The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-09-23 NAC Planning Report -5 II F N, Northwest Associat'ed Consultants, I n c i , A U R 8 A N PLANNING& DESIGN -MARKET R E S E A R C H C PLANNING REPORT -, I evised TO: Oak Park Hei Ma and cit Council FRO 'Scott Richards M10 DATE: 23 September 1.993 RE: Oak Park Hei East Oaks PUD (Swa Bros,) FILE NO: 798.02 93.06 BACKGROUND' East Oaks LLC has. submitted -a revised concept plan/ development plan for the residential planned unit development (PUD) located south of 60th Street and east of Os Avenue North. The. revised development proposal calls for a reduction of one buildin so that the number of units drops from-30 to 28. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Development Sta PUD Plan for East Oaks O NDATIN The proposed project has been revised with one less buildin on essentially the same la With the revised site plan, the project now meets all of the minimum re of the PUD section of the Zonin Ordinance. The plan does not acknowled the issue of the industriall zoned propert directl to the east of the subject site. Althou a 30 foot buildin setb has been maintained around the perimeter of the site, the new plan does not address the concept of a shortenin of the proposed cul-de-sac and the introduction of a lot arran where the lots back up to the site's eastern propert line. The Cit Council and staff have expressed an interest in that lot confi and will re that an additional site plan be presented for review at the meetin on the 27th of September. S77.1i W;;V72ta Blvd. • Suite 555 (, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 % ( 612) 595-9636-,Fax, 595-9837 t •t Based upon the. submittal of the 'revised site plan, our of f ice recommends the City Council reaff irm a concept - approval for the site plan as reviewed here or the further revised plan to be presented on Monday night. If the plan with the shorter cul-de-sac is referred by the City Council, it will need to comply with all P concept plan requirements to be accepted. The City Council should app rove the development stage only when the lot configuration has been agreed upon and all submittal requirements have been complied with. Concept plan stage may be. granted with the following conditions 1 The P rivate street cul-de- radius be increased from 40 0 to 45 feet so as to accommodate emergency /service vehicle turning maneuvers. 2 0 Th City will reserve the right in the development agreement to retain, access -- agreements for the private roadway and the right to dedicate all or a portion thereof as public right - of way as the need necessitates. 3. The applicant submit a revised snow removal plan detailing where snow will be stored and under what conditions it will be removed from the site. 4 , The p private street width shall be at least thirty- two feet with on street parking allowed on one si 5. The declaration of covenants, restrictions and easements be reviewed by the City Attorney. 5. The Park Commission provide reconunen.d.a.tions in regard to cash park dedications. It �. s recommended that the appl i cant s � pay �12,000 ' in cash park dedicat fees . 70 The grading g radin and drainage plan for the approved concept plan '.s subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 8. The utility plan for the approved concept plan is subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 91 Per the recommendations of the City En gineer, 'iengineered control fills", take place to ensure that proper soil compaction is provided to support roadway and dwelling unit construction. 10. The Landscape plan is revised and a tree preservation plan/ detailed Landscape plan be prepared to identify all specific trees to be added, relocated and retained on the site. 2 L 7 2 11. The landscape plan shall indicate an area of complete screenin g g aloe the entire east property line by utilizing a combination of trees and /or berming. 12 Existing tree plantings along the northern boundary of the subject area are retained for buffering purposes to the adjacent commercially Zoned area. 13. The . a p pl. icants enter into a development agreement with the City. 14 'if s i g nae is to be provided on sit a detail. ed site plan is submitted which g i r ndicates the Location, type and size of a1.1 p rop osed signage . -All signs must comply with applicable prov2.sions of the City's Sign ordinance. to the side and setbacks provided for in the site plan, � �. due' Jr y onl one story buildings with a maximum height of 16 feet will � be allowable in order to meet the Zoning ordinance requirements for setbacks. 16, Comments from other City staff. i � 'f A, 0 7 0 , t AAV 19 SUIES ANALYSIS pto"oC3s ed Densities.. The applicants have now proposed 28 dwelling units in 14 buildings resulting '.n a density of 4.8 dwell units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with the property's R-B, Residential-Business Zoning designation. Street sys tern . , 1 P right-of- The revi plan that has been submitted indicates a 3 o foot right -- of -way width and a cul-de- sac radius of 40 feet. As required by the city, a 32 foot rig ht-of-way - of -� way and �45 font cul-de- de -- sac gill need to be indicated g p on the development 1. .� opment swage plans. The road will be permitt=ed w as p rivate at this time, but the city will reserve the right to dedicate the roadway as a public right-of -way as necessary.. The Cit y � will require access easements on the private roadway as part of the plat and development contract. 2, Snow Removal.. The appli has submitted a letter regarding the snow removal plan for East Oaks. The city will require a more detailed plan outlining where snow will be stored on site and under ghat conditions snow will be removed. 3 Lots, 1. Lot Arrangement The city Council indicated a concern with the adjacent industrial zoned property and the potential for future development* The staff and council requests to review a revised lot conf igura.tion showing a shortened cul-de-sac and lots that back up to the east property line. 2, Lot Width e Under the revised plan, the widths of most of the lots has not increased, but has decreased for Lots 1 -129 These lots have been reduced from a width of . 36 1 to 34' in order - to maintain a 30 foot perimeter setback. The lots will conform to minimum PUD requirements.' Setbacks.. with the revised plan, all perimeter setbacks of 30 feet have been complied with. In regard to internal setbacks, the dwellings will comply. with the 15 foot front yard. setback (from curb line) required by Ordinance. The interior building setback requirement has also been met in at least, 16 feet separates all of the buildings. Landscavincx., A final landscape plan is not required in the PUD process until the final plan stage. - The applicant has been asked to -provide a - detailed plan as part of the development stage approval indicating the trees to be preserved on site and those that can be moved o The applicant's engineer has indicated that approximately 15 5 o' of the existing .trees can be preserved. The pity 0 is especially - interested to see what tr ees can be saved and what will be added within the perimeter of the -site, especially along the east property line. Existing trees along the northern border should also be retained to buffer the residential from the potential commercial development on the adjacent property. Buy.ldinq TvDe e, In reviewing the proposed building plans, it is noted that most of the window area 'is proposed for the rear of the unit and not the sides facing the adjacent buildings. As a result, it will be especially .important to assure that the perimeter of the site is adequately landscaped to assure privacy for these units. Addi ti6nal.l -y, the building design proposal may not be the most appropriate if the lots are configured so that the units back up to the east property line. 4 CO NCLUSION d on the preceding review, our off i ce re commends that a revi Base p ite plan be submitted ' Including a lot arrangement where the lots s p ba p ck u to the east property line. The Council.. can then determine a p referred site plan and reaffirm concept plan approval, Development � veld ment sta e approval should be granted only when all required , information has been presented for City Council review. pc: LaVoniie Wilson Joe Anderlik Mark Vierling Norris and Norvin S wager Jim DeBenedet 5