Consider Natural Resources Aspects of the Emerald Estates Preliminary Plat (Project No. 24-123); Case of Joni and Alan Greenwaldt

The City has received a Land Use Application from Landform (the "Applicant") for consideration of a Preliminary Plat for a single family residential development located along 181st Avenue, west of Xenolith Street (the "Subject Property").

Project Overview
The Applicant is proposing thirteen (13) residential lots, each with direct access on to 181st Avenue.  Each lot will be served with a private well and septic system.  All thirteen (13) lots meet or exceed the minimum area (2.5 acres) and width (200 feet) requirements for lots in this zoning district.  There are no roads or utilities proposed with this development.  As is somewhat common with rural developments, the Applicant's intention is for each lot to be custom designed and built.  So, while the plans do show the proposed house pad locations and grading information, these could change depending on a buyer's wants or needs.  As long as the building permit application submittal includes updated information regarding grading/drainage, tree removals, etc., and as long as those changes still meet the minimum standards in City Code, those modifications would be acceptable.

Subject Property Information
The Subject Property is approximately thirty-nine (39) acres in size, is zoned Rural Residential, and is guided as Rural Developing in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.  The surrounding parcels to the east, west, and south are all also zoned Rural Residential and guided as Rural Developing.  The parcels on the north side of 181st Avenue are in the City of Nowthen.  Surrounding parcels range in size from approximately 4.8 acres up to 40 acres.

Natural Resources Summary
The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) identifies four (4) different land cover types on the Subject Property, including upland forest, wetland forest, wetland scrubland, and graminoid (grasses, sedges, and rushes) vegetation.  However, the City's Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) does not identify any true native plant communities on the Subject Property.  There are two areas, one in the north central portion and the other along the western boundary of the Subject Property, that are both identified as saturated, altered/non-native dominated graminoid (grass-like) vegetation.  Since there are no roads proposed, and with each lot having its own 'micro' stormwater basin, the majority of the Subject Property will not be disturbed as part of development.

Significant portions of the Subject Property are covered by wetland.  The grading plan does include the required sixteen and a half foot (16.5') setback around all wetlands, which is also shown as being encumbered with drainage and utility easement per City Code and the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) regulations.  Portions of the Subject Property are also in a Zone A floodplain.  Zone A represents a general floodplain district in which FEMA never completed a detailed study to determine the 100-year flood elevation.  If any of the proposed improvements, including grading work, were proposed within the areas designated as floodplain, the Applicant would be required to complete additional assessments/studies to determine the boundaries of the Floodway and the Flood Fringe districts, because they have different standards in terms of regulations.  However, the vast majority of areas designated as floodplain are within delineated wetland areas, and there are no improvements proposed within these areas.

Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan 
The submittal does include a Tree Inventory, which is attached to this case.  The Subject Property is heavily wooded with species such as red pine, aspen, ash, birch, basswood, and various oak species.  While a Tree Inventory was submitted, it doesn't actually indicate which trees would be removed and which would be preserved, primarily due to the intention of each lot being custom designed and built.  Staff's primary correction noted on the Tree Inventory is that the Applicant needs to calculate any trees within the areas of the house pads, driveways, and primary septic sites (the grading plan shows silt fence surrounding these areas) as removals.  That way, Staff can presumably confirm that the proposed work meets the preservation standard of retaining at least forty percent (40%) of the significant tree Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) inches on site (the Subject Property is heavily wooded, and therefore, Staff does not believe this project is in jeopardy of falling short of compliance with the tree preservation requirements).  Additionally, should the location of any improvements change, updated information on tree preservation for that lot will need to be submitted and reviewed with the building permit application to ensure the lot will remain compliant with the tree preservation standards.

Landscape Plan
A Landscape Plan was not provided with the original Preliminary Plat submittal.  After Staff completed our initial review of the plans, the Applicant submitted a Landscape Plan, which is attached to this case (while there are no corrections noted on this plan, that is because it was received after Staff's initial round of review).  There are corrections needed. For example, the Plant Schedule includes Black Ash.  However, due to Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), the City does not give 'credit' for planting any of the native species of ash species (Green, White, or Black Ash).  Additionally, the Plant Schedule only includes deciduous trees.  But, per City Code, the plantings shall consist of not less than twenty-five percent (25%) deciduous or coniferous species.  Formal review comments on the Landscape Plan will be provided to the Applicant as part of the review of revised plans, once received.  Staff also will note that it is likely that many of the lots may have the planting requirement satisfied by existing vegetation (existing trees can satisfy the planting requirement as long as they are being preserved, are located in the front yard, and are not on the City's Prohibited List).



 

The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this application.

Staff recommends approving the plans contingent upon compliance with Staff's review comments.

Motion to recommend approval of the plans, contingent upon compliance with Staff's review comments.