Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-21 CC Meeting Packet EnclosureMeeting Date April 21, 2005 Requester's Signature Action Requested Discuss. Time: 5 minutes Agenda Placement New Business Originating DepartmentlRequestor Eric J Planning Report from Scott Richards; Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Agenda Item Title: Oakgreen Village — PUD Concept Plan Approval Enclosed are four items related to this Project: 3. A similar City Council resolution also denying the application; Background/Justification (Please indicate if any evious action has been taken or if other public bodies have advised): 2. Resolution from the Planning Commission recommending for denial of the project with reasons as stated; UNiE 4. Letter from Mx. Tim Nolde, asking that the City Council not take action at this time on the proposal, but rather send the application back to the Planning Commission as he has made revisions to the plan based on some of the comments received at the public hearing. Staff has no objection to Mr. Nolde's request. Accordingly if the Council wishes to grant the request the Council should take such action via formal motion, send the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further study. The City has extended the timelines to 120 days on this project through June 2005. The Council may however take action on the proposal as it currently stands, i.e. approval or denial. PLANNING REPORT TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: April 7, 2005 RE: Oak Park Heights — Oakgreen Village: Revised PUD Concept Plan FILE NO: 798.02 - 04.17 BACKGROUND Tim Nolde, representing Anchobaypro, Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance (VSSA), has made application for a PUD concept plan approval for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street. The area under application at this time consists of approximately 11 acres and encompasses a significant portion of the Central Business District. The City Council approved a PUD general plan and preliminary /final plat on March 9, 2004 for this area. The applicants have revised the plans to remove the apartment buildings and develop the entire area with townhome units. The application is only for the first phase of development that would exclude the single family properties directly adjacent to Oakgreen Avenue and a portion of the property to the west, The applicant has made separate application to the City for consideration of TIF financing for property purchase and removal to allow the second phase. Attached for reference: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway. Suite 202, Golden Valley, M N 66422 Telephone: 76323 1 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2581 plan ners @n acpla nning, cony Oakgreen Village Concept Submittal Booklet January 11, 2005 Letter from Tim Nolde February 9, 2005 Letter from Tim Nolde City Council Resolution, March 9, 2004 Previous General Plan Approval Oakgreen Village, Previous Approved Plans Example of Alternative Development Options ISSUES ANALYSIS Adjacent Uses. Uses adjacent to the subject site are listed below: North of Site: South of Site: West of Site: East of Site: Present Zoning - Central Business District Present Use --- Highway 36 oriented commercial development, Undeveloped areas and the Xcel Energy power line easement Present Zoning -- 0, Open Space Present Use -- The Boutwelis Landing development and Undeveloped areas Present Zoning — Central Business District Present Use — Undeveloped area, Wal -Mart and Highway 36 Oriented commercial development Present Zoning — Central Business District Present Use -- Single family residences and Oakgreen Avenue Proposed Project: The general plan for the first phase of development in this area, approved in 2004, was for 87 townhome units. Those plans are included in Exhibit 5. The concept plan for the area included 203 overall units, 111 which were townhomes and 92 apartment units in two separate buildings. The concept plan encompassed the area south of the xcel power line easement to 58 Street and from Novak Avenue to Oakgreen Avenue. The new plan calls for 96 townhome units in phase one, which is being considered at this time. The second phase includes 53 additional townhomes in the area that is not totally under control of the applicants. Anchobaypro has submitted to the City a request for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to address purchasing and removal of those remaining homes. The previous conceptual approvals allowed for a total of 203 units; the new proposal is for a total of 149 units or a 54 unit reduction. All of the townhomes would be "for sate" and have sales prices beginning at $179,900. The proposed roadway network is almost identical to what was previously proposed. Novak would be constructed as the north /south street from 58 Street to 60 Street. Nutmeg Avenue would connect Novak and 58th Streets. Both of these streets would be public. The plans indicate 59 Street connecting Oakgreen Avenue and Novak Avenue. The roadway is not proposed to be constructed at this time, but the City would take the right -of-way as part of the plat. Comprehensive Plan. The 1988 Comprehensive Plan designates this area north of 58 Street and west of Oakgreen as Central Business District. The Central Business District Urban Design Study designated this area for residential and a mixed use precinct similar to what has been proposed in this concept plan application. The residential area is concentrated on the east side of the site and is oriented around the 2 existing wetland similar to the CBD Plan. Additionally, the CBD Plan called for small box commercial with residential development west of the proposed Novak. While not identical to the Central Business District Urban Design Study Master Plan, the current proposal is similar in general land uses for how the area would develop. Development interests have also shared plans with the City incorporating this area into a large commercial development. The City would need to revise its Comprehensive Plan to accommodate large scale commercial development in this area. Zoning. The subject site north of 58 Street is proposed to remain zoned CBD. The PUD approvals will be applied to the CBD District as a conditional use. The CBD District allows multiple family structures as a conditional use. The use of the PUD would allow flexibility in how the project is configured in terms of building orientation and use of private driveways for access. The PUD general plan would finalize the plan and a development agreement would be executed between the applicant and the City addressing the project. Subdivision. A preliminary plat has been submitted by the applicants for the development. The plat establishes 80/90 foot rights-of-way for Novak Avenue, 50/60 foot right-of-way for Nutmeg Avenue, and 66 foot right-of-way for 59 Street. g Y g � g Y The preliminary plat includes 50 feet of right-of-way on the east side of the property for Oakgreen Avenue as recommended by the City Engineer. The total right-of-way required for Oakgreen Avenue will be 100 feet. The individual townhome units would be platted separately with the surrounding property as outlots. outlot A is created as a separate parcel with the dedication of the 59 Street right-of-way. The City Attorney has indicated that this outlot will need to be tied to the ownership of the townhome areas so that it remains under their responsibility and maintenance. The preliminary /final plat will be considered in detail as a part of the general plan of development of review for this project. Park Dedication. Park dedication is based upon the specifications of Section 402.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The residential area to be platted would be subject to park dedication. The applicants have been advised that a property appraisal would need to be provided to calculate the park dedication amount. A small tot lot park is planned within the development that would be privately maintained by the association, The Subdivision Ordinance indicates that a credit for such areas can be granted by the City Council. This will be a policy decision of the City Council with input of the Planning Commission and Park Commission. CBD Standards. Section 401.301.E.6 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the CUP standards for allowing residential use in the CBD. The standards are as follows: Two family, townhomes and multiple family dwellings, provided that: 3 a. At least two parking spaces per unit must be provided for on site, or proof is shown of arrangements for private parking nearby. b. No physical improvements, either interior or exterior, may preclude future re -use for commercial purposes. c. Unit floor areas must comply with Section 401.15.C.6. d. Compliance with conditional use requirements of section 401.03.A.8. e. The development does not conflict with existing or potential future commercial uses and activities. f. The density standards imposed as part of the R -3 Zoning District are complied with. g. Adequate open space and recreational space is provided on site for the benefit of the occupants. h. The development does not conflict or result in incompatible land use arrangements as related to abutting residential uses or commercial uses. 1. Residential use be governed by all applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Housing Code and Fire Codes. j. Residential and nonresidential uses shall not be contained on the same floor. k. Residential uses shall be provided with a separate entrance, and separately identified parking stalls. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to review these issues as part of the concept plan review. In particular, the concept plan review should addresses Items d, e, f, 9, and h. These issues will be addressed as part of this report. Project Density. Section 401.15.0.3 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 One development consists of a totai area of 431,702 square feet. The 96 units planned for that area would result in an area per unit of 5,018 square feet. The calculations for the second phase would result in an area per unit of 4,638 square feet. Proposed Street/Access. As indicated, the proposed street network is almost identical to the previous plan. Novak Avenue has been moved slightly to the east and 59 Street has been reoriented around the proposed stormwater pond. The Nutmeg Avenue /58 Street intersection is at the same location. Novak is planned at an 80 foot/90 foot right-of-way with a 34 foot width street that will widen at the 60 Street and 58 Street intersections to accommodate turn lanes. Nutmeg Avenue is planned at a 50 foot/60 foot right-of-way with a 34 foot width and a 4 turn lane at 58 Street. 59 Street is planned with a 66 foot right-of-way and a street width of 34 feet. The Planning Commission has previously discussed the need to provide adequate separation between the residential uses in the east portion of the CBD and the commercial areas to the west. The City Engineer has indicated that 80 feet of right -of- way will give adequate area for significant boulevard tree plantings along Novak Avenue. Additionally, the applicant proposes to preserve the existing pine grove near the Novak Avenue /58 Street intersections and plant a screen of trees between Novak and the townhome units. The plan includes an extensive system of private trails that would intersect with the City's trail system. A continuation of the trail along the Xcel power line easement is planned to extend to Novak Avenue. A five foot sidewalk is also planned on the City right -of -way on the north side of 58 Street. The plans do not show, but the City will likely require, a City sidewalk on the west side of Novak Avenue. Private sidewalks would be provided on both sides of Nutmeg Avenue and throughout the development. The Park Commission should comment on the proposed private and public trail system that is planned for this development. Private Driveways. The plans include an extensive system of private driveways to serve the townhome units. All of the driveways are 24 feet in width and stop with a "hammerhead" dead -end. Most of the driveways are between 200 and 300 feet in length, which could create issues for emergency vehicle access, especially with the 24 foot driveway widths. The Police Chief and Fire Chief will comment on the design prior to the Planning Commission review. There will be 20 foot driveways between the front of the garage and the private driveway area. This minimal distance will create issues for accessibility and visibility with the large numbers of units on each private driveway. The average sedan is 16 feet in length, a Suburban is 18 feet in length, and a crew cab pick up truck is 22 feet in length. Large vehicles wilt hang out into the private roadway and restrict access and visibility. Snow removal will also be an issue on the long, narrow driveways. Setbacks. Within a PUD, the base district setback requirements (CBD) are applied only to the perimeter of the project. The CBD requirements specify no front, rear, and side yard setback requirements. 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 species 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. All of the buildings will meet the minimal requirements of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance relates to setbacks. The buildings are spaced adequately from the right -of- way and curb and adequate separate is provided to meet basic requirements. Traffic. The applicant's engineer has provided vehicle count information for the proposed development. The City Engineer has requested additional information and analysis of how the development will affect the existing level of traffic on Oakgreen S Avenue and 58 Street. Analysis of the traffic impacts of the development will be done by the City Engineer. Tree Preservation /Landscaping. The applicant has provided preliminary information on existing tree coverage and a landscape plan. The City Arborist will review the detailed tree preservation plans and landscape plans as part of general plan of development review. The existing conditions map indicates the tree masses that would be removed to accommodate the development. While many of the trees are dead, not of significant size, or of desirable variety, there are groupings of trees that could be preserved with a more sensitive development plan. Park. The applicants have provided a small park area that would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. More detailed plans of the park would be required for general plan of development review. Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted with this proposal. The City Engineer will comment on any issues with the plan at concept plan stage. A more detailed plan review would be conducted as part of the general plan of development. Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted. The utility plans will be subject to City Engineer review and approval at the general plan of development stage. Lighting. A preliminary lighting plan has been submitted. The lighting plan will be reviewed as part of the general plan of development. Architectural Appearance. The application materials include preliminary drawings of the proposed townhome units. The structures are basic townhome row units with small porches, varying roof lines with brick and lap siding. Overall, the architecture of the townhomes is favorable but there is concern with so many of the same types of units in the development. The applicant should consider varying the style and architecture between buildings as part of the general plan submittals. Parking. Two spaces within an enclosed garage are provided per unit. Thirty-five guest parking spaces are proposed in various locations throughout the development. The plans also allow for 20 feet of driveway in front of each garage door. As indicated, this may be a minimal allowance with the long driveways and 24 foot width driveway. Development Contract The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City should approval of the concept plan and general plan of development be granted. As part of the contract, the provisions for street and utility construction, as welt as payment for area changes, would be included. The contract will specify conditions of approval and issues related to phasing the development. 6 RECOMMENDATION 1 CONCLUSION As part of its review, the Planning Commission should first look at the Comprehensive Plan and determine from the goals and plans what is the most appropriate development for this property. Previous plans have indicated a residential component of the CBD for this area, but commercial developments may also be appropriate. If residential use is preferred for this property, it should be noted that this is the last large parcel in the City that will accommodate that type of development. The City should and can be selective in the type of development that it would allow there. Planning staff does not support the current concept plan offered by the applicants. The development is not sensitive to the natural features of the property, is too dense, and the design is clearly intended on maximizing the unit count of the project. The PUD process is intended to bring innovative and unique development to a site. This project is not innovative or unique. An example of an alternative design for single family housing on approximately the same size parcel is shown in Exhibit 6. More details of this project will be provided, as an example, at the Planning Commission meeting. Section 401.06.A indicates the purpose of the PUD. The Planning Commission should consider if this concept plan is appropriate based upon the fundamental goals of a PUD as stated below: 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for residential, commercial, and industrial projects at all economic levels may be met in greater variety in tenure, type, design, and siting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 2. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 3. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering housing costs and public investments. 4. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan. 5. A more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. 6. To give the landowner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval before expending complete design monies while providing City officials with assurances that the project will retain the character envisioned at the time of concurrence. 7. To allow variation from the provisions of this Ordinance including setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. where deemed necessary by the City Council. 8. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects, landscape architects and engineers. 7 9. More convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. 10. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development arid use pattern. If the Planning Commission finds that the concept plan is acceptable, staff will prepare a resolution for approval with the appropriate conditions. The Planning Commission has the option of sending the recommendation directly to the City Council or approve the resolution at its May meeting. A recommendation of denial could follow the same process. 8 A RECOMIlVIgNDING RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ESTABLISFIING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST BY TIM NOLDE REPRESENTING ANCHOBAYPRO, INC. AND VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES ALLIANCE FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THAT AREA WEST OF OAKGREEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF 58 STREET WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF THE CITY SHOULD BE DENIED WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request from Tim Nolde representing Anchobaypro, Inc. and valley Senior Services Alliance for a PUD Concept Plan approval for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street within the Central Business District of the City; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning Commission of Oak Park Heights makes the following findings of fact: 1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as SEE ATTACHMENT A The applicant has submitted an application and supporting documentation to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items: follows, to wit: and and SEE ATTACHMENT B 3. The subject site is zoned CBD, Central Business District in which residential multiple family structures are a listed conditional use; and 4. A PUD overlay has been requested to allow flexibility in terms of building orientation and use of private driveways for access; and 5. City staff prepared a preliminary report dated April 7, 2005 reviewing the request for the first phase of a Concept Plan that would include a total of 96 townhouse units; and 6 Said report recommended that the Planning Comraission recommend denial of the Concept Plan in that the proposal does not rneet the criteria for granting flexibility under the PUD and the development is not sensitive to the natural features of the property and is too dense; and 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their April 14, 2005 meeting, took comments from the applicants and public, closed the public hearing, and made the following recommendation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION FOR DENIAL: A. The application submitted by Tim Nolde representing Anchobaypro, Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance for a PUD Concept Plan approval for that area west of Oak green Avenue and north of 58 Street within the Central Business District of the City and affecting the real property as follows SEE ATTACHMENT A Be and the same as hereby recommended to the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights for denial subject to the following findings of fact: 1. The application for Concept Plan approval does not adequately address the criteria for PUD projects as specified in Section 401.+06.A of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Concept Plan design is not adequate for efficient or safe traffic flow in that the private driveways are too long, the driveways are too narrow and there is not adequate space for snow removal. 3. The design of the Concept Plan is not adequate to allow for emergency vehicle access or large delivery vehicles or garbage trucks, especially as it relates to the private driveways. 4. The Concept Plan does not provide adequate guest parking. 5. The project density is too intense for the site and results in too much hard cover and not adequate green space. 6. The project design is not sensitive to the natural features of the property, including topography and trees and vegetation. 7. The private park is not of adequate size to accommodate the density proposed for the project. 2 Recommended for denial by the Planning Commission of the City of Oak Park Heights this 14 day of April 2005. ATTEST: Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator strator John Dwyer, Chair 3 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TITAT THE REQUEST BY TIM NOLDE REPRESENTING ANCHOBAYPRO, INC. AND VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES ALLIANCE FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THAT AREA WEST OF OAKGREEN AVENUIE AND NORTH OF 58 STREET WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF THE CITY BE DENIED WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request from Tim Nolde representing Anchobaypro, Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance for a PUD Concept Plan approval for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street within the Central Business District of the City; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning Commission of Oak Park Heights recommended that the request be denied based upon findings of fact. The City Council makes the following findings of fact and resolution: 1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as SEE ATTACHMENT A 2. The applicant has submitted an application and supporting documentation to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items: follows, to wit: and and SEE ATTACHMENT B 3. The subject site is zoned CBD, Central Business District in which residential multiple family structures are a listed conditional use; and 4. A PUD overlay has been requested to allow flexibility in terms of building orientation and use of private driveways for access; and 5. City staff prepared a preliminary report dated April 7, 2005 reviewing the request for the first phase of a Concept Plan that would include a total of 96 townhouse units; and 6. Said report recommended denial of the Concept Plan in that the proposal does not meet the criteria for granting flexibility under the PUD and the development is not sensitive to the natural features of the property and is too dense; and 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their April 14, 2005 meeting, took comments from the applicants and public, closed the public hearing, and recommended that the request be denied based upon findings of fact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENIES THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: A. The application submitted by Tim Nolde representing Anchobaypro, Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance for a PUD Concept Plan approval for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street within the Central Business District of the City and affecting the real property as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A Be and the same as hereby denied by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights based upon the following findings of fact: 1. The application for Concept plan approval does not adequately address the criteria for PUD projects as specified in Section 401.06.A of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Concept Plan design is not adequate for efficient or safe traffic flow in that the private driveways are too long, the driveways are too narrow and there is not adequate space for snow removal. 3. The design of the Concept Plan is not adequate to allow for emergency vehicle access or large delivery vehicles or garbage trucks, especially as it relates to the private driveways. 4. The Concept Plan does not provide adequate guest parking. 5. The project density is too intense for the site and results in too much hard cover and not adequate green space. 6. The project design is not sensitive to the natural features of the property, including topography and trees and vegetation. 7. The private park is not of adequate size to accommodate the density proposed for the project. 2 ATTEST: Denied by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 26 day of April 2005. Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator David Beaudet, Mayor 3 P.O. 119 STLLLWATER, MN 55082 -0119 N 651- 4394187 • Anchobaypro, Inc. April 21, 2005 Oak Park Heights City Council City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: OAKGREEN VILLAGE Dear Councilmember's: We recently appeared before the Planning Commission with our reapplication for the Oak Green Villas Project. At the hearing significant objections were made, causing us to reconfigure our plan. Even though a similar plan was approved a year ago, we feel the current climate of the commission and staff necessitates a change. Therefore, we altered our plan and accommodated the concerns expressed by staff and the planning commission members. Specifically, we reduced our density main from the original 172 units to 133 units or 23 %. We also eliminated the 56 two story back -to -back units and replaced them with 48 single story units. This reduction in density also enables us to offer more green space, Less asphalt, and less covered areas. It will also significantly lower traffic due to the reduction in density and the different unit style. With this change we ask this council to redirect the updated plan back to the Planning Commission for further consideration in order for us to continue in a timely manner. Thanks once again for your support and patience on this project. Sincerely, Tim Nolde Anchobaypro, Inc.