this work prior to the City Council action on the final plat. 11) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated May 23, 2014 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat. Comments: Revised plans have been submitted for review, and the attached comments from the City Engineer provide a response to the updated plans. All final revisions and modifications as requested by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant before the plat will be released for recording. The majority of the Engineer’s comments will require minor modifications to the plans and specifications and are not unusual at this detailed level of review. 12) The applicant is encouraged to preserve or re-use as many trees as possible that are currently located on the property and to incorporate these trees as part of the landscape plan for the subdivision. Comments: Given the tight confines of the project area and the need to meet City and watershed district storm water requirements, there are relatively few opportunities to incorporate existing trees into the development. The applicant has stated that they will preserve or re-use trees if possible. 13) The applicant shall provide written consent from the adjacent property owner to the north agreeing to the grading and storm sewer work depicted on this property. Comments: The applicant has stated that they will work with this property owner if any grading is necessary to construct the 5th Street improvements. The City is also working to complete a separate agreement with these property owners to address this issue. 14) Water improvements must be available to serve the subdivision. Comments: The City Council has ordered these improvements as part of the Lake Elmo Avenue water project, which satisfies this condition. Ryland has agreed to pay the Water Availability Charge for the entire development prior to recording the final plat. 15) The applicant shall pay a Water Availability Charge consistent with the Lake Elmo Fee Schedule for the entire development prior to the release of the final plat for recording, regardless of project phasing. Comments: Please see note above. BUSINESS ITEM 5C 7 Staff is recommending that the conditions noted above that pertain to the final plat and that have not yet been addressed by the applicant should be adopted with the final plat. The City Engineer’s review letter does identify several issues that need to be addressed by the developer in order for the City to deem the final plans complete; however, all of these concerns are related to the construction plans and should not have any bearing on the final plat. Staff is recommending that City Officials not sign the final plat mylars until the City’s construction plan review is finalized and all necessary easements are documented on the final plat. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the final plat with several conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to proceed with the recording of the final plat. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, utility plans, sanitary and storm water management plans, and street and utility construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the recording of the Final Plat. All changes and modifications to the plans requested by the City Engineer in review memo dated 9/3/14 shall be incorporated into these documents before they are approved. 2) The developer shall provide evidence in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney that warrants it has fee interest in area included in the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat. 3) Prior to the execution of the Final Plat by City officials, the Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of the required improvements with financial guarantees therefore. 4) All easements as requested by the City Engineer and Public Works Department shall be documented on the Final Plat prior to the execution of the final plat by City Officials. 5) A Common Interest Agreement concerning management of the common areas of Hunter’s Crossing and establishing a homeowner’s association shall be submitted in final form to the Community Development Director before a building permit may be issued for any structure within this subdivision. The applicant shall also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat 6) The final landscape plan shall be updated to address the comments from the City’s consulting landscape architect in a review letter to the City dated 9/5/14. 7) The developer shall provide written authorization from the property owner to the east of Hunter’s Crossing to allow the proposed drainage improvements and discharge of storm water on to their property. A utility easement across the affected property is one option for compliance with this condition. 8) The final construction plans for any additional final plat within Hunter’s Crossing shall include, at a minimum, the southern portion of 5th Street. At this time these plans are BUSINESS ITEM 5C 8 prepared they shall include the construction of all improvements within the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated September 2, 2014. 9) The developer is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the final design of the community mailboxes within Hunter’s Crossing. 10) The developer shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City's Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes (or trails) by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be pro-rated based on the percentage of the overall lots to be platted within the subdivision and shall be paid by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording. 11) The applicant shall deed Outlots A, B, and E to the City upon recording of the final plat. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat: • That the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on July 1, 2014. • That the Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. • That the Final Plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential zoning district. • That the Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances. • That the Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. • That the Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with the plan revisions as requested by the City Engineer. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat for Hunter’s Crossing with the 11 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat with the 11 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff” BUSINESS ITEM 5C 9 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Application Narrative 3. Lot Information Summary 4. Tree Inventory 5. City Engineer Review Letter 6. Landscape Architecture Review Letter 7. Washington County Review Comments 8. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit 9. Fire Department Review Comments 10. Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat 11. Construction Plans: Final Grading Plan 12. Construction Plans: Utility and Street Construction 13. Final Landscape Plans ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5C TWIN CITIES DIVISION 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952.229.6000 Tel 952.229.6024 Fax www.ryland.com August 8, 2014 Kyle Klatt Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Hunters Crossing – Final Plat Application Dear Mr. Klatt: Ryland Homes is pleased to submit to the City of Lake Elmo a Final Plat application for Hunters Crossing located on the east side of Lake Elmo Ave. N. approximately ¼ mile north of Intestate Hwy 94. The following written statements are being provided as part of the submittal requirements for the development: A. Contact Information a. Property Owner/Seller: Nathan Landucci 404 Lake Elmo Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 894-2582 b. Developer/Buyer/Applicant: The Ryland Group – Tracey Rust 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 229-6063 c. Engineer/Surveyor: Pioneer Engineering – Paul Cherne 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (651) 251-0630 B. Site Data a. Address: 404 Lake Elmo Ave. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042 b. Zoning: On October 1, 2013 the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR). Existing zoning RT-Rural Transitional with proposed zoning of LDR-Urban Low Density Residential. c. Parcel Size: 23.10 Acres (1,006,236 SF) d. PID: 36.029.21.32.0008 e. Legal Description: See attached-Per Title Commitment C. Final Subdivision and Lot Information: i. Proposed Development Name: Hunters Crossing ii. See attached table for lot and block number, size and width and depth of lot. iii. See attached table with the Public Open Space area of 0.6265 Acres. iv. There will be no wetlands remaining for this development. v. See attached table with the proposed Right-of-Way area of 4.5671 Acres. vi. See Final Plat for Easement locations. D. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 1. Title and Fees: Title will be submitted under separate cover. All fees have been paid for Preliminary Plat. 2. Landscape plan is attached for review. 3. Additional landscaping has been added along adjacent property lines. 4. Final construction plans will include the necessary improvements for 5th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. Further coordination with the City and County is necessary prior to final plans. 5. Valley Branch Watershed District granted approval for the wetland impacts on July 10, 2014. 6. Landscaping outside of public areas will be the responsibility of individual homeowners or the Home Owner’s Association depending on the planting locations. 7. Park fee will be paid in lieu of park land dedication prior to final plat recording. 8. A public trail will be constructed with this development. 9. The temporary access from Lake Elmo Avenue will be eliminated when access to 5th Street is provided. 10. A grading permit application has been submitted to the City for approval. 11. Please see attached plans addressing the City Engineers comments. 12. Ryland will preserve or re-use trees if possible. 13. Ryland will work with the property owner to the north should grading be necessary to construct 5th Street improvements. 14. Ryland will pay the Water Availability Charge for the entire development prior to Final Plat recording. E. Density: The net density for the overall site is 3.93 lots/acre. This calculation is based on the number of lots divided by the acreage excluding outlots and right of way (51 lots / (23.10 -3.84-6.27) Acres = 3.93 lots/acre.) F. Infrastructure Improvements: Hunters Crossing will ultimately have access from the future 5th Street corridor. The temporary access point for the site will be via the existing driveway entrance off of Lake Elmo Avenue. The internal streets with sidewalks parallel Lake Elmo Avenue and 5th Street with 2 cul-de-sacs on the east side of the property adjacent to the proposed stormwater basin. The stormwater basin located on the east side of the property has been designed in this location due to the low area of the site as well as allowing a natural buffer between the residential and future business park use. A trail is proposed along the south and east side of the basin to provide a connection from the development to 5th Street. Sanitary sewer service will be provided within the internal roadway system with connection to the 24” sanitary sewer service that the City recently installed to service this and other sites. Watermain service will also be provided within the internal roadway and connect to the watermain trunk service that is currently being installed along Lake Elmo Avenue by the City with an expected completion date of September 2015. Phase I of Hunters Crossing will consist of 22 lots with necessary streets and utilities. G. Neighbor Concerns: a. Neighbor at Southwest corner - Ryland has discussed this project with the neighbors directly adjacent to the site. The neighbor at the southwest corner of the site mentioned concern for future grading and drainage entering their property and if Lake Elmo Avenue improvements would affect their property and/or driveway. Ryland’s grading plan addresses the grading by matching existing grades at the property line. The current Lake Elmo Avenue & 5th Street intersection improvements do not extend south past the development therefore those improvements will not affect the current property owner at the southwest corner. Additional landscaping was added to increase screening along the properties lines. b. Neighbor to the East – Ryland has met with the adjacent neighbor to the east to discuss the development and to acquire a grading easement on their property. Discussions with them have been favorable regarding the location of 5th Street and the need for a grading easement for Ryland to do some minor grading to ensure proper flow from the stormwater basin’s ultimate outlet. H. Conflicts with nearby land uses: Ryland believes that not only is this development not creating conflicts with nearby land uses or future uses but that it is encouraging future uses with it being the first development in the area and contributing to utility trunk service extensions and roadway improvements. There is one wetland area on the site that will be disturbed during the development and has been approved by Valley Branch Watershed District. Ryland will be paying into a wetland bank in lieu of wetland mitigation. I. No excessive burden on the City: With the City of Lake Elmo’s plan to expand and create developments in Lake Elmo and given the size of this first development into the area, we do not anticipate any burdens on roadways, utilities, parks, schools, fire, police, or other services in the area. J. Proposed lakeshore access: Not applicable. K. Parks and/or open space: The City staff has recommended that a park is not necessary within the proposed development and that Ryland will pay a parkland dedication fee to contribute to a future regional park within the area. L. Development Schedule: The development will be constructed in two (2) phases with the first phase utilizing the existing access off of Lake Elmo Avenue until 5th Street is constructed and complete. Phase I will consist of 22 lots along the north side of the site with necessary streets, utilities and the stormwater basins. The following is a preliminary schedule for design/approvals and construction. a. Begin Site Grading – August 2014 b. Phase I Final Plat Approval – September 16, 2014 c. Phase I Site Construction (Streets & Utilities) – September – November 2014 d. City Watermain Extension – June – October 2014 e. 5th Street Construction – Spring 2015 f. Phase II Final Plat Approval – April 2015 g. Phase II Site Construction – June – August 2015 h. Home Construction - November 2014 – December 2016 Ryland Homes has appreciated City Staff’s comments and direction so far with this project and we look forward to continuing to work with City Staff to make this a successful new neighborhood for the City of Lake Elmo. Please feel free to contact Tracey Rust at 952.229.6063 with any questions. Sincerely, THE RYLAND GROUP, INC. Tracey Rust, PE Entitlement Manager Attachment: Legal Description Hunters Crossing Information Table Tree Inventory by: Ken Arndt Forest Ecologist/Wetland Specialist Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. 1032 West Seventh St. #150 St. Paul, MN 55102 (651)-788-0641 Tree Preservation Plans provided by: 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-681-1914 Tag #Size Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-Native Notes Status 1225 24/16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1226 17/12/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1227 20 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Off-Site 1228 14/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1229 14/10/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1230 10/10/7 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1231 10/9/6/6 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1232 13/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1233 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1234 18 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Off-Site 1235 22 Boxelder Acer negundo native Remove 1236 22 Boxelder Acer negundo native Remove 1237 14/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1238 19 American Elm Ulmus americana native Remove 1239 20/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1240 16 Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis native Not shown on plan, Hardwood Remove 1241 34 Cottonwood Populus deltoides native Remove 1242 30 Cottonwood Populus deltoides native Remove 1243 19 Cottonwood Populus deltoides native Remove 1244 20 Boxelder Acer negundo native Remove 1245 14/14/14 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native 1 of 3 has internal decay along stem Remove 1246 15/14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1247 10/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1248 11 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1249 16/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1250 18/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1251 24 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1252 20 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1253 26 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove 1254 18 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove 1255 19 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove 1256 24 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove 1257 18 Black Willow Salix nigra native Remove 1258 8 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove 1259 17 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1260 8 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove 1261 6/6 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1262 6/6 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1263 7 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove 1264 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1265 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila native Remove 1266 12/8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1267 13/8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1268 16/12/8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1269 13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1270 22/22/20/14 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1271 13 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1272 14 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1273 11 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1274 10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1275 7 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1276 10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1277 10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1278 8 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1279 17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1280 17 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1281 28/19 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1282 25 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1283 29 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native 40% top dead, internal decay @ base Remove 1284 12 Jack Pine Pinus banksiana native Coniferous Remove 1285 18/17/16/16/16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1286 28 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1287 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1288 16 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Remove 1289 16/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1290 9 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1291 25 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Not shown on plan Remove 1292 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Not shown on plan Remove 1293 7 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1294 20/16/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1295 8/7 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1296 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1297 11 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save Tag #Size Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-Native Notes Status 1298 16 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1299 13/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1300 12/8 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1301 13/7 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1302 11 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1303 10/10/8 Boxelder Acer negundo native Save 1304 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1305 10 American Elm Ulmus americana native Save 1306 8 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1307 10/6 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1308 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1309 12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1310 12/12/10/8 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1311 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1312 14 American Elm Ulmus americana native Save 1313 18 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1314 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1315 15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1316 14/12 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1317 10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1318 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1319 13 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica native Save 1320 14 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Off-Site 1321 16/15 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Save 1322 9 Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides native Remove 1323 16/10 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila non-native Remove 1324 20/15/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1325 16/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1326 15 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1327 12/10 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1328 16 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1329 12/6/6 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1330 12 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove 1331 9 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum native Remove Total Inches: 2,106" Allowed 30% Removal: 631" Total Inches Removed: 1,677" Total Inches to Mitigate: 1,046" Common Tree Removal: 1,018" Coniferous Tree Removal: 12" Hardwood Tree Removal: 16" Common Tree Removal: 1,018" Replace at a rate of 1/4: 1,018"/4=255" Conifersous Tree Removal: 12" Replace at a rate of 1/2: 12"/2=6" Hardwood Tree Removal: 16" Replace at a rate of 1/2: 16"/2=8" Total Inches Required: 269" PAGE 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM Date: September 3, 2014 To: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Re: Hunters Crossing – Ryland Homes Cc: Nick Johnson, City Planner Final Plat and Construction Plan Review From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer An engineering review has been completed for the Hunters Crossing development by Ryland Homes. A Final Plat and Grading Plan submittal was received on August 15, 2014. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Pioneer Engineering:  Final Plat Application dated August 8, 2014.  Final Plat, unsigned and undated.  Final Grading Plan, dated July 28, 2014.  Utility and Street Construction Plans, dated August 6, 2014.  Project Manual for Utility and Street Construction, dated August 6, 2014.  Stormwater Management Report, revised July 25, 2014. STATUS/FINDINGS: The grading plans are of sufficient quality to allow grading operations to begin. A preconstruction meeting may be scheduled to initiate grading work. At the preconstruction meeting the applicant must submit all necessary permits including the VBWD permit, Project SWPPP, County R/W approvals, and adjacent property owner permissions and easements as outlined below. Final Grading Plans and Utility and Street Construction Plans must be revised and resubmitted for final review and approval by the City prior to street and utility construction work. FINAL PLAT:  The Final Plat and Construction Plans should both be updated to include the Outlot ownership information. Outlots A, B and E must be dedicated to the City.  Note: City utilities will be constructed within Outlot C as part of the first addition. All drainage and utility easements shown on the Plat must be dedicated to the City of Lake Elmo and recorded at Washington County as part of the First Addition Final Plat, including the drainage and utility easements over Outlot C.  The Plat proposes a temporary roadway access to CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) through a portion of Outlot C. A 50 foot temporary road easement should be provided to the City of Lake Elmo as part of the Final Plat to include the temporary access road.  The Plat requires future access to 5th Street North with the temporary access road to be removed. Approval of the Final Plat should be contingent upon a fully executed development agreement securing the property and cost for the future construction of 5th Street. FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285 PAGE 2 of 3 PROJECT EASEMENTS:  Provide written documentation from the adjacent property owner to the north agreeing to the grading and erosion control work to be completed on the property.  Provide written documentation from the adjacent property owner to the east agreeing to the grading and storm sewer construction work and the direct storm water discharge onto the property at FES 1A. Permanent drainage and utility easements in the City standard form must be provided for the proposed storm pond outfall from Basin 1P.  A 20 foot permanent drainage and utility easement in the City standard form should be provided along the southern plat line to accommodate the grading and storm sewer pipe proposed on the south property line. GRADING, STORM WATER MANGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL  Add Note to see Standard Plan Notes for Grading and Erosion Control, Details 600A, 600B and 600C, on Erosion Control Detail Sheet.  Add Note to see Standard Plan Notes for Site Restoration, Detail 600D, on Erosion Control Detail Sheet.  Spot elevations need to be placed along the west side of Basin 601P to fully contain the 932.5 HWL contour on Outlot A. Based on contours only the HWL appears to extend into County R/W.  The maintenance access to Basin 601P Basin must be changed to 15 feet in width. The City must receive documentation indicating County approval for permanent access to this facility.  The Temporary Sediment Basins 401P, 101P and within the 3rd Street Cul‐de‐sac, should be relocated outside of future street areas to avoid temporary soil saturation in these areas.  Grading revisions should be made along the south side of Outlot B to improve drainage and grade from the localized low area within the 932 contour. Consider a second drainage outlet to CSAH 17 R/W.  Additional swale grade appears necessary along the rear property lines of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4.  The Grading Detail plan sheet must be updated to include the City Standard Typical Sections for 5th Street and Residential Streets and the custom typical sections removed to avoid conflicting section details.  The Temporary Access Road Section should be updated to reflect a minimum 22 foot pavement width with 2 foot gravel shoulders.  See EOR review memorandum regarding design and construction of the iron enhanced sand filters. STORM SEWER SYSTEM  City Standard Plan Notes for Storm Sewer, from Detail 400A, must be included on each Storm Sewer Construction Plan Sheet.  Storm sewer design calculations must be submitted as part of the construction plans to verify compliance with minimum and maximum pipe velocities and discharges.  A localized low point is created on Laverne Avenue. Additional catch basin inlets should be considered to enhance drainage in this area above typical 10‐year event inlet capacity.  Increase the pipe size to 15‐inch diameter from CBMH‐124 to CBMH‐123.  Remove “Inspector” from Note 2.  The plans must be revised to better clarify between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 storm sewer plans. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN  Watermain oversizing will be required to meet City wide distribution system demands. Watermain must be increased to 12‐inch pipe diameter along 5th Street, then south along Laverne Avenue, then east along 3rd Street, then south along the stub to the south property line. A 12” x 12” cross should be installed at the intersection of 5th Street and Laverne Avenue. Watermain oversizing is paid by the City as a reimbursement addressed within the development agreement.  Rename the “Sanitary Sewer Construction” Plan Sheets to include Watermain.  City Standard Plan Notes for Watermain, from Detail 200A, and Sanitary Sewer, from Detail 300A, must be included on each Utility Plan Sheet. PAGE 3 of 3  The plans must be revised to better clarify between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sanitary sewer and watermain. Add a temporary hydrant at each watermain end point for system maintenance.  Replace the air bleed valve on Sheet 2 with a temporary hydrant on the watermain stub to the southern property line.  Insert an 12” x 8” Tee fitting with a bend fitting on Sheet 2 along the 3rd Street watermain as the watermain turns south along the trail. STREET CONSTRUCTION  Replace the Typical 60‐foot ROW Street Section on Sheets 12‐14 with the City Standard Typical Section to remove all discrepancies from City Standards.  Provide Typical ROW Street Section for Laverne Avenue from 4th Street to 5th Street.  The Temporary Access road must be a minimum 22‐feet in width for the bituminous and signed “No Parking” along both sides of the road.  Replace the Typical 100‐foot ROW Street Section on Sheet 16 with the City Standard Typical Section to remove all discrepancies from City Standards. Adjust all other plan documents as necessary to conform with the City typical section for 5th Street.  City Standard Plan Notes for Sidewalks and Trails, from Detail 500A, must be included on each Street and Trail Plan Sheet.  A Signing, Pavement Marking and Lighting Plan must be completed and incorporated as part of the Street and Utility Construction Plans. City Standard Plan Notes for Signing, Pavement Marking and Lighting, from Detail 700A, must be included on each Street and Trail Plan Sheet. PROJECT MANUAL / SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAILS  The City Standard Specifications must be included in the Project Manual as the governing specifications for the Improvements. The general requirements shall state the following: “The City Standard Specifications shall apply to the work performed under this contract. Any supplemental specifications are intended to supplement the City Standard Specifications; however they do NOT supersede the City Standard Specifications, Details, Design Standards, or ordinances unless specific written approval has been provided by the City.”  Any additional specifications for the project shall be clearly identified as “Supplemental Provisions” not "Special Provisions".  The General Project Requirements shall be revised to be consistent with the City Standard Specifications for general project requirements, and the project requirements as specified in the Development Agreement.  The Project Manual shall include City standard grading and erosion control specifications and be issued and used as part of the grading operations for the Project.  Standard Plan Note Details 200A, 300A, 400A, 500A, 600A‐600D, and 700A are to be placed on each applicable plan sheet and removed from the detail plan sheets.  Add Standard Details 101, 102, 103, 105, 201, 203, 204, and 402 to the Detail Plan Sheets. 2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114 PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM HUNTER’S CROSSING – DESIGN REVIEW REPORT LAKE ELMO, MN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW DATED SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2014 REVIEWED PLAN SET DATED AUGUST 8TH, 2014 Required Action Items by Hunter’s Crossing Project Landscape Architect 1. The plan is NOT in compliance with the landscape requirements. Current drawing represents 575 caliper inches, required caliper inches is 784 assuming the street frontage, trees to be planted per acre as well as mitigation calculations provided are correct. City requirements are fair and reasonable therefore, one or a combination of the following recommendations must be met. Recommendations:  Revise design to preserve more existing trees. Therefore, reducing tree replacement requirements.  Add more landscape materials on-site to meet landscape requirements.  Increase caliper inches or height of trees already specified to comply with aggregate landscape requirements.  Plant remaining required plant materials in a nearby City Park per City staff direction to meet landscape requirements. (per tree preservation ordinance 154.257 8 a-d & landscape requirements 154.258) 2. 6 foot Evergreen Tree conversion to caliper inches = 2.5 inch deciduous shade tree if converted NOT 3 inch caliper inches as assumed on sheet L1. 3. Project Landscape Architect to provide landscape irrigation plans for all commonly held HOA & City R.O.W. areas. SINCERELY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP BD+C DIRECTOR OF DESIGN % + 8 + . ' 0 ) + 0 ' ' 4 5 . # 0 & 2 . # 0 0 ' 4 5 . # 0 & 5 7 4 8 ' ; 1 4 5 . # 0 & 5 % # 2 ' # 4 % * + 6 ' % 6 5 ͟͟͟͞͞͞ % + 8 + . ' 0 ) + 0 ' ' 4 5 . # 0 & 2 . # 0 0 ' 4 5 . # 0 & 5 7 4 8 ' ; 1 4 5 . # 0 & 5 % # 2 ' # 4 % * + 6 ' % 6 5 % + 8 + . ' 0 ) + 0 ' ' 4 5 . # 0 & 2 . # 0 0 ' 4 5 . # 0 & 5 7 4 8 ' ; 1 4 5 . # 0 & 5 % # 2 ' # 4 % * + 6 ' % 6 5 .1%#6+10/#2 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä%184Ä)4#& 5''&+0)2.#0'415+10%10641.2.#0)4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0%18'45*''65*''6+0&': Ä *706'45%4155+0) (+0#.)4#&+0)2.#0 .#-''./1/+00'516# .')'0& %18'45*''6 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# &'6#+.5Ä Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#& )4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#& )4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#& )4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä)4#& )4#&+0)#0&&4#+0#)'2.#0 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# .')'0& x x Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä'415 '415+10%10641.2.#0 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä5''& 5''&+0)2.#0 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# ȭ ȭ ȭ Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä)4 )4#&+0)&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä)4 '415+10%10641.&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä)4 '415+10%10641.&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# .1%#6+10/#2 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä%184Ä76+. 5#0+6#4;5'9'4 9#6'4/#+0%18'45*''65*''6+0&': Ä *706'45%4155+0) 76+.+6;#0&564''6%105647%6+10 .#-''./1/+00'516# .')'0& %18'45*''6 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# 5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10Ä564''6%105647%6+10Ä 6*564''64'('4'0%'5*''6 6*564''69#6'4/#+0 %+6;&'6#+.5Ä $+67/+017564#+.%105647%6+10 +410'0*#0%'&5#0&(+.6'42.#0 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# .#8'40'#8'0 (+456#&&+6+10 5'%10&#&&+6+10 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# 6*564''60 (+456#&&+6+10 .#0).;#8'0 5' ' 5 * ' ' 6 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5#0+6#4;5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# 4&564''60 (+456#&&+6+10 5'%10&#&&+6+10 .#0).;#8'0 (+456#&&+6+10 5' ' 5 * ' ' 6 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 6*564''69#6'4/#+0 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# 6*564''60146*9#6'4/#+0 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 5614/5'9'4%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# 5VTGGV# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 564''6%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# .#8'40'#8'0 5VTGGV$ Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 564''6%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# .#0).;#8'06*564''60 5VTGGV$ Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 564''6%105647%6+10 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# .#0).;#8'04&564''60 $KV6TCKN Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä $+67/+017564#+.%105647%6+10 2*#5' +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# $+67/+017564#+. VJ5VTGGV0 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä 564''62.#0#0&241(+.' +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# 6*564''60146* (7674'%+6;241,'%6 Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5 %+6;&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5 %+6;&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5 %+6;&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5 %+6;&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5 %+6;&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5 %+6;&'6#+.5 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä'0)ÄÄ5*''6Ä&6.5Ä(+.6 +410'0*#0%'&5#0&(+.6'42.#0 2*#5'Ä5+6'%.15'176 +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF2TQHGUUKQPCN'PIKPGGT WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' ÄÄ 2,%-#9 -#9#,4 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 ÄÄ 2CWN,%JGTPG '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# Ä2.#0ÄÄ5*''6Ä.#0& ..#0&5%#2'2.#0 E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP 6/.LNV 6/.LNV ÄÄ Ä2.#0ÄÄ5*''6Ä64'' 664''24'5'48#6+102.#0 E 1(*706'45%4155+0) .#-''./1/+00'516# 4;.#0&*1/'5 #0#)4#/&4+8' 0COG 4GI0Q&CVG 4GXKUKQPU &CVG &GUKIPGF &TCYP 2KQPGGT'PIKPGGTKPI2# /GPFQVC*GKIJVU/0 'PVGTRTKUG&TKXG Ä (CZÄYYYRKQPGGTGPIEQO .#0&5%#2'#4%*+6'%65.#0&5748';145.#0&2.#00'45%+8+.'0)+0''45 '&'024#+4+'/+00'516# +JGTGD[EGTVKH[VJCVVJKURNCPYCURTGRCTGFD[ OGQTWPFGTO[FKTGEVUWRGTXKUKQPCPFVJCV+ COCFWN[.KEGPUGF.CPFUECRG#TEJKVGEV WPFGTVJGNCYUQHVJG5VCVGQH/KPPGUQVC ,GPPKHGT.6JQORUQP ÄÄ 6/. 6/.