Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PZ-Agenda-Packet-2-23-15-Part-2-2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 2/23/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4C – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-03 ITEM: Wildflower at Lake Elmo Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review a request for a Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for a proposed residential subdivision to be called Wildflower at Lake Elmo. This application follows the City’s review and approval of a PUD Concept Plan for the site, as well as the City’s approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow the development to move forward as presented. There have been some minor modifications to the plans since the concept approval, but in general, the preliminary plan submission follows the concept plan very closely. The proposed subdivision would be located immediately north of the Brookfield Addition along 39th Street and would extend to the northern limits of the Village area boundary. The preliminary plat includes 145 single-family lots (matching the number depicted on the concept plans) on a total site area of approximately 117 acres, roughly half of which would be preserved as open space in the form of a nature conservancy, storm water ponds, and parklands. This request does require a public hearing and Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans with conditions. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN Property Owners: Robert Engstrom Companies; 4801 West 81st Street, #101, Bloomington, MN Location: Part of Sections 12 and 13, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, north of 39th Street, west of Lake Elmo Avenue, and south of the northern Village Planning Area boundary line. PID Numbers 13.029.21.32.00001, 12.029.21.34.0001, 13.029.21.21.0001 and 12.029.21.43.0013. Request: Preliminary Plat and preliminary PUD Plan Existing Land Use: Agriculture, Woods/Natural Vegetation, Wetlands, Open Space Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning BUSINESS ITEM 4a – REVIEW 2 Surrounding Land Use: North – vacant/agricultural land, rural residential; west – agricultural land (future Village residential); south – offices, business park land; open space/ Field of St. Croix II subdivision Surrounding Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional; RR – Rural Residential, GB – General Business Comprehensive Plan: Village Medium Density Residential (3-4 units per acre)/Village Open Space Overlay Proposed Zoning: MDR – Urban Medium Density Residential History: Property was 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. A large portion of the site is located in a FEMA Flood District. The City approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment last year that removed portions of the site from the open space land category. The City also approved a PUD Concept Plan for the property on June 17, 2014 Deadline for Action: Application Deemed Complete – 2/4/15 60 Day Deadline – 4/4/15 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 6/4/15 Applicable Regulations: Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (MDR) Article 16 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo is in receipt of a request from Robert Engstrom Companies for preliminary plat and preliminary concept plan approval of the Wildflower at Lake Elmo residential development. The subdivision would be located on land formerly known as the Heritage Farm and Premier Bank property, which consists of 101 acres within the Village Planning Area. This application follows the City’s review of a PUD concept plan for the property, and further approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow the platting of lots associated with the development over areas that were previously guided for open space. The developer has been working over the past several months to address the conditions attached to the concept plan approval, and has prepared plans that meet the City’s requirements to proceed with a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans. The entire development site is slightly over 117 acres, which includes the 101-acre parcel formerly owned by Premier Bank, 15 acres of open space associated with the Fields of St. Croix Second Addition development, and a smaller strip of land that provides access to the Smith farmstead property to the north of the applicant’s site. Of the 117 acres, roughly half would be used for residential development, while the remainder would be preserved as open space or used for storm water infiltration and retention. As noted in the attached project narrative, the applicant is proposing to use the open space for natural habitat restoration and creation, with a focus on providing a landscape that is friendly towards bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. This philosophy would be carried forward into the residential areas, where the developer will work to incorporate pollinator- friendly plants within these areas. BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 3 Overall, the project will include 145 single-family residential lots, the majority of which will be located on the higher portion of the property directly north of the Brookman Addition commercial area along 39th Street. A small number of lots are proposed on the lower part of the site along Lake Elmo Avenue, and consistent with the City’s requirements for concept plan approval, these lots will be served with public sanitary sewer service via a lift station located in the vicinity of Lot 3, Block 15. The primary access into the subdivision will be provided over an existing right-of-way that was previously platted within the Brookman Addition south of the applicant’s site. The access through the Brookman Addition will follow the common boundary between the Engstrom property and land immediately to the west now owned by the Gonyea development company. The developer had originally planned on widening right-of-way through the Brookman Addition, but was not successful at obtaining the necessary right-of-way from the current property owner in order to create a two-land divided entrance at 39th Street. As depicted on the preliminary plans, the entrance into the Wildflower subdivision will be a standard City two-lane road until it crosses into the applicant’s site. Due in part to the location of the previously platted right-of-way providing access to 39th Street, the applicant has been cooperating with Gonyea Home (the owner of the property west of Wildflower) to plat a new right-of-way between their properties that will connect to the existing access point. In addition to the access issue, both developers have also been coordinating the siting of a smaller park area to be shared by both developments. This park area would be located essentially in the middle of the two developments and accessible via roads from either development. With the significant amount of open space being set aside within Wildflower at Lake Elmo, the applicant is not proposing any additional land dedication for parks. The proposed internal street pattern follows a fairly rigid grid system, with larger lots located further to the north. Within the southern half of the residential area, the applicant is proposing a unique lot layout that incorporates small green courtyards surrounded by homes on smaller lots. This layout will allow the homes to face the front of the streets around the block, while moving all garages and vehicular accesses to a secondary road around the courtyard. These courtyard homes are intended to serve a different market than has typically been served in Lake Elmo, and would provide for a traditional streetscape and environment that is very attractive for pedestrians. Other major features of the plan being presented include the creation of larger storm water facilities to the east of the residential areas along State Highway 5 and the development of an extensive trail and path system providing access to the conservation areas and to the rest of the Village Planning Area. Since the City approved the concept plan, the Valley Branch Watershed District agreed to conduct study of the Goetschel pond drainage basin to determine whether or not the developer would have the ability to direct some of the storm water runoff associated with the development to the north. This study has been completed and resulted in an overall drop in the flood levels in this area, and will allow for storm water runoff from both the Wildflower development and adjacent Gonyea project to be collected in storm water ponds in the northern part of the applicant’s site. Subsequent to the City’s approval of the Wildflower PUD Concept Plan, the City Council took action on two related land use matters. First, the City agreed to amend the existing conservation easements within the Fields of St. Croix development in order to add the Field of St. Croix Homeowner’s Association as a party to these agreements and to remove the portion Outlot P of the Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition from the easement area in order to allow for the platted of homes over this lot as depicted in the concept plan. The City Council also approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow residential development to occur on two small areas within the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo subdivision that were previously guided for RAD – Rural Area Development and Village Open Space Overlay. These amendments changed the following: BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 4 • The area around 13 lots that are proposed on land immediately north of the Schiltgen Farms “Parcel B” development and immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue. This land was guided both for RAD – Rural Area Development and as part of the Village Open Space Overlay. The amendment removed these designations for the area to be subdivided and established a new land use designation of V-LDR (Village Urban Low Density Residential). • Outlot P of Fields of St. Croix Second Addition. The amendment changed the future land use designation of the western portion of this outlot from RAD – Rural Area Development to V- MDR (Village Urban Medium Density Residential). This amendment allows for the platting of roughly 17 lots that encroach into this outlot (which are being replatted as part of the Wildflower subdivision). The amended conservation easements will reference the final description for the remnant or Outlot P that will be replatted within Wildflower at Lake Elmo. One of the reasons the applicant has elected to pursue a Planned Development is that the development proposal includes certain elements that do not conform to City requirements. The specific requests for flexibility from current zoning requirements are included in the following section of this report. The City’s overall PUD process has three phases: 1) General Concept Plan, 2) Preliminary Development Plan, and 3) Final Plan. It should be noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the Wildflower at Lake Elmo General Concept Plan at a meeting conducted on June 9, 2014 and with approval by the City Council at its June 17, 2014 meeting with the adoption of Resolution No. 2014- 045. Approval of the General Concept Plan allows the applicant to proceed with preparation of preliminary plans, which the applicant has now submitted. Staff has reviewed the approved General Concept Plan and all the conditions associated with the approval. The applicant has previously explained the rational for requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as part of the concept plan application, and Staff has agreed that using the PUD process for the development of this site is reasonable and beneficial for the City in a number of ways, including: • The PUD process allows the City to review the site as a whole instead of dealing with individual development projects that may or may not be connected to each other. • The developer has requested certain exceptions from standard zoning requirements (as allowed through the PUD process) in order to bring forward a development that provides a housing option that is unique to Lake Elmo and that is consistent with the planning principles for the Village area. • The “courtyard home” concept integrates public open space into each block in exchange for smaller lots with narrow setbacks. • The integrated approach allows the developer to plan for maintenance and upkeep of the common areas throughout the project, and provides the framework to preserve a large portion of the subdivision as permanent open space. • The City has previously found that development plans are consistent with the City’s requirements for consideration of a PUD. By recommending approval of the Preliminary PUD Development Plan, the Planning Commission would also be recommending approval of the exceptions associated with the project. In addition, the developer has prepared a separate lot profile document to be filed with the PUD that documents the proposed dimensional requirements for different types of lots being platted. Staff is suggesting that BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 5 all requested exceptions and any additional development requirements be included in a separate PUD planning document at the final platting stage of the project. With the City’s recent completion of the 39th Street road and sewer project, sanitary sewer service is available to the development provided the Eastern Trunk Sewer Line project associated with the Easton Village project moves forward this year. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES Because the Planning Commission has previously received a significant amount of information along with the concept plan for the Wildflower PUD and spent a significant amount of time reviewing this information, Staff will therefore focus on those aspects of the plans that have been changed or updated since the City’s concept plan approval, along with a general summary of the PUD request as submitted by the applicant. Other general issues are noted as well. As required by the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, the applicant has provided a much greater amount of information as part of the current submission than is required for a Concept. Because of this, Staff will not attempt to spell out every single change or update from the concept plan, but instead will provide a summary of the most significant changes that have been made to address specific comments from the Commission or to address previous conditions of approval as follows: • The 13 lots on the lower portion of the site north of the Gonyea Homes development previously accessed directly on to Lake Elmo Avenue. This connection to Lake Elmo Avenue has been eliminated from the preliminary plans, and these lots will now connect directly to the rest of the subdivision via a longer cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum length allowed under the Subdivision Ordinance, and will need to be approved as an exception to the City’s standard zoning regulations. • The lower 13 lots will be connected to sanitary sewer service, but will require the installation of a lift station in order to function properly. • The developer has met several times with the adjacent property owners to the east and northwest, which resulted in the following changes to the original sketch plan: 1) a larger open area is provided in front of the Smith parcel (Outlot G) that will be owned and maintained by the association as open space; the developer has therefore eliminated any shared boundary of between new lots and this parcel; and 2) the landscape plan depicts a series of plantings between the two rural residential parcels to the east of the development and the lots to be platted within Wildflower. The types and locations of these plantings have been reviewed by the affected parties, who will also have an opportunity to further comment on the landscape plan at the public hearing. • The City, Developer (Owner), and Fields of St. Croix Homeowner’s association have agreed to amend the conservation easements over outlots within the Fields of St. Croix, and to specifically remove the portion of Outlot P that will be re-subdivided into residential homes from the easement area. The new easements now include the Fields Association as a party to the agreement, which will give the homeowners in the Fields of St. Croix control over any future changes to these easements (and especially those outlots not owned by the association). BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 6 • The developer has revised the street plans to comply with City standards throughout the project with a few exceptions. These exceptions are discussed in the following review comments. • The proposed storm water management system directs storm water either into new facilities within the northern open space area or to a larger pond facility in the southeastern portion of the site adjacent to Highway 5. There is no ponding shown on Outlot O (or homes adjacent to the Fields of St. Croix). • The applicant has formally stated that the conservation areas will be owned and managed by the Wildflower HOA, while any trails through this area will be owned and maintained by the City. Any storm water facilities within this area will also be owned by the City consistent with the City’s storm water ponding requirements. • The developer has made further refinements to the courtyard home area, and is asking for flexibility to allow some of the units to be attached units (duplexes) in certain locations. The interior roads will be dedicated for public use on the plat, and these roads will need to be marked as no parking zones. Staff has reviewed the conditions of approval attached to the City’s concept plan approval, and found that the developer has addressed all of these conditions with the preliminary plan submission. The City Engineer has provided a very detailed report concerning the development, and a large number of the issues identified by the Engineer are specific to the storm water management plans and other public improvements. The Wildflower at Lake Elmo development includes a request for a Planned Unit Development and some related flexibility as permitted under this ordinance. In order to grant a PUD, an applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the City’s PUD applicant requirements and PUD Objectives. These requirements and objectives were previously reviewed as part of the concept plan, and the developer has not made any substantial changes to the overall project to warrant further review of these objectives. For the most part, the single family portion of the development is consistent with the zoning requirements for the City’s LDR – Low Density Residential Zoning District, and the courtyard homes are consistent with the MDR – Medium Density Residential Zoning regulations, with the exceptions that were discussed during the concept plan review and are summarized as follows: Setback MDR Zoning District (Min.) Courtyard Homes (Min.) Front Yard 25 feet 20 feet Interior Side Yard 10 Feet Principal Structure Side / 5 Feet Garage Side Same or 7.5 both sides Rear Yard 20 feet 20 feet Lot Area 7,000 square feet 5,865 square feet Lot Depth N/A 100 feet Lot Width 50 feet 50 feet Street Widths City Standard Wildflower Alley/Rear Access Not Allowed 18 feet BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 7 One Way w/Parking 22 feet 18 feet One Way w/o Parking 18 feet 14 feet Cul-de-sac City Standard Prairie View Trail Maximum Length 1,000 feet 1,300 feet All other requirements for the City’s MDR zoning district will apply, including the allowed uses and other site and development standards. Because the entire site is guided for Village Urban Medium Density Residential, Staff is recommending that the developed portion of the site be rezoned to MDR (MDR/PUD) as part of the City’s final development plan review, with the exception of the lower 13 lots which would be more appropriately be zoned LDR. Please note that the above table follows closely to the numbers proposed by the developer. The purpose of this table is to document the minimum expectation for lots and homes in the development, and is otherwise consistent with the development plans. The developer has also requested flexibility concerning the building of homes in order to allow a mixture of some duplex units within the courtyard home area. Staff is recommending that the developer’s lot profile chart include any specific request for flexibility concerning duplex units, and that the potential location of these duplex units be clearly indicated as part of the overall PUD plans. Staff is recommending language to specify that no more than 20% of the overall number of courtyard lots may be platted as duplex units (which means no more than 13 lots could be developed in this manner). The applicant has provided a significant amount of detailed information concerning the development with the attached documentation, and Staff would like to specifically comment on the following aspects of the plan: • The City’s PUD requirements require that 20% of the project area not within street rights-of- way must be preserved as open space (and the ordinance specifically allows infiltration areas to be counted towards this amount). The applicant has provided a specific plan as part of the application materials that demonstrates that over 50% of the site, will be platted as outlots and remain as open space. • While the proposed lot dimensional standards listed above for the courtyard homes are lower than those required in the MDR zoning district, the applicant has proposed a preliminary plan that includes a mixture of lot sizes and widths throughout the development, including the “ridge, prairie, and conservancy” lots that will function more like the City’s single family districts. With the proposed mixture of homes and lot sizes, the overall net density for the project will fall within the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Village Urban Medium Density land use category. • The applicant has not provided a specific phasing plan for the development; this should be included with the final PUD submission to clarify how the project will be built out over time. The first phase, at a minimum, must include the connection to 39th Street in order to provide access into the subdivision. The overall site plan for the property follows the adopted concept plan very closely. Staff has conducted a review of the detailed plat and plans and specific comments from Staff concerning these plans are listed in the following section of this report. BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 8 The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of the Wildflower preliminary plat and plans: Zoning and Site Information: • Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District • Proposed Zoning: MDR – Lot Area; RR – Conservation/Buffer Areas • Total Site Area: 119.28 acres • Total Residential Units: 145 (78 single family, 67 courtyard homes) • Proposed Density (Net): 4.0 Units per acre (per developer) Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards (Single Family Lots): • Min. Lot Width: 80 ft. • Lot Depth: 130 ft. (135 ft. typical) • Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (10,298 min.) • Front Yard Setback: 25 ft. • Side Yard Setback: 10 ft. living space; 5 ft. garage • Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft. Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards through Planned Unit Development Process (courtyard homes): • As listed above Proposed Street Standards: • Per development plans with modifications as requested by the City Engineer The standards listed above are all either in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations, or are consistent with requested modifications through the proposed planned unit development (PUD). Please note that the City Engineer is recommending modifications to certain streets to either expand the right-of-way (and boulevard area) associated with these streets or to expand the width of the street to conform to City standards. The specific request for changes are noted in the attached report from the City Engineer. Based on Staff’s review of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, the applicant has generally demonstrated compliance with the majority of the applicable codes, and the requested modifications or flexibilities as allowed under the City’s PUD Ordinance represent a reasonable request given the various design goals the applicant it trying to achieve with the exception of the street widths as noted by the Engineer, REVIEW AND ANALYSIS City Staff has reviewed the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan. 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 and the City’s Landscape Consultant, Stephen Mastey, 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: BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 9 Critical Path Issues: • Floodplain District. As noted above, the study undertaken by the Valley Branch Watershed District has resulted in an adjustment to the flood levels for the Goetschel Pond drainage basin. While this should allow the developer to move forward with the grading and storm water management plan as proposed and to create the proposed storm water infiltration and retention facilities in the northern portions of the site, the City’s adopted FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) flood maps have not been revised. The City’s floodplain management ordinance will therefore apply to the lots north of the Gonyea site, and could result in some issues for the future property owners in this area. Although the Floodplain Management Ordinance will allow the creation of lots within a flood fringe area, without a map amendment, these properties will need to obtain flood insurance or submit appropriate documentation that their houses have been raised above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The creation of storm water ponds within these flood areas could also be problematic and is something that needs to be researched further prior to submission of final development plans for this area. Staff would like to discuss this issue in more detail with the watershed district prior to any lots being platted in this area, and is therefore recommending a condition of approval note that no lots within the City’s designated flood district be allowed to be platted until the City and Watershed District have sufficiently addressed all flood zone related matters. This would also give the City and developer time to review options for submitted map amendments to FEMA. • Storm Water Management – Rain Gardens. The developer has proposed a series of rain gardens within boulevard and median areas throughout the development. Since these areas will create a long-term maintenance issue for the City as described by the City Engineer as part of his review memorandum, Staff is asking that the developer consider eliminating those facilities that are not necessary to meet state and watershed district requirements. The developer will also need to comply with the specific review comments from the Engineer prior to constructing any of these facilities. • Street Width and Right-of-way Dedication. The developer has revised the street plan for most of the development site in order to comply with City street design standards, and specifically, the width of public streets within the subdivision. A few of the streets, include the Wildflower Drive parkway segment and some of the “eyebrow” and loop roads providing access to individual lots are not consistent with the City’s standards for these types of roads. Staff is recommending that he plans be revised per the City Engineer’s comments so that all roads comply with City design standards for width, or are marked for no parking (these specific segments are called out in the Engineer’s report). In this case, Wildflower Lane should be revised to show an 18-foot one-way travel lane on the northern one-way segment, and a 24-foot payment with parking on the southern segment (or 18 feet with parking bump- outs). The developer would like the Planning Commission to consider PUD design exceptions to allow the roads as planned. • Conservation Easements. The City of Lake Elmo is holding revised conservation easements in escrow pending final plat approval for the development project. Because some of the conservation easements within the Fields of St. Croix are held by the Minnesota Land Trust, the developer has entered into a separate agreement with the Land Trust to revise these specific easements. The Fields of St. Croix HOA would like to see the agreement with the Land Trust recorded prior to the City’s approval of the preliminary plat. The developer has agreed to record this agreement and should be able to complete this task prior to the City BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 10 Council’s review of the subdivision. The amended easements will allow the development to move forward as proposed. • Plat Dedications and Modifications. The preliminary plat as submitted anticipates that a small portion of the right-of-way for Wildflower Drive and Prairieview Trail will be dedicated over property currently owned by Gonyea Homes. In addition, one of the ponding basins (Pond 3n) that will be receiving storm water runoff from Wildflower is located on the Gonyea site as well. Although both developers are cooperating on some joint aspects of their respective projects, Engstrom Companies will need to demonstrate that the plat as proposed will be able to proceed should Gonyea not plat its property in the near future. Staff is therefore recommending that the preliminary plat be revised to dedicate the needed right-of- way across the adjacent parcels, or that the developer secure easements from the adjacent land owner prior to submission of a final plat. Other Issues: Members of the Community Development, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments have previously reviewed the Concept Plan, while the City Engineer, Fire Department, and Landscape Architect Consultant have provided an additional review of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Development Plans. The general Staff comments for this project are as follows: • Land Use: The proposed residential development is consistent with the future land use map as amended, which guides this area for Village Urban Medium Density and open space. The developer has indicated that the net density of site will be 4.0 units per acre, although it appears that this calculation excludes road right-of-way and storm water ponds, which will need to be added back in to comply with the City’s definition for net density. In this case, the rough calculation for the site would still be around 3.5 units per acre, which falls within the Village Urban Medium Density range of 2-4 units per acre. • Buffer Areas/Green Belt. A minimal open space/green belt buffer is preserved as part of the Wildflower development. One of the conditions of concept approval required the developer to provide additional screening and buffering of residential properties located to the east and northeast of Wildflower at Lake Elmo, and the landscape plan has been updated to incorporate these additional plantings. The previously approved Comprehensive Plan amendment adjusted the open space buffer across the development site, and the preliminary plat is consistent with the revised buffer area. • Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The following amendments have been approved by the City and reviewed and approved by the Met Council: o A Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the western portion of Outlot P of Fields of St. Croix Second Addition from RAD – Rural Area Development to V- MDR (Village Urban Medium Density Residential). o A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change roughly eight acres immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue and north of the Schiltgen Farms – Parcel “B” area from RAD – Rural Area Development and Village Open Space Overlay to V-LDR (Village Urban Low Density Residential). BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 11 • Zoning Map Amendments. The following amendments will be necessary to rezone the Wildflower property in a manner that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Please note that such rezoning is typically requested as part of a preliminary plat submission; however, until a sewer project to connect the lift station on 30th Street with the recently installed trunk sewer line within 39th Street is completed by private development interests, the zoning for this area should retain the existing RT – Rural Transitional Zoning: o A Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the residential portion of this development from RT – Rural Transitional to MDR – Medium Density Residential and LDR – Low Density Residential (for the smaller 13-lot area). Staff is recommending that the open space areas be zoned as rural residential to match the adjacent rural residential parcels. • Village Guiding Principles. The Village Land Use Plan incorporated the 13 guiding principles from the Village Master Plan. Of these principles, the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo will implement several of them, including: o Principle 1 - Evoke a sense of place: Build on existing assets to preserve the small town, rural character of Lake Elmo, maintaining the Old Village as the heart of the city. o Principle 2 - Balance natural and built systems: Integrate development within a green framework of parks, trails and the open space greenbelt. o Principle 7 - Improve connectivity: Provide a balanced network for movement that links local neighborhoods and Village Area attractions with city-wide and regional systems, paying equal attention to cars, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. o Principle 11 - Become a great model: Encourage other communities to ‘raise the bar’ by demonstrating low impact development, best practices and sustainability. • Lake Elmo Theming Study. In advance of a final plat submission, Staff is encouraging the applicant to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the design of the project. The inclusion of various theming elements would help augment the implementation of several of the guiding principles noted above. • Land Use and Zoning Flexibility. The applicant’s request for flexibility concerning lot sizes, setbacks, cul-de-sac length, and street standards is described in the preceding section. Staff is recommending approval of the dimensional exceptions and increased cul-de-sac length as proposed, but does not recommend approval of the street exceptions. • Conservation Easements. The developer has obtained approval from the City and the Land Trust to modify the conservation easements within the Fields of St. Croix in order to remove the easement from future development areas and to include the Fields Association as a party to these easements. • Natural Resource Areas. The Village AUAR included an analysis of ecologically sensitive areas within the planning area, and a portion of the primary ecological areas are found on the BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 12 northern portions of the applicant’s property. These ecologically sensitive areas are all located with the proposed conservation areas. The applicant’s plan for habitat restoration is very m uch in line with the mitigation plan adopted as part of the AUAR. • Wetlands. The ecologically sensitive areas discussed above include wetlands, but will be protected from impacts through the platting process as part of the open space preservation areas within the development. All wetlands have been designated on the site and are depicted on the attached plans. There are a few instances where the required wetland buffers encroach on to private lots, and the City Engineer has requested revisions to the plan to ensure that these buffer areas are properly maintained in the future. The developer has previously submitted documentation to the City indicating that there are no wetlands located within the Layton Avenue right-of-way in the Brookman Addition. • Parks and Open Space. The proposed plans include the creation of a shared park with the neighboring development, which represents 0.2 acres of land to be dedicated for park purpose. The developer is also proposing to construct an extensive trail system throughout the development, and to create a large nature conservancy that will be managed by the Wildflower homeowner’s association. With the amount of trails and open space being provided, the developer will exceed the City’s minimum requirements for 10% of the land to be dedicated for park purposes, but the exact calculation should be determined prior to submission of a final plat. The proposed trail system will provide public access into the conservation land, but the developer will need to work with the City on the most appropriate manner in which to dedicate these trails for public use. • Sidewalks and Trails. The preliminary plans include an extensive series of paths and trails. The City engineer has noted that additional sidewalks are needed in a few locations. Staff is recommending that the developer provide easements over all trails that are located outside of City-owned outlots (or deed separate outlots over the trails to the City), and that the construction of all trails comply the City standards. • Public Utilities. The developer’s plans provide connections to the existing utilities located within 39th Street as required with the City’s concept plan approval. The recently completed 39th Street public improvement project extended the sewer trunk main to the railroad tracks; however, the City has not yet formally approved final development plans for Easton Village, which will include a private project to extend sewer south of the railroad tracks to the lift station along 30th Street. Approval of the Wildflower preliminary plat will need to be conditional upon the City’s approval of the Easton Village Trunk Sewer Plan (or alternative depending on the Council’s review of this plan). • Landscaping. A detailed landscape plan has been submitted with the preliminary plat, and this plan has been reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape architect. The attached review from Landscape Architecture includes several recommendations that may be addressed as part of the final plat submission. The developer has incorporated the requested improvements from adjacent property owners as part of the plan. Staff has not yet receive any feedback from these property owners in advance of the public hearing for this development. BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 13 • 39th Street Access. The developer will need to construct the new road connecting the development with 39th Street as part of the public improvements associated with the project. This road will cross through the Brookman Addition within the previously dedicated Layton Avenue right-of-way. In order to build the proposed road and match existing grades surrounding the road, the developer will need to obtain a temporary construction easement form the owner of Lot 3, Block 2 and Lot 1 Block 3 of the Brookman Addition. • Environmental Review. The proposed Wildflower Subdivision is located within the area covered by the Village AUAR. As such, the City and the developer will need to comply with the AUAR Mitigation plan that was adopted with the Final AUAR. The most critical elements of the Mitigation Plan that must be addressed include the following: o Floodplain Management. While the northern portion of the applicant’s site includes a large floodplain area, development may occur within these areas as long as any proposed structures are elevated above the base flood elevation. The grading plans documents that all proposed lots will comply with this requirement; however, Staff would like to further work with the developer on this issue prior to submission of a final plat. o Storm Water Management. The storm water management plan for Wildflower at Lake Elmo will need to meet the AUAR requirements in addition to City ordinances and Valley Branch Watershed District standards. o Natural Resource Areas. Preservation of the primary ecological areas is one of the goals of this development. o Potential Environmental Hazard Sites. There are no identified hazard sites on this property. • Storm Water Ponds. In accordance with the City’s Engineering and Design Standards, all storm water facilities must be located on an outlot dedicated to the City. The preliminary plan notes which lots will be owned by the City. • City Engineer Comments. The City Engineer has submitted a detailed list of comments that will need be addressed prior to the City’s approval of final development plans for this property. None of the comments represent a critical concern (other than the ones noted above) that will not be able to be addressed by the applicant as they finalize the development plans for the site, and most of the comments are requesting technical revisions to ensure compliance with the City’s engineering and development standards. • Street Names. The developer is requesting to deviate from the City’s recent practice of adhering to the County street addressing system for this development. The developer’s proposed street names are as depicted on the preliminary plat. In order to comply with the County’s street addressing standards, the east-west streets would be assigned a number (i.e. 41st Street instead of Sunflower Lane) and the north-south streets would follow existing street names projected outside the project area (Layton, Leeward, and Legion). The Fire Chief has submitted a comment letter concerning this issue, and is strongly recommending that the City adhere to the County system. The City did adopt a resolution several years ago opting out of BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 14 the County naming system, so the City Council will have the authority to approved the Street names as proposed. Based on the strong recommendation from the Fire Chief, Staff is recommending that the Street names be changes to adhere to the County system. • Public Art. The developer would like to incorporate displays of public art within some of comment open areas, and possibly with center median areas, throughout the project area. Staff is recommending that the developer continue to work with the City on any necessary agreements in order to allow these displays. • Fire Chief Review. The Fire Chief has submitted general review comments, most of which are or will be addressed as part of future reviews. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan with 19 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 and final PUD plan. The recommended conditions are divided into three categories to better communicate the purpose and intent of the conditions. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: Pending Review and Approvals 1) No lots within a FEMA flood zone shall be approved as part of a final plat until such time that the City’s Floodplain Management Map has been amended to remove these lots. As an alternative to amending this map, the developer must provide documentation that all structures will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation, that any pubic infrastructure will also meet Floodplain Ordinance requirements, and that the proposed storm water ponds may be constructed within the floodplain area. 2) The developer shall record an agreement with the Minnesota Land Trust concerning amendments to the conservations easements within the Fields of St. Croix subdivision prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of Wildflower at Lake Elmo. 3) The developer shall obtain temporary grading easements from the owner of the lots adjacent to Layton Avenue within the Brookman Addition in order to construct the improvements within this right-of-way as documented in the preliminary construction plans. 4) The developer has requested the inclusion of public art within common areas and public property throughout Wildflower development. Prior to the placement of any art on publicly owned property or public rights-of-way, the developer and City shall enter into an agreement that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for maintenance and upkeep of any public art. 5) Prior to the submission of a final plat for any portion of the Wildflower PUD, the developer shall work with the City to determine the appropriate park dedication calculations for the entire development area. 6) 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. BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 15 7) The utility construction plans shall be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the City Engineer concerning the appropriate location and size of sewer services through the PUD planning area, including any requested oversizing of these facilities to service adjacent properties. Modifications to the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans 8) The developer shall minimize the number of rain gardens within public rights-of-way consistent the review comments from the City Engineer. Any such storm water infiltration features shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 9) The preliminary development plans must be revised to comply with City Street standards as referenced in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. 10) The City approves all requests for flexibility from City Zoning and Subdivision requirements with the exception of the street standards noted in the preceding condition. 11) The applicant is encouraged to incorporate elements from the Lake Elmo Theming Study into the open space areas within the subdivision. 12) The preliminary landscape plan shall be updated to address the review comments from the City’s landscape architecture consultant as noted in a review letter dated February 4, 2015. 13) The proposed street names within the subdivision shall be revised to comply with the County addressing system. 14) All center median planting areas as depicted on the preliminary plat and plans shall be owned by the City of Lake Elmo and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 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, trails, or open space on the final plat. 15) The Final Plat and Plans must address the requested modifications outlined in the City Engineer’s review memorandum dated February 18, 2015. Plat Restrictions 16) Prior to recording the Final Plat for any portion of the area shown in the Preliminary Plat, the Developer shall enter into a Developers Agreement acceptable to the City Attorney that delineates who is responsible for the design, construction, and payment of public improvements. 17) The developer shall provide an easement over or dedicate in a separate outlot all trails to be dedicated for public use. Any such trails shall be considered a park land dedication provide said trails are constructed by the developer with other public improvements within the subdivision. 18) The City will not approve a final plat for any portion of Wildflower until such time that the City has approved a public improvement project to connect the 39th Street Sewer to the 30th Street lift station. 19) The developer must follow all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act, and adhere to the conditions of approval for the South Washington Watershed District Permit. BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 16 DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plan: • That the Wildflower PUD General Concept Plan was approved by the City on June 17, 2014, and the submitted Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans are consistent with the approved General Concept Plan. • That the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans are consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. • That the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with the City’s LDR - Urban Low Density Residential and MDR – Urban Medium Density Residential zoning district requirements with the exceptions as noted in the Staff report. • That the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with the City’s subdivision ordinance, with the PUD exceptions as requested by the applicant. • That the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with the City’s Planned Unit Development Regulations. • That the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with City’s Engineering Standards, except where noted in the review memorandum from the City Engineer dated 2/18/15. • That the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans comply with other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, and erosion and sediment control with the plan revisions as requested by City Staff and consultants. • That the Wildflower preliminary plat and preliminary PUD plans achieve multiple identified objectives for planned developments within Lake Elmo and are consistent with the City’s adopted findings for the Concept Plan. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wildflower Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans with the 19 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Wildflower Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans with the 19 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Forms 2. Development Contact Information BUSINESS ITEM 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 17 3. Location Map 4. Legal Description 5. Wildflower at Lake Elmo Overview 6. Wildflower Lot Profile 7. Written Statements for PUD Application 8. City Engineer Review – 2/18/15 9. Fire Department Review – 2/13/15 10. Fire Department Street Naming Comments 11. Landscape Architect Review – 2/4/15 12. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit Review – 12/2/14 13. Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plans: a. Existing Conditions b. Preliminary Plat c. Construction Plans d. Landscape Plans e. Tree Inventory (Not included with packet) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - 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 4c – PUBLIC HEARING 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 8.5' B I T . T R A I L 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' CONC . S I D E W A L K 8.5 ' B I T . T R A I L TC : 9 2 3 . 5 4 TC : 9 2 0 . 0 8 TC : 9 2 6 . 3 5 TC : 9 3 2 . 0 1 TC : 9 3 1 . 7 4 1 21 2 3 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OU T L O T D OU T L O T E O U T L O T F 40 T H S T R E E T N . L A Y T O N A V E . N . LAVERNE A V E . N . 1 1 3 + 0 0 1 4 + 0 0 33 3+0 0 4 +00 4 +33 TC:931.74 1 278OUTLOT E OUTLOT F40TH STREET N.LAYTON AVE. N.3+0 04+004+33 12 13 1415PC: 13+88.95 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' CON C . S I D E W A L K TC : 9 2 3 . 5 4 TC : 9 2 0 . 0 8 TC : 9 2 6 . 3 5 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 1 9 10 11 13 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 OU T L O T B 1 L a k e E l m o A v e n u e N o r t h L A V E R N E C I R . N . LADY S L I P P E R C T . N . 42 N D S T R E E T N . 4 2 N D S T R E E T N . LAVERNE A V E . N . OU T L O T C 2 +00 3 +00 4 +00 5 +00 6 +00 7 +00 8 +00 9 +00 10+00 11 +00 1 2 + 0 0 1 3 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 1 + 0 0 1 + 8 7 0 +00 1 +001+33 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 8.5 ' B I T . T R A I L 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' CONC. SIDEWAL K 6' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' CONC . S I D E W A L K 12 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 OU T L O T B OU T L O T D OU T L O T E O U T L O T F OU T L O T G 1 OU T L O T C 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 P C : 1 3 + 8 8 . 9 5 PT: 16 + 2 9 . 5 3 PC: 18 + 3 6 . 2 0 PT: 22+67.85 EP: 24+80.84 GF 9 4 3 . 0 TF 9 4 3 . 3 LO LO 9 3 8 . 3 BF 9 3 5 . 3 GF 9 4 3 . 0 TF 9 4 3 . 3 LO LO 9 3 8 . 3 BF 9 3 5 . 3 GF 9 4 1 . 5 TF 9 4 1 . 8 LO LO 9 3 6 . 8 BF 9 3 3 . 8 GF 9 4 0 . 0 ** T F 9 4 2 . 3 LO LO 9 3 7 . 3 BF 9 3 4 . 3 x 9 3 5 x 9 3 6 x 9 3 5 x 9 3 4 O u t l o t B ( 2 , 0 5 8 s f ) 38 x H P x 9 3 6 . 5 93 3 x H P x 9 3 4 . 5 x 9 3 6 1 2 3 4 O U T L O T F 40 T H S T R E E T N . L A Y T O N A V E . N . x 936.1 x 935.6 x 937.1 9 3 7 . 1 x 9 3 7 . 1 x 937 . 6 x 936.1 x 935.6 x 937.1 1 +00 2 +00 3+00 4 +00 4 +33 (941.00) (939.63) (936.74) 8.5 ' B I T . T R A I L 6' CONC. SIDEWALK TC : 9 3 2 . 0 1 TC : 9 3 1 . 7 4 GF 9 4 3 . 0 TF 9 4 3 . 3 LO LO 9 3 8 . 3 BF 9 3 5 . 3 GF 9 4 3 . 0 TF 9 4 3 . 3 LO LO 9 3 8 . 3 BF 9 3 5 . 3 GF 9 4 1 . 5 TF 9 4 1 . 8 LO LO 9 3 6 . 8 BF 9 3 3 . 8 GF 9 4 0 . 0 ** T F 9 4 2 . 3 LO LO 9 3 7 . 3 BF 9 3 4 . 3 G F 9 4 4 . 0 T F 9 4 4 . 3 W O B F 9 3 6 . 3 G F 9 4 2 . 5 T F 9 4 2 . 8 W O B F 9 3 4 . 8 G F 9 4 4 . 5 T F 9 4 4 . 8 W O B F 9 3 6 . 8 G F 9 4 4 . 5 T F 9 4 4 . 8 W O B F 9 3 6 . 8 G F 9 4 4 . 0 T F 9 4 4 . 3 W O B F 9 3 6 . 3 GF 946.0 TF 946.3 WO BF 938.3 x 9 3 5 x 9 3 6 x 9 3 5 x 9 3 4 O u t l o t B ( 2 , 0 5 8 s f ) O u t l o t C ( 3 4 , 9 1 5 s f ) Pa r k ( 2 1 , 1 0 1 s f ) 38 x H P x 9 3 6 . 5 93 3 x x 9 3 6 x 9 3 8 x 9 4 0 x 9 4 2 x 9 3 6 HP 94 2 . 5 H P x 9 3 4 . 5 x 9 3 6 x 9 2 9 HP x 9 3 1 . 0 x 9 3 0 x 9 2 8 x 9 4 0 x 9 3 8 x 9 3 6 x 9 3 4 x 9 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OU T L O T D OU T L O T E O U T L O T F 40 T H S T R E E T N . L A Y T O N A V E . N . L A V E R N E A V E . N . x 9 3 5 . 1 936. 6 x 93 7 . 1 x x 9 3 3 . 6 x 93 5 . 1 x 9 3 5 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 6 x 9 3 3 . 1 x 9 3 2 . 1 x 936.1 x 935.6 x 937.1 9 3 7 . 1 x 9 3 7 . 1 x 937 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 1 936. 6 x x 9 3 3 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 1 x 9 3 5 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 6 x 9 3 3 . 1 x 9 3 2 . 1 x 9 3 0 . 1 x 9 3 0 . 1 x 936.1 x 935.6 x 937.1 x 9 3 5 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 6 1 4 + 0 0 1 5 + 0 0 1 6 + 0 0 1 7 + 0 0 ( 9 4 2 . 7 8 ) ( 9 4 1 . 3 5 ) ( 9 4 1 . 6 3 ) ( 9 4 2 . 6 4 ) ( 9 4 3 . 3 1 +00 2 +00 3+00 4 +00 4 +33 (941.00) (939.63) (936.74) 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K TC : 9 2 3 . 5 4 TC : 9 2 0 . 0 8 TC : 9 2 6 . 3 5 G F 9 4 4 . 0 T F 9 4 4 . 3 W O B F 9 3 6 . 3 GF 946.0 TF 946.3 WO BF 938.3GF 94 6 . 0 TF 94 6 . 3 WO BF 93 8 . 3 G F 9 4 4 . 5 T F 9 4 4 . 8 W O B F 9 3 6 . 8 BF 935.8WO TF 943.8 GF 943.5 G F 9 3 6 . 5 T F 9 3 6 . 8 W O B F 9 2 8 . 8 x 9 3 6 x 9 3 8 x 9 4 0 x 9 2 6 x 9 2 9 x 9 2 7 EO F x 9 2 8 . 5 x 9 2 8 x 9 2 7 x 9 2 8 x 9 2 6 x 9 2 5 x 9 2 4 x 9 2 3 x 9 2 2 x 9 2 0 x 926 x 930 65 x 9 2 8 x 9 2 9 x 9 2 9 x x 9 2 9 x EO F x 9 2 5 . 5 EO F x 9 2 4 . 7 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 L A V E R N E C I R . N . LAVERNE A V E . N . 929 . 1 x x 9 2 7 . 6 x 9 3 6 . 6 x 9 3 6 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 6 x 9 3 5 . 1 93 7 . 1 x 93 7 . 1 x 93 7 . 1 x 929.1 x x 9 2 7 . 6 x 9 2 7 . 6 7. 1 x 929.1 x 929.1 x x 9 3 4 . 6 x 9 3 4 . 6 x 9 2 7 . 6 11 + 00 1 2 + 0 0 1 3 + 0 0 (937 . 2 4 ) (9 4 0 . 8 9 ) ( 9 4 3 . 8 8 ) ( 9 4 2 . 7 8 ) 0 +00 1 +00 1 +33 (93 7 . 2 7 ) 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L TC:920.08 BF 9 4 6 . 3 WO TF 9 5 4 . 3 GF 9 5 4 . 0 BF 945 . 8 WO TF 953 . 8 GF 953 . 5 B F 9 4 6 . 8 W O T F 9 5 4 . 8 G F 9 5 4 . 5 B F 9 4 6 . 3 W O T F 9 5 4 . 3 G F 9 5 4 . 0 F 936.5 F 936.8 WO 928.8 x 9 3 4 94 3 x Ou t l o t E ( 7 9 , 6 5 5 s f ) Ou t l o t F ( 1 5 , 0 3 2 s f ) 93 1 x HP x 9 4 5 x 9 4 4 x 9 4 3 x 9 4 0 x 9 2 5 . 8 x 9 2 5 . 8 x 9 2 5 . 7 92 9 . 5 x 93 0 . 5 x 93 0 . 5 x 9 3 0 . 5 x 94 1 . 5 x x 9 4 0 . 3 x 9 3 2 x 9 3 0 x 9 2 9 x 926EOF x 9 2 8 . 5 x 928 x 927 x 922x 920 6 . 2 x 926 x 930 x 926 . 5 x 9 2 8 x 9 2 9 x 928 x 929 x x 929 xEOFx 925.5EOFx 924.7 x 9 3 7 x 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 2 3 4 5 OU T L O T B 1 x 9 4 5 . 1 9 4 5 . 1 x x 9 4 4 . 6 933.6 930.6 x 932.1x 932 . 6 x 929.1 x x 927.6 94 5 . 1 x 945.6 x x 9 4 5 . 1 x 9 4 4 . 6 933.6 x 930.6 x 932.1 x 932 . 6 x 929.1 x x 927.6 929.1 x 929.1 x x 927.6 945.6 x 1 + 8 7 11+33 8.5 ' B I T . T R A I L TC : 9 2 3 . 5 4 TC : 9 2 0 . 0 8 TC : 9 2 6 . 3 5 TC : 9 3 2 . 0 1 TC : 9 3 1 . 7 4 40 T H S T R E E T N . L A Y T O N A V E . N . LAVERNE A V E . N . x x TC:931.74 40TH STREET N.LAYTON AVE. N. 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K 6' CON C . S I D E W A L K TC : 9 2 3 . 5 4 TC : 9 2 0 . 0 8 TC : 9 2 6 . 3 5 L a k e E l m o A v e n u e N o r t h L A V E R N E C I R . N . LADY S L I P P E R C T . N . 42 N D S T R E E T N . 4 2 N D S T R E E T N . LAVERNE A V E . N . 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 P C : 1 3 + 8 8 . 9 5 PT: 16 + 2 9 . 5 3 PC: 18 + 3 6 . 2 0 PT: 22+67.85 EP: 24+80.84 1 2 3 4 O U T L O T F 40 T H S T R E E T N . L A Y T O N A V E . N . 1 +00 2 +00 3+00 4 +00 4 +33 8.5 ' B I T . T R A I L 6' CONC. SIDEWALK TC : 9 3 2 . 0 1 TC : 9 3 1 . 7 4 2 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OU T L O T D OU T L O T E O U T L O T F 40 T H S T R E E T N . L A Y T O N A V E . N . L A V E R N E A V E . N . 1 4 + 0 0 1 5 + 0 0 1 6 + 0 0 1 7 + 0 0 1 +00 2 +00 3+00 4 +00 4 +33 6 ' C O N C . S I D E W A L K TC : 9 2 3 . 5 4 TC : 9 2 0 . 0 8 TC : 9 2 6 . 3 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 L A V E R N E C I R . N . LAVERNE A V E . N . 11 + 00 1 2 + 0 0 1 3 + 0 0 0 +00 1 +00 1 +33 8 . 5 ' B I T . T R A I L TC:920.08 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 2 3 4 5 OU T L O T B 1 1 + 8 7 11+33 x x x x x x CO N S T R U C T I O N S E Q U E N C I N G 1. I N S T A L L S I L T F E N C E A N D / O R O R O T H E R A P P R O P R I A T E T E M P O R A R Y E R O S I O N C O N T R O L D E V I C E S T O P R E V E N T SE D I M E N T F R O M L E A V I N G O R E N T E R I N G T H E P R A C T I C E D U R I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N . 2. A L L D O W N - G R A D I E N T P E R I M E T E R S E D I M E N T C O N T R O L B M P ' S M U S T B E I N P L A C E B E F O R E A N Y U P G R A D I E N T L A N D DI S T U R B I N G A C T I V I T Y B E G I N S . 3. P E R F O R M C O N T I N U O U S I N S P E C T I O N S O F E R O S I O N C O N T R O L P R A C T I C E S . 4. I N S T A L L U T I L I T I E S ( W A T E R , S A N I T A R Y S E W E R , E L E C T R I C , P H O N E , F I B E R O P T I C , E T C ) P R I O R T O S E T T I N G F I N A L G R A D E OF B I O R E T E N T I O N D E V I C E . 5. R O U G H G R A D E T H E S I T E . I F B I O R E T E N T I O N A R E A S A R E B E I N G U S E D A S T E M P O R A R Y S E D I M E N T B A S I N S L E A V E A MI N I M U M O F 3 F E E T O F C O V E R O V E R T H E P R A C T I C E T O P R O T E C T T H E U N D E R L Y I N G S O I L S F R O M C L O G G I N G . 6. P E R F O R M A L L O T H E R S I T E I M P R O V E M E N T S . 7. S E E D A N D M U L C H A L L A R E A S A F T E R D I S T U R B A N C E . 8. C O N S T R U C T B I O R E T E N T I O N D E V I C E U P O N S T A B I L I Z A T I O N O F C O N T R I B U T I N G D R A I N A G E A R E A . 9. I M P L E M E N T T E M P O R A R Y A N D P E R M E N A T E E R O S I O N C O N T R O L P R A C T I C E S . 10 . P L A N T A N D M U L C H B I O R E T E N T I O N D E V I C E . 11 . R E M O V E T E M P O R A R Y E R O S I O N C O N T R O L D E V I C E S A F T E R T H E C O N T R I B U T I N G D R A I N A G E A R E A I S A D E Q U A T E L Y VE G E T A T E D . GE N E R A L N O T E S 1. I N T H E E V E N T T H A T S E D I M E N T I S I N T R O D U C E D I N T O T H E B M P D U R I N G O R I M M E D I A T E L Y F O L L O W I N G E X C A V A T I O N , T H I S MA T E R I A L S H A L L B E R E M O V E D F R O M T H E P R A C T I C E P R I O R T O C O N T I N U I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N . 2. G R A D I N G O F B I O R E T E N T I O N D E V I C E S S H A L L B E A C C O M P L I S H E D U S I N G L O W - C O M P A C T I O N E A R T H - M O V I N G E Q U I P M E N T TO P R E V E N T C O M P A C T I O N O F U N D E R L Y I N G S O I L S . 3. A L L S U B M A T E R I A L S B E L O W T H E S P E C I F I E D B I O R E T E N T I O N D E P T H ( E L E V A T I O N ) S H A L L B E U N D I S T U R B E D , U N L E S S OT H E R W I S E N O T E D .