Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-07 NAC Planning ReportNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Mernorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 76323 1 .2555 Facsimile: 76323 1 .2561 l r l ni - th - i , r PLANNING REPORT TO: Eric Johnson FROM: John Glomski 1 Scott Richards DATE: January 7, 2005 VAC FILE: 798.02 — 04.15 BACKGROUND Attached for reference: Exhibit Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10 ISSUES ANALYSIS Layout with Aerial Photo Preliminary Plat Grading and Drainage Plan Utilities Layout with Proposed Highway 36 Alignment Builders Statement Home Style Examples Association Construction Restrictions City Engineer Comments City Arborist Comments RE: Oak Park Heights — Ackerman Estates (Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Prelir inary and Final Plat) Greg Johnson, representing Oak Park Heights Development nelnt LLC., has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a zoning district amendment, a variance to the required frontage, and preliminary and final plat for a nine lot single family residential development to be known as Ackerman Estates. The site is 4.4 acres in area and is located northwest of the City Hall, east of Oakgreen Avenue, north of 58 Street, and south of State Highway 36. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as -B, Residential- Business Transitional District. The purpose of this district is to allow for a smooth transition from the high intensity commercial to the low density residential use. -------------- - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - RA Single Family - District — Lot and Building Requirements 1 10,400 square feet Lot Area Lot Width ------------ - - - - -- -- o feet Front Setback 30 feet Side Setback 10 feet Rear Setback 30 feet Wetland Buffer 36 feet Buildine i•ht 35 feet Minimum Floor Area 960 s ware f eet This is accomplished by allowing a mixture of medium density residential uses with love intensity commercial uses. The applicant is requesting the City amend its Comprehensive Plan by designating the subject site for low density single family development. In support of the request from the applicant, the following points could be made: • Low density residential development would complement the surrounding uses which are open space, public institutional, and love density single family. • Low density residential development may have less of a negative affect on the significant tree cover and small wetland area to the northeast of the site. The applicant has submitted plans showing the lot layout with the MnDOT 1995 proposed Highway 36 alignment. As can be seen from the plans (Exhibit 5), the proposed alignment would have a significant impact upon the proposed development. Staff understands that the property owner has a right to reasonable use of his /her property but the residential plat would not be compatible with the 1995 alignment. On the other hand, the remaining property would likely be an appropriate area for a small commercial development. The current R-B designation or more likely a commercial land use designation may also be appropriate. The Planning Commission should discuss the Comprehensive Plan issues based upon the MnDOT plans. Zoning. The subject site is currently zoned Open Space Conservation. The purpose of this district is to allow suitable areas within the City to be retained and utilized for open space purposes and also as a "holding" zone of newly annexed lands, ensuring that development t is staged in a manner acceptable to the City's utility plan. The applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to R-1, Single Family Residential. The proposed zoning would be compatible with the surrounding uses. Approval of the proposed zoning would be subject to an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Lot Standards. The following table illustrates the lot requirements for the proposed zoning district; 2 The average lot area of the proposed nine lots is 16,884 square feet, with the smallest lot being 13,121 square feet. The development generally meets the performance standards of the R-1 District with the exception of the lot width of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Lot width is defined in the ordinance as follows; Lot, Width: The shortest horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at the minimum required building setback line. if no setback line is established, the distance between the side lot lines measured along the public right-of-way. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have frontage on the proposed cul-de-sac bulb. The result of the limited frontage off the bulb are pie shaped designed lots that force the 80 foot lot width to be achieved at a greater distance from the front lot line that the 30 foot setback as required per ordinance. One option the applicant has is to lengthen the radius of the cul-de -sac bulb thereby creating more frontage and increasing the lot width at the 30 foot setback. The enlarged cul-de-sac bulb would include a larger center island with increased landscaping and visual appeal. The resulting right -of -way would well exceed the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Variance. To qualify for a variance, the City must find that the variance is not a mere convenience to the applicant, but rather a necessity to alleviate undue hardship. State statute further defines undue hardship as a condition which restricts the owner from putting the property to reasonable use under the strict zoning regulations. The statute also requires that the conditions for requiring a variance be unique to the property, not created by the landowner, and not have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Due to the box shape of the 4.4 acre site, it is difficult to design an access for development without the utilization of a cul-de-sac. As such, although the average lot size exceeds the required lot size by over 60 percent, a number of the lots need a variance to the strict definition of lot frontage. The City must determine if the limited design options for the site prompting the need for a cut-de-sac and a lack in the required lot frontage at the setback is an adequate hardship for approving the needed variance to lot width. Should the City decide to approve the requested variance staff recommends that as a condition of approval, the City require the building pads for the homes to be located no closer to the front lot line than that portion of the property that meets the required 80 foot lot width. The revised layout plans dated December 29, 2004 meet this requirement. Access/Circulation. The site is accessed via a cul -de -sac off of Oakgreen Avenue North. The subdivision ordinance requires 60 feet of right -of -way and the bulb 3 of the cul-de-sac requires a 60 foot radius. The revised plans dated December 29, 2004 are consistent with these requirements. The applicant is proposing a landscaped island with benches at the center of the cul-de- sac. Staff suggests that the applicant submit a landscape plan that includes low maintenance plantings for staff review. Our office also suggests that the applicant eliminate the benches from the plans as it is not believed to be a viable location for this type of amenity. It should also be noted that if the City accepts the landscaped island within the right-of-way, the City will be responsible for the maintenance. Building Design. The applicant is proposing nine custom built homes with front elevations of brick, stucco, stone, or the like. The applicant has worked with staff in utilizing side loaded garages and front porches where possible (sic of the nine lots are side loaded). Landscaping and Tree Preservation. The applicant will attempt to preserve as many significant trees as possible. The City arborist has reviewed the tree removal plan and has determined that it appears that less than 50 percent of the significant trees wilt be removed and adjustments for species can be made to both lists per tree preservation ordinance section 1307.070 item 3, As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit a visual overlay combining the tree inventory with street, building pads and grading. Sidewalks and Trails. The applicant is proposing, and will construct, an 8 foot wide bituminous trail running north south along the east side of Oaf green Avenue which will connect to the existing trail system within the transmission line easement. The City will need to construct the approximately 90 feet of extension from the northern boundary of the subject site to the existing trail system as well as the extension to the south of the development to 58 Street. The applicant is also proposing a sidewalk on both sides of the cul -de -sac, connecting to the proposed trail. Park Dedication. Section 402.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires a park land and/or cash dedication for the proposed development. The purpose of the dedication is to require new subdivisions to contribute to the City's park and open space system in rough proportion to the relative burden they will place upon the system. The ordinance requires either land or a cash contribution in lieu of land or a combination of both be dedicated to the City. As the site is so small and not planned for a future park area, staff recommends the City require a cash contribution in lieu of land. The formula for cash contributions is described in Section 402.08 D. of the Subdivision Ordinance. The City may then use those funds to construct the trail connections from the proposed trail within the development to the existing trail system to the north and 58 Street to the south. Per ordinance, the applicant will need to provide the City with a property appraisal. 4 Grading, Drainage, Utilities. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan for City review. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and made comments per his memo dated December 27, 2004 as attached herein. As a condition of approval, the applicant must revise the grading, drainage, and utilities plans, in accordance with the suggestions made by the City Engineer. The final grading, drainage and utilities plans are subject to the City Engineers review and approval. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The applicants have worked with City staff in the objective of creating a single family residential development on the Ackerman site that is unique in style and that fits with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed nine lot single family residential development to be known as Ackerman Estates requires the following approvals; • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Zoning Amendment • Variance • Preliminary and Final Plat Upon review, our office recommends to the following; L Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff suggests the Planning Commission and City Council first consider the Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the designated land use of the site from R , Residential- Business Transitional District, to low intensity single family development. An R-B or commercial designation may be appropriate if the 1995 Mn DOT highway alignment moves forward. If the Comprehensive Plan is not changed to residential, the zoning amendment and subdivision cannot move forward. 2. Zoning Amendment If the change to the Comprehensive Plan for a residential land use is approved, the request to rezone the approximately 4.4 acre site from Open Space Conservation to R- 1 , Single Family Residential is recommended, based on a finding that the proposed zoning will be compatible with the surrounding uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating the future land use of the site as low intensity single family development. 3. Variance Staff recommends denial of the lot width variances for Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 based on a finding that a hardship does not exist as there are design alternatives that would eradicate the need for a variance, Should the City recommend approval of the variance from lot width on Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 based, staff would recommend the following conditions: 5 1 . The front yard setbacks shall be increased on each of the lots not meeting the lot width requirements to a distance that meets the 80 foot lot width requirement. 4. Preliminary and Final Plat Staff= recommends tabling the request for Preliminary and Final Plat of Ackerman Estates to give the applicant the needed time to redesign the plat in a manner that does not need a variance. Should the City recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Ackerman Estates development, staff would recommend the following conditions; 1, The applicant is to submit a landscape plan for the center island subject to the review and approval of City staff. 2. Six of the nine tots are to be garage side loaded as shown in the revised December 29, 200 4, plans. 3. The applicant is to submit a visual overlay combining the tree inventory with street, building pad locations and grading. 4. The applicant is to construct the eight foot bituminous trail running north south along Oakgreen Avenue to the extent of the property boundaries. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with a property appraisal per the Subdivision Ordinance. 6. A park dedication free, as determined via the formula in Section 402.08.D of the Subdivision Ordinance, shall be paid at time of finalization of the final plat and development agreement. 7. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and applicable watershed district. 8. The utility plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. A development agreement shall be required between the City and the applicant subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 10. Alt other conditions of City staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. 6 0.1 0 gi !,3L Ertit L _____Y_'__' inzaoN griNNAV . a , ' „} ' ey t `Y` r�� T • h "fi \ C I, {1 L itH' ,} "4 ▪ f ▪ ry -.1 # �'4 Q �ti A g',1\ ' _r i. . E, vik, 4 --J .-,: \ A *f w zri i O rf x. o ' n L I !---- --1—/— — ------ — -- ::.- - i - .;r,R:L - 6 - c --- — I- —"l ki9 p W 0 '"F } • ..Ort.z .tor •- C , ,,___........_ I r t`': § ` ` . . / ' . ' | ' ' � l � ~ . ~ '___�_` ,, --44; '~ - 1 +-- - -` z `| + ./ � m ' - -� '. if L 1 ) [~ -- /. ' ' \ ~_�` �- � . .,=° ° L °~~ ` i �= ' ' `� � i '/ - ' / k+ �� � -- / ` � ' ' ' | � � '' � ``. y �� , |`-__ ,' / `--, [ ! ! -- 1 \ ~--- / / . . Ei. { ' -- 0 t () rp { D f . ,, CD AD 0 - ,,„ n o C 0 r + C \V w CD CO 1 ,-- ' C . / pp 0 a l CD .. 6 00 c hi 4 0 %.) \ ,-, 0 , e, ' E. ,..._ ,,,,, 0 o p ,--I r 2'1. 1 cfQ C k.. ` 0 — 4 r b i i 0 ti '" . 0 ? i-i- / .9 P-i '`,J 0 ;". , ,..... v7 ' 0 o C' / ,.s. i ,1 ' t ` -- 0 po CD C CD CD CD Ci CD 1.4 ciQ tj J di O) trj C!� 9 9 0 c) CD ( + S ) i t.9 . 4.-c 0 -'--"' a. ,..,,z' " ff w (3 P 0 n C c" rri _ _fly? 6 r:.: pr a lit' v) ,__ %, c,9- ,..., K a' (I) 6 CP t rfr J + 0 76., r--f a cr) P ', ,-,9 8 ‘,„, ,...,., } ,, :., cm ,_,..i.,,, „,. C ' 0 _ fD Cr cfQ - 1 0- g — 0 r -► tj CD 0) Cr :n .. . i „,..,. ,..,., , -.,•3 ,—) 0 "Ci J CD ?. 0 Cn 0) P (f) P •mil F ., r a c.1? c i) EXHIBIT 6 ACKEA_- ,/VV*ESTAg' EXHIBIT 7 CICEZ, WESTATEs Minimum Ira * * n architecture shingles Dear City of Oak Park Heights, It is ur goal to make the - n Estates development unique in respect to architectural style, site planning and landscaping 'rile following includes some of the restrictions we will be n r in . the .Ackerman Estates development in rder to achieve this goal. o" Pitch 8 12 (Except Porches) Timberline or equivalent Siding "Front Elevation" — must be brick, stucco, stone, cultured stone, hardy board, cedar, shakes or acrylic siding. . Siding "Ali Other Sides "—Texture and color must be r ' by architectural committee_ Architectural Desig We r encouraging a cottage or prairie style design, but will, consider all custom designs (dust be approved r hi tur l committee.), Should you have any questions regarding this information, l ,s contact our office at 651-351-5151. ,,,..... spectfully _ ._ _, ...._. ( ) '---- <- ,,,„)1-0 ----/) / . f Greg Johnson Chief Manager Bonestroo Rosene ECM Ander lik Associates Engineers & Architects December 27, 2004 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14165 Oak Park Blvd., ,0. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Re: Ackerman Estates Concept Plan Review BRA File No, 55-04-000 Dear Eric: We have reviewed the concept plans for the proposed Ackerman Estates development as submitted, on December 15, 2004, by Fo lz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. Following are our comments and/or recommendations. Plat 2335 West Highway 36 . St Paul. MN 55113 Office: 651- 636 -4600 rt Fax: 651-636-1311 ww bone trop corn A 60 foot Right-of-Way is recommended at the entrance of the development. IvINDOT Issues 1. In MN OT's 1995 concept for Highway 36 the alignment of Oakgreen Avenue passes through Lot 1 and Lot 2 in Block 1. In addition, it is possible that the northern portion of Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, will be affected by this alignment. Qr'adingnci The house on Lot 3, Bloc. 1 has a low opening elevation OE of 938,5 and a basement floor elevation E of 935.0. The existing 934 contour is shown at the back of the structure. Is this the correct location for the 934 contour, particularly with the pond's HWL at 933.6? The second cell of the pond (the wetland area) appears to have a NWL of 932.1.. This would place the NW of the pond 13' from the house on Lot 3, Block 1. Do you want the pond this close to the house? A wetland delineation is needed; If it is a wetland, the buffer zones must be maintained according to the City's Wetland Ordinance~ Is this a protected wetland? Are there any restrictions for raising the elevation of this wetland? t. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar. MN " Milwaukee. WI n Chicago_ IL Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned EXHIBIT 9 .art Verify the connection of the proposed 942 contour with the existing contour 011 Lot 1, Block 1. 4. The pond discharges into a ditch along Oakgreen Avenue, Does this water eventually discharge into the IVINDOT drainage system? If so, are there any permits that must be obtained from MN OT" for the storm water? 5, This development is in the jurisdiction o the Middle St. Croix Water Management Or a i ation. The 'HMO should review the plans, Utilities 1, It is recommended that the water main be installed on the east side of Oakgreen Avenue and connect to the existing 12" stub located approximately 300 feet south of Highway 36. 9, A fire hydrant will be required to service the development, 3. Further review is required on the sanitary sewer and water main. To be consistent with the comprehensive plans the City may require that the utilities are located in Oakgreen Avenue, Bituminous Trail 1. It is recommended that bituminous radii be placed at the connection to the existing easwest bituminous trail. The plans submitted were concept plans for Ackerman Estates. when preliminary grading and utilities plans are submitted a more detail review will be completed for the development, If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (651) 604-4788 r Dennis Postler at (651) 604 -4815. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROS N , ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC._ 1 41,2"o Karen S. Erickson, P,E. Torn Ozzello, Public Works Director Jim Butler, Building Official Scott Richards, City Planner Marl( Vierling, City Attorney Kathy Widin, City Arborist Todd A, Erickson — r"oI , Freeman, Erickson, Inc. DMP, D -I, File — Bonestroo & Associates 55 5040 DO ark,,,i Pro ress1 Iinsois_KS FY' Ackerrr xnos(;Ma scot) ce review do Scott Richards From: kd ri iin@ o ca t.net To: , Tom elf " to e11c @a cityofo kparl hei ht .cc ; "Julie Hultm n" jhuitman ©cityofca� r hei ht .com a ; "Eric Johnson" ea`o n on ©cityofoa� r� h i ht .c r } ' "Jim "Dennis �tfr d�ct�r �bntrc 1 Butler" � t ci jbutI r cfo r� i htS.ccr ; "Scott F ichards sri h r s @nac I ni . or ; 'Mark Vier ling" � rnvi rli ©eckber la mer . Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:10 M Subject: Tree Removal -- Ackerman Estates OPH Staff W have reviewed the tree removal for the proposed Ackerman Estates development and have the following comments: removing trees from After � • the list which are dead or not of significant size or species, 1 re- calculated the inches of existing trees and those to be removed to be 3098 and 1196, resp ccti el . 1 have not calculated tree replacement .t required, however, and this should be done by the developer after any h after changes to the proposal have been made. Since it appears that less than 50% of the significant trees will be removed, adjustments for species can be made to both lists per tree preservation ordinance section 307'.070 item 3. It would be helpful to have a visual which overlays tree inventory with street, building pads and grading, so that all trees which would be seriously affected by grading will be included. If you have any questions regarding this memo, please contact me. Kathy Widin Arborist City of Oak far, Heights Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 10 12/29/2004