Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-10 NAC Planning ReportPLANNING REPORT TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: January 10, 2008 RE: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com FILE NO: 798.02 — 07.10 BACKGROUND Oak Park Heights — Oakgreen Village, Phase 1, PUD Amendment And Phase 2 Concept and General Plan Approval, Preliminary And Final Plat EXHIBIT 1 o Tim Nolde, representing Anchobaypro Inc., has made application for a PUD amendment for Phase 1 and a concept and general plan approval for Phase 2 of the Oakgreen Village development west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street. The area under application consists of Phase 1 that has been previously approved for PUD general plan and Phase 2, and area that previously was just approved for PUD concept. The City Council approved a PUD general plan and preliminary/final plat for Phase 1 in May 2006. The property in question is completely under the control of Anchobaypro Inc. The request for the Phase 1 amendment is to allow for the conversion of the four unit buildings to three unit buildings. The conversion would be as the market dictates and would require replatting of the units as they are sold. For the Phase 2 area, the original concept plan indicates one five unit and one seven unit townhome building. The concept and general plan for this area has been revised so that two twinhome buildings would be constructed at this time. The private street would be extended to provide access. Attached for reference: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Cover Page/Revised Concept Project Narrative Phase 1 Oakgreen Village Plat Phase 2 Oakgreen Village 2 Addition Phase 2 Layout, Traffic, Signage and Lighting Phase 2 Grading, Drainage and Removal Plan Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 1 1: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: ISSUES ANALYSIS Adjacent Uses. North of Site: South of Site: West of Site: Phase 2 Utility Plan Phase 2 Landscape Plan Phase 2 Lighting Plan Phase 2 Proposed Drainage Area Map Three Bedroom Townhome — Exterior Elevations Three Bedroom Townhome — Floor Plans Triplex — Exterior Elevations Triplex —Floor Plans Alternative Townhome /Single Family Designs (2 pages) Comments of the City Engineer Comments of the City Arborist Uses adjacent to the subject site are fisted below: Present Zoning — B-4, Limited Business District Present Use — Highway 36 oriented commercial development Goodwill and Xcel Energy power line easement Present Zoning — 0, Open Space Present Use — The Boutwells Landing Development and Undeveloped Areas Present Zoning -- B -4, Limited Business District and B -2, General Business Present Use — Undeveloped area, Wal Mart and Lowe's /CSM Commercial Development 2 East of Site: Present Zoning — B -4, Limited Business District Present Use -- Single family residences and Oakgreen Avenue Proposed Project. The applicant has indicated that with the dramatic change in the housing market, the company is seeking ways to keep the Oakgreen Village project viable. While a number of clients are favorable to the community and the location, many have expressed interest in a twinhome unit. The submitted sketch indicates the potential for twinhome units along 58 Street and Oakgreen Avenue. The PUD amendment for Phase 1 would allow the conversion of Blocks 8 -14 of the Oakgreen Village Plat from four lots to three lots, depending upon the market and sales of unit types. The applicant has requested that the block conversion be approved at this time as part of the PUD and that each block would be replatted as the market dictates. The PUD, concept and general approvals would provide for the replacement of the five unit and seven unit townhome buildings east of the wetland and north of 58 Street into two unit townhomes. The request as this time is to add only four units in this area. The plan t lan approved in 2006 indicated 67 townhomes in the first phase and 46 additional townhomes in the second for a total of 113 units. With the proposed overall layout, there is a maximum of 92 units and a minimum of 84 units, if all eight of the four unit blocks are converted to three unit blocks. Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved in July 2005, removing the Central Business District (CBD) designation and replacing it with a commercial land use designation. The proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. This property has been designated as B -4, Limited Business which accommodates residential development as a conditional use. As such, the underlying base zoning district will be B -4, Limited Business with a PUD overlay. The B -4, Limited Business District lists two family, townhomes and multiple family dwellings as a conditional use. Subdivision. The applicant has provided an Oakgreen Village Plat exhibit that indicates the proposed revision of lots within Blocks 8 -14 from four lots/units to three lots/units. Blocks 7 and 15 are not to be converted. It is the intent of the applicant that they re will lat the blocks as the market dictates. City staff is not favorable to a p piecemeal process for replacing the area. The City Attorney recommends that the area be replatted all at one time so as to reduce the processing time and requirement for multiple public hearings and City review. The applicant has also submitted a plat for Oakgreen Village 2nd Addition. The plat pp p establishes two blocks, each with two lots. The surrounding area is indicated as Out lot A. All access is via private roadways so right -of -way is not necessary. The City Engineer and City Attorney shall review the plat for any changes and additional easements that may be required. Park Dedication. Park dedication has been satisfied for this area. A cash park dedication has been received by the applicant. B -4, Limited Business Standards. Section 401.301.E.9 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the conditional use permit standards for allowing residential use in the B -4 District. The standards are as follows: Two family, townhomes and multiple family dwellings provided that: a. At least two parking spaces per unit must be provided for on site, or proof is shown of arrangements for private parking nearby. Each unit is provided with a two stall garage, spaces in front of the garage door, and guest parking spaces in the development. 3 b. No physical improvements, either interior or exterior, may preclude future re-use for commercial purposes. The units are constructed for residential use. It is highly unlikely that the project would be redeveloped for commercial use in the future. c. Unit floor areas must comply with Section 401.15.0.6. The unit floor areas will comply. d. Compliance with conditional use requirements of Section 401.03.A.8. The Planning Commission and City Council should review the conditional use permit requirements and determine if there are any reasons to not approve the conditional use permit. e. The development does not conflict with existing or potential future commercial uses and activities. The area has been planned for residential development since the approval of the latest Comprehensive Plan in 1998. f. The density, setbacks, and building height standards imposed as part of the R -3 g. Zoning District are complied with. The R -3 District standards with a PUD will be complied with. Adequate open space and recreational space is provided on site for the benefit of the occupants. The density of the development has been decreased in order to provide more open space and to accommodate larger dwelling units. A small private park will be developed as part of the second phase. h. The development does not conflict or result in incompatible land use arrangements as related to abutting residential uses or commercial uses. The residential development has been planned for this area. i. Residential use be governed by all applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Housing Code and Fire Codes. All applicable codes will be applied. 4 J. Residential and non-residential uses shall not be contained on the same floor. There is no commercial development planned within this project. k. Residential uses shall be provided with a separate entrance, and separately identified parking stalls. The development has been phased with timelines that comply with this request. 1 The architectural appearance, design and building materials of residential structures shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines and subject to approval of the City Council. The design and building materials shall be reviewed as part of a separate section of this report. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to review these issues as part of the general plan review. Project Density. Section 401.15.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the density thresholds for residential properties. Townhome projects require 4,000 square feet of land area per unit excluding right -of -way and wetlands. The Phase 1 development consists of a total area of 315,700 square feet, which excludes the wetland and right - of-way area. The 67 units planned for that area originally would result in an area per unit of 4,712 square feet. A reduction of units would result in a threshold density that will exceed the requirements. The second phase originally had a density per unit of 5,485 square feet. Again, lowering the density would make the development more in conformance. Proposed Street/Access. The applicant has proposed a roadway extension to accommodate access for the two twinhomes. The roadway location matches the location within the original concept plan approvals. A five stall guest parking area will be constructed adjacent to the extended roadway. A turnaround will be provided at the end of the roadway to accommodate vehicle access until such time as the complete private roadway system is constructed. The 28 foot street would be privately developed and maintained as are the other roadways in the Oakgreen Village development. Trails /Sidewalks. As part of the twinhome development, the proposed sidewalk will need to be constructed between the twinhomes and the wetland area. The sidewalk will be done this Summer extending from Nova Scotia Avenue to Oakgreen Avenue. At the intersection of Oakgreen and 58 Street, the trail and crosswalk should cross 58 Street to the south and not access Oakgreen as shown on the plans. Private Park. With extension of the roadway, staff had requested the applicant provide preliminary plans for the private park area. New residents will be living in the area this 5 Summer so it is recommended that the park area be graded and that improvements be made. Setbacks. Within a PUD, the base district setback requirements (B -4 ) are applied only to the perimeter of the project. The B -4 District specifies setback requirements as follows: 40 feet front yard, 20 feet rear yard, and 10 feet side yard. if the lot is in a corner, not Tess than 20 feet from a lot line is required for side yards. The PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that buildings should be located at least 20 feet from the back of a curb line from roadways as part of the internal street pattern. Additionally, the ordinance specifies that no building within the project shall be nearer to another building by one-half the sum of the building heights of the two buildings. The site plan indicates that one of the twinhomes is set back only 20 feet from the right - of -way for 58 Street. Although the setback meets Zoning Ordinance requirements, the proximity roximit of that residential building from 58 Street should be commented upon by the Planning Commission. There is adequate room to move the building further north and not impact the parking area in front of the dwelling units. Tree Preservation /Landscaping. The applicant has provided information on existing tree coverage and what will be preserved and removed as part of the overall landscape plan. Plans were also submitted for general landscaping in the area around the twinhomes but no foundation plans were included. The applicant will need to provide foundation planting plans. The City Arborist wilt review the tree preservation plans and landscape plan for any revisions. The plans shall be subject to the final approval of the City Arborist. Grading and Drainage. Detailed grading and drainage plans have been provided as part of the general plan of development submittals. The City Engineer shall review and approve all of the grading and drainage plans. Utilities. A detailed utility plan has been submitted. The final utility plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. All of the utilities within the development shall be private but built to City specifications. Lighting. A lighting plan has been provided that includes street light fixture specifications and locations within the private street network. The light fixture is identical to what has been used in McKean Square. It is a full cut -off fixture with a flat lens. The street lights will be maintained and all electricity costs will be paid for by the developer /homeowners association. No Tight fixtures are shown on the proposed buildings. If lights are proposed, they shall be illustrated on the building plans subject to approval of City staff. Signage. No additional signage has been proposed other than the monument signs on each of the two entrances from Nova Scotia Avenue. 6 Home Removal. Staff recommends that the dwelling at 5762 Oakgreen Avenue be removed as part of these development approvals. The structure is currently vacant and would impact plans for grading and development of the private park. Architectural Appearance. The application materials indicate preliminary drawings of the twinhomes and the triplex units. The structures are base townhome row units with small porches and brick /lap siding exteriors. The units lack architectural detail, feature extensive horizontally and minor variety in building material. Staff has suggested that the applicant provide building plans with more character, detailing and variety in building materials. The examples from a development in Lakeville, and found as Exhibit 15 to this report, have been provided to the applicant as an example of preferred building designs. Staff recommends that alternative building elements be provided for Plannin9 Commission review. This is significant in that these units will be highly visible from 58 Street and Oakgreen Avenue. The residential units are not required to be reviewed under Design Guideline requirements, but as part of the PUD, the City can comment and require design and material changes. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment further on the building appearance and materials as part of the approvals. Development Contract. The applicant will be required to enter into an amended development contract with the City should approval of the general plan of development be granted. As part of the contract, the provisions for street and utility construction, as well as payment for area changes, would be included. RECOMMENDATION 1 CONCLUSION Staff recommends that issues be resolved with the applicant and that additional requested plans be submitted prior to Planning Commission action on this item. The following information and issues should be resolved prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation: 1. A preliminary /final plat be submitted for Blocks 8 -14 with the final development layout. 2. A plan for the park shall be provided. 3. An alternative design that indicates at least a 30 foot setback for units from the 58 Street right-of-way. 4. Foundation plantings for the twinhomes shall be provided. 5. Alternative plans for the twinhomes and triplex units be provided that demonstrate more architectural detailing and variety in building materials. 7 0 ez u a E 0 (9, 1- (NI a) co 2 co 5 -0 a.) E; 2 s: o. • " - o c coom co „__ t 0) u) ) cf) a) a) -1- co E - r 0 - t 0 z1 - o a) — cr) c > - o x . _c cl i.,) . o a) c cp _ • --,,-- o o --,.. co ooN' __.. 1 „, 4 ...c 03 c c_:)_ -Le c _c 03 M 0 >, P --U) S co - o a) c a) ril (5) cp '- P.4 C = 43 co .) co cu 0 a) .........CCI ...c 2 '•4 (...) 0 CO _C CD C 7C3 L.- D Cl a) 0 ri < E _.- o c (0 m 0 . v.. c.) a u) - —,: 6 0 rs*"..1 ..c -...--1 tt _c ±t (f) CZ > (f) P1414 .5 p ) n o p m 8 . (-0 0 0 E 45 •4- -0 s cr) $ E Eco - :,,,, a 0-) ,-- a) TS a) _c _ ..o ..c t 0 ±...... '.- -c o Go u; 4- - eti u i E a) -4:,- c -' ( a Z3 r I 8 0 - c: - ; Q c,_ , .. ..c - if, E .4, TO W > E al 0 - 0 a) 4- - a) Arn ,.... 4- a) 0 co n al c V -) n uS - -0 CD ,..-_-_ c (L) 0 c -, 4 0 E 0 0 co co n _c a .c E < > _ 0 -7‹ 2 .:.--' c •-&- -.= t , a D > = Cd CO > C fj) .) a) , cf) CD 03 0 >, 74 60 C .7 0 -c-- D 0 a) (1) 2 7) ._. E o ..c ,... C t.f. CD „C 0 4...1 CO > 0 , C ,.... 4- cn 5' 8 — a) .±.,..., ,,,, 0 _c . ›, a) - -3 D 2 CT, 0 0 76 CD (f) CO CI) C.) E c 0 co 0 E 0 0 x < E 0 ) 1 fl „ „„ , . •• • , • • • E 4 ,Ig 5 6-E 5850 58.50 58.50 ;11 SS 50 --- N , 1 (NI , ett Les MI i 56.50 0 56.50 2 i .1. 4 50 .5 50 A i 76 6 A 1 V L._,/ V 1 56.50 56 50 SS 50 ti! A 1 / 58 50 55.5, sq' m 55.50 55.50 1 - 1 V A 17 — 1 - 1 1 V6JI 6 6 F 7 (:6 5Q W V e W �o. :41,! w � J C) L_ , n r7 �� v J L E fl N Tvbil JO 6/[3S aV7 Jo aurl 7 •l o 1 •.7+'i. irk �WL..1...- f z �r>.� i,?'_1 1�� � t�. L tt 0o0 T OS _v 00,9 o ` r --- 1) , £r, : rg .7) c5 I g C a d ® E-,1,1 � co p ° aa; Y Nd pi!n4 -_ z :o.TOs 96ZOT I � J ■ arcs M.Ct,S0.0D5 M,CZ,t.. 01 tato Q,73 yd T T •SOT ff„en MOON � 7 OR 1. E `21 P 1 !) '' 1(±1 1 Eg 0' r, 29, 6a 11 2 0 612 n ' i % 2 Fl ilE il 0 uj is rt 0 S I- 12 7 Ag ir-11 (T) ec 2 3 Ti "CZ 1 3. .0111 ry - —24"D >.< LL.1 at 24"D 00 Cr) • 9176 NarYdaYVO tobbki In Tr LU IL • V ° LU 0 8 1 1.1.1 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 31.3 ;/; • ; ; .31 ; ; • 41 4. '"; • 71,4 ; ; ; ; ; • : ; ; u 0 m 0 a t fl C Q� N lFC°° 1 BIM 0 ,S IL T i 1 - §ssesez VA It WAWA= 114 IV MINIM IN 1 >( 6 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 11111111111 0 6 MOM Ls 0 0- x LU e R c, '` IA? ROOM whim agimgrummu 8 tP -- 151.6466 lg. et 1 • R1 No Written "Engineering Comments" as of yet City Engineer has provided verbal comments at staff and developer site review meetings and awaits information from developerlengineer, addressing verbal comments before written comment to the project may be formulated. EXHIBIT 16 Julie Hultman F~omm. K. D. Widin [kdwidin@comcast. net] Sent: Wednesday, January 02 2008 8:50 AM To: Eric Johnson; mvieding©eohberg|ommena.00m; dpostler@bonestroo.com; Scott Richards; Jimmy Butler; Judy Hoist; Julie Hultman; Tom Dzzolo Subject: Oakgreen Village Phase 2 - Landscape Plan OPH Staff - I have reviewed the landscape plan bmitted for Oakg Village Phase �h����� of 2 well as original p�nasubmitted) o have the on the side pond. |h the foliowing observations and comments: 1. The number of trees proposed for the area umder consideration is similar to the number proposed for that area in the original Iandscape plan. | suggest oddingaevana|thorn|ea0000hspurhawthomnororabaopleforoomadivorsit and spring color. 2. The tree species proposed are acceptable; however, would suggest more species dversity in both evergreen and deciduous trees, a auba�tuteofew - pine for several of the white pine and Norway spruce, and substitute several hochbenyor Am. linden for a few maple. 3. Are any foundation plantings planned for the residentia units? 4. The Planting Detail is acceptable and should be adhered to. 5. Tree protection fencingmhou|dbeupa!ongthepostaideofthetreaatobepresen/edbmthepondbefonaony construction begins on the site. If you have any questions regarding this inspection or report, please contact me. Kathy in Arborist City of Oak Park Heights Julie Hultman From: K.D. VVidin [kdwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 02 2008 2:08 PM To: Eric Johnson; mvieMl re.com;dpostler@bonemboo.00m;8cott Richards; Jimmy Butler; Judy Hoist; Julie Hultman; Tom OzreUo Subject: Oakgreen Village Phase 2 Foundation Plantings At the site review meeting with the developer for Oakgreen Village, of foundation shrubs was brought up. The developer indicated that the plantings would "be the same as what was done for Phase 1" |requeated that the project submit a plan for the foundation plantings and then foilow the approved plan in terms of species and plant location. The landscape plan for the whole site, including the foundation shrubs, should be requested as part of the general plan submittals. Kathy hn