Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-08 NAC Planning Report - PUD Cocept Plan Approval I IN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. A U R B A N P L A N N I N G • D E S I G N • M A R K E T R E S E A R C H FILE cop PLANNING REPORT TO: Oak Park Heights City Council FROM: Kyle Brown /Alan Brixius DATE: 8 March 1991 RE: Oak Park Heights - East Oaks PUD (Swager Bros.) FILE NO: 798.02 - 91.03 BACKGROUND Mr. Norris M. Swager and Mr. Norvin L. Swager are requesting concept approval for a planned unit development within the City of Oak Park Heights. The proposal is for an 8.6 acre parcel in the northeast corner of Section 4, Township 29 North, Range 20 West. There are 1.7 acres fronting Highway 36 proposed for commercial development. The balance is proposed for a residential townhome development. This report outlines the information required for concept plan approval as defined by the Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance. It also provides a brief discussion of the concept that has been proposed. Attached for reference are: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - PUD Description Exhibit C - Lot Description Exhibit D - Concept Plan Exhibit E - Proposed Floor Plan Exhibit F - Concept Sketch 4601 Excelsior Blvd. • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • (612) 925 -9420 • Fax 925 -2721 e • SUMMARY In order to provide a detailed review the proposal, more information is needed regarding site conditions and the PUD concept. The following materials, as outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance, still must be submitted by the applicant in order to consider concept plan approval: o Information on current zoning and land use of adjacent properties, including all roads and easements. o An inventory of existing site conditions including topography, soils and other environmental features. o Site plan showing building placement on the lots, setbacks, curb cuts, and open space. o A schematic water plan should be submitted. o Information on timing and staging of development. A medium density housing option is seen as appropriate for this site. Based on information that has been provided to date, our review raises the following concerns with regards to the proposed PUD. These concerns suggest that the concept plan would result in an over - utilization of the site. We feel that a revised layout may accomplish a more environmentally sensitive and functional design that may benefit both the developer and the City. o The concept of allowing single family homes in this area intermixed with multiple family homes does not result in a cohesive development. o The lot size presents concerns for building placement, setbacks, lot coverage, driveway location, and usable open space. o The street design presents concerns with regard to traffic congestion, dead -end streets, double and triple lot frontages, snow storage and overflow parking. o Additional information with regard to utility availability must be provided. We feel that the provision of the additional concept plan information will serve to support the aforementioned concerns. The plan should be revised to address these concerns. 2 • . ISSUES ANALYSIS Submission Requirements: The purpose of the general concept plan approval process is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his or her basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. This concept plan serves as the basis for the public hearing so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage. Although the plans are only at a conceptual stage, in order for the plan to be thoroughly evaluated, information regarding present status of the site, such as owners, land uses, and environmental characteristics, must be provided. In addition, information about the general concept proposal, such as proposed uses, target market, proposed densities, general layout and schematic utility plans must be provided. The following outlines the submission requirements for the general concept stage of the PUD review, identifies what has been provided by the applicant to date, and states what information must still be provided. A. PRESENT STATUS OF PARCEL 1. Address and legal description of site. 2. Existing zoning classification and use of the subject property and all lands within 100 feet of the subject property. 3. A map showing the location of all existing streets, property lines, easements, etc. The applicant has provided a legal description of the property. However, the information regarding zoning and land use of the site and adjacent areas has not been provided. B. SITE CONDITIONS 1. Contours - minimum two (2) foot intervals. 2. Location, type, and extent of tree cover. 3. Slope analysis. 4. Existing drainage patterns. 5. Soil conditions as they affect development. 3 • • The applicant has not provided any information with regards to the physical characteristics to the site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this general area of the City is characterized by extreme soil, slope and drainage conditions. It is essential that this information regarding site conditions be submitted in order for the City to accurately evaluate the proposal. C. PUD PROPOSAL The applicant has submitted a general description of the PUD and sufficient information to determine its consistency to the Comprehensive Plan. More information is needed about the market which it is intended to serve, including price range of units, and about how the development will relate to adjacent land uses. The applicant has also submitted a conceptual site plan. There is sufficient information provided to determine densities and other land use information, however, a water plan must be submitted along with topographic information in order to assess the utility plans. D. CONSTRUCTION STAGING /TIMING When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units must be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such stage and the overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. None of this information has been provided by the applicant to date. Concept Review: Based on the information that has been provided by the applicant, a preliminary review of the proposal has been conducted regarding land use, densities, layout, and circulation. Comprehensive Plan Consistency. The City's Comprehensive Plan proposes the site area for a mixture of commercial and medium to high density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan endorses the use of planned unit developments in this area due to environmental constraints. Therefore, the applicant's proposal of commercial development adjacent to Highway 36 and a medium density residential PUD on the balance of the site is in harmony with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4 • • Proposed Densities. The applicant has proposed 18 lots within the PUD. Each lot will contain one to three dwelling units depending on the owner's preference. Therefore, the PUD will contain anywhere from 18 to 54 dwelling units. This averages out from 2.6 dwelling units per acre to 7.8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's desire to allow single family homes, if desired by the market, raises concerns regarding consistency with the City's Land Use Plan. The plan calls for mid density housing which is reflected by the area's current zoning district R -B. The mixture of single family and townhomes in the plat presents some concerns. This is a valid concern because the two uses possess different physical characteristics and needs with regard to densities, building size, parking, user needs, etc. A plan with consistent land uses and densities should be considered for this location. Lot Size /Open Space. The applicant does not show building placement on the lots. As such, building setback, open space, and lot coverage cannot be accurately evaluated. The concept plan indicates an average lot size of 12,000 square feet and the three unit townhomes will have 6,240 square feet of ground level floor space. This results in a building lot coverage of over 50 percent. With the provision of setback and driveway arrangements, the lot coverage will increase. A general observation of the material received suggests an over - utilization of the lots. Street System. The concept plan calls for a private road circulation system for the residential development with one access point to the community, located on 60th Street. The lots are arranged in a grid pattern and storage and parking has been provided on the east end of the site. The proposed commercial site is located on 60th Street and has exposure to Highway 36. Review of the concept layout reveals the following concerns that must be addressed: o Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers model, a townhome will generate 5.2 vehicle trips per day and .51 vehicle trips per peak hour. At high end development, the proposed PUD will produce the following traffic volumes: 280 ADT or 28 trips at peak hour. The proposed density, site design, and traffic volumes raise concern for traffic congestion and safety. o The proposed roadways are 30 feet in width on a 40 foot right -of -way. o The dead -end streets designed to service Lots 4 and 7 are incomplete street systems, which due to topography and existing land uses, will not be extended into adjacent areas. This incomplete street system disrupts fluent circulation throughout the development. 5 • o Lots 16, 17, and 18 are double and triple frontage lots. This is an efficient use of land and an excessive road network. o The single entrance into the plat presents concerns with regard to emergency vehicle response time and maneuvering within the plat. o The overflow parking is located in the extreme western edge of the development and is not conveniently accessible to the balance of the plat. As a result, this may contribute to on- street parking. Natural Environment. The site plan proposes development of the entire site. Without information on grading, drainage, tree removal, and existing conditions, an evaluation of the development's impact on the environmental characteristics of the site cannot be done. Based on our knowledge of the site, a development that is sensitive to the slope, soil conditions, and natural vegetation is critical to this site. Utilities. Without information on the existing topography, the City cannot effectively evaluate the utility service or drainage patterns for the proposed development. Land Use Compatibility. The plan does not provide information as to how the development will relate to the surrounding land uses. Of specific concern is Raymie Johnson Estates. This multiple family development abuts the subject property to the south and will be exposed to rear yards of the housing units and the storage yard. This raises questions with regard to tree removal and screening on the site. CONCLUSION An overall review of the concept plan suggests that additional information is necessary to judge all the site impacts. However, based on the information provided, it would appear that the site would over - utilized in its present design. cc: LaVonne Wilson Mick Kaehler Swager Bros. 6 ' @ ... .. 31 1 111; . 3 :# ;3 31::::e :.. 111111: VON : - \--, —. 'fi . ,`1 I !. .. al una..m6 �. � ,... C f�ffiiifi� 1111111 1 - -_ o ,� • b .11 :i ;II® fi r 1611 r / /' ‘. milt., \ ' \ 3 _ . AI 1 [[ , r. /„... ,,� :ws, l _ c ,oaf � - • • - ' fie e O 5� �i3�='° � d\� S' il — — -- o °P mu. b ,-J� so SITE LOCATION v ' .� a - _r- -- �`� _ r _ lily.. ge .... gPl 71911 Ii9mRIMPORL�11WP IPP � 8 a t - - ' m a ° o g Ae°gPalA6 0� n o00Y siai7fi8Pa � 11ii`i r�iiaree 4 ° m ° � o L °11 : : r....., 3%; e ♦ ;•::o. $Ovid "4"4 1188488[ ma II it EPgBa For o g, �F7S�Ca1i '�o } 1714 PPIPlIO iY?8ors he Maiidi[ 1111 m° g w nol �eo � �. o 181117711006 • - Pceeso19 no 0 �ORSP G ° 'o;eoe�aae0000e - 1 � ll� • p .lA. ¢ °5s d 9 :..:.>:r•::::j,5 . 11s .',f. .O� mpi Y ►a 0 � 08ggggg0 �: _ 1 _ 00 G two __ `'' NM A { . . ^ Q . ! � v ...Sc: %; ^• „aex...... :r.F 7' : r i . . /kctli°}� �[ ::, 7,•'7 : :s. ':..:• :....„ ..3.7: T • his map is for planning purposes only and should not be used when precise measurements are required. a k 0 1000' 2000' North . 11.88 - c. 1. g QP ark northwest 1n - eights n� a ssociated m c onsultants, inc. i ._. minnefotc —1 s • February 20, 1991 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 RE: To P.U.D. Title — East Oaks Dear Honorable Mayor. and Council Members, We are requesting a concept approval for a planned unit development on the enclosed described property located in the City of Oak Park Heights. We request that the frontage lot be zone commercial. The lot size would be approximately 420 feet on the service lane of Highway 36 and 175 feet deep. The balance of the land 18 lots are for the purpose of con— structing up to a three unit townhouse on each lot. We want to be able to offer the public a custom townhouse that can be designed for each individ— ual buyer. In other words they would be'able to choose from 800 sq. ft. up to 1250 sq. ft. in a three unit building or 800 sq. ft. up to 1875 sq. ft. in a two unit building or a single family home on a lot, which ever they preferred. Also included, an area where they would have the choice to purchase a storage space from 10' x 10' size up to a 14' x 40' for storing motor homes, camping trailers, boats, motorcycles;. snowmobiles or any other kind of stor— age they would need. Also a parking lot for over flow parking. All of the streets, sewer, water, street lights and common area would be owned by East Oaks Association. The entrance would have a security operated gate, so that only the persons that live there would have access. We think the problem with other townhouse projects are that the buyer does not have the option of designing their own floor plans, for size or layout. In most cases they are offered only two or three floor plans. Also the need for privacy, security and storage are real important items that we think people are looking for. We believe this is a great concept and we would appreciate everyones cooperation to make this a reality. Sincerely, o Swasdr Norvin L. Swager EXHIBIT B . • • All that part of the North 40 rods of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of_ the Northeast Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 1.3 minutes 19 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the northerly line thereof, 822.43 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence South 02 degrees 12 minutes 15 seconds East 384.90 feet; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 15 seconds West 337.95 feet; thence South 38 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds East 63.69 feet; thence South 02 degrees 25 minutes 41 seconds East along a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A ", 224.95 feet, more or less, to the southerly line of said North 40 rods; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 19 seconds East along said southerly line 798.18 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of said North 40 rods; thence North 02 degrees 30 minutes 20 seconds West along the easterly line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter 660.30 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 19 seconds West along said northerly line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter 495.37 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Subject to the right -of -way of 60th Street North. Subject to and together with any other valid easements, reservations or restrictions. Together with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over, under and across all that part of the southerly 30.00 feet of said North 40 rods of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter which lies westerly of the before described "Line A ". • • EXHIBIT C -. 0 L 8 b 01' 11 Tr fl - 1: _...— W I \___ \. \ \ \ \ I 1 ! __ I 1. \ . _ 9 - - --y t '� Ls . - - - -- Ji L - — — — . .! . w 1 \' I . Si \ \ X/ 57 1 . /'/ : 33.-] __-______ ' 2: --T. —4.1 ' i ...„. :17- ."_:. ■ \ 1 \ I . : ? ..1 alit f 4 e z I l I J !� I Zt 59 wH`1 3No5`r - -- n azi $ oat his 101 7151iEr A- i 4 . .*0 -- _ , .x,5 31 • • • W 1— 2 o;21J x -- - f — p.1 =4,a' 4 '1'41 1 . j y , d O '1 • -. - - - ; R I o;o " — o- 41, —_.. __, Q ..__. Q $ti . Iv Q - 1 i -- - n: - y 0 -4 0.01. -� .o -r o-ri. - 0 — ' - ______ _ t___ T1 I 1 1 I � I II I i I I I I I Y I I II • • r��v�v�ij I , i j �ve J xixv�j._ I 4 I J 0 IQ I! i I I 1 I i 1 I I 1 I ! 11 I 1 is 2 12161.2 -- iI, :0 1 1 £ - 177!4! 1 = dJlnoo. 1 ° I it it r 1 1' 22 1 1 0 l r. w I �_ t t .0-.01...:;,, -.4. 1 k !F�1 p 34 " Ian 1 I uoo 4a8l (i 1„ L ; I ,o-oa a a.lxa � I a 1% IFf R1� _ _ I .°' 4 o �, 11 L . /.Ova � a� oN \� - oolro� ! - I„ C(�j L.1 [ - G 1iC�1� ai 7 p 0 - u i I id I n�r\ya3 1 <a lI '1.--)1[I1 o jy I © r I r� , , O I - ' l r� l 0 T7019(YA • I JT'!1 - \ntl R 1 - " 1 I II - • •TY1 LMw: •9191'O'- 91J 1'I<1tlA •T7 PIMA s it ' �>rtz - R a;4\- oY3tz-or}1- � ;allxou Op2x,s I I , a, \xot•p q.£1x ?,4t 1,,,,iO4-1-es-NI ' 1 r ,O yQa 3 Y ; I 1w00. %rtni•1, ! :{0)7539 ? ti1WwJ I 1 L aIttZ4C11(.1]t • 0 f \ I H r4., 1 ,,,,;:iNitilipiltri, ,. . ___ _ 1 3...._ . . • ..... , ' '..•' ii.. m 2 x W __ b V - / ' . hi . ;■]. .. i: 41' ,' ' . °114141 ■1 " • • 1 - ..........*.' . rli°111.°16); I. : . - .,.• . __ : .._..' . . . : .... , : : 7 e . 4,,,. i , "' ; 2 V . 0 C .14"1- • • „slig ..._---- . • • . . __=_%,... • , 1 , fi t . ^ <; i �� "C J r c • • _ °a- =- ' ' - .. -:•• ' a 7 ' .-*. '1 ." - 4/C i' - ,,i- __ --.-- • ... - - . -• • ter ,- , . '�S �/. e- / '` , -� ' '` j itji ._ . .., . ... r ` � ` _ _ �.'+ 1_ � ¢ l r 1 : i A t „�1i r ` \ � _s= 4, .. . I.” • . c„:. 1 _ ,,,.., .V , ''. r . ' .,. z__ 4 • ..... - .. -N.. • IMO ilmor . --- .Ii ........ ...-p-iir-___......... . ' \ 1111 \ c......JL. . • 1 • it ... ....... ---- •• ____---------------\. - 7 ...., •1, . 1 . , 7...„...., • ..,_ ... N. . ,