Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-28 CC Meeting Packet EnclosureMeeting Date March 28 2006 bodies have advised): 10 minutes See the following attachments: Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Time Required: Agenda item Title: Oakgreen Village Area - PUD Concept Plan Agenda Placement New Business Originating Departrnent/Reque or A v on C't mistrator p":40 Requester' s S ignature Action Requested Conside aix1 Approve Proposed City Council Resolution as may be amended Background/Justification (P1 e indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other public 1. Planner's Report from Scott Richards 2. Final Planning Commission Resolution (unsigned) 3. Proposed City Council Resolution ' I 1 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephon: 753.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 plan ners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Ann Rexine 1 Scott Richards DATE: March 2, 2006 RE: Oak Park Heights -- Oakgreen Villager 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 what was the Central Business District. The City Council approved a PUD general plan and preliminary /final plat on March 9, 2004 for this area. A revised concept plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the April 14, 2005 meeting. This plan was not acceptable to the Planning Commission and was sent to the City Council with a recommendation of denial. In June of 2005, the Planning Commission approved another revised PUD concept plan. The applicant withdrew the PUD concept plan before the City Council review. The applicant has submitted the most recent concept plan that eliminates direct access from 58 Street. The total number of units has decreased from 120 to 113 units. The development would be phased with a total of 67 units in the first phase and the second with 46 townhome units near Oakgreen Avenue. Novak Avenue is proposed in its previous location. The applicant is requesting only concept plan review of the Phase 1 at this time. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Oakgreen Village Concept Submittal Booklet City Council Resolution, March 9, 2004 Previous General Plan Approval Oakgreen Village, Previous Approved Plans Oakgreen Village, Proposed Concept Plan, April 2005 Oakgreen Village, Proposed Concept Plan, June 2005 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Adjacent Uses. Uses adjacent to the subject site are listed below: North of Site: South of Site: West of Site: Present Zoning P- B -4, Limited Business District Present Use — Highway 36 orientated commercial development, Undeveloped areas 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, veal -Mart and property approved for Lowe's /CSMMM commercial development. East of Site: Present Zoning — Central Business District Present Use — Single family residences and Oakgreen Avenue Proposed Project. The project narrative for the site describes the project as follows: The concept of this development is to create an attractive and affordable community for the City of Oak Park Heights. The newly revised layout incorporates better circulation and creates additional open areas for the development." 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 C. 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 plan recommended for denial by the Planning Commission is found as Exhibit D. The concept for a revised plan included 79 townhome units in the first phase. The second phase was on the easterly edge of the property near Oakgreen Avenue and was to include 41 additional townhome units where Tax Increment Financing (TIF) would have been applied to assist in acquiring the remaining existing homes. The current concept plan includes 67 townhome units in the first phase. The second phase is the northern edge of the property near Oakgreen Ave. That phase would include 46 additional townhome units. The applicant has proposed three different styles of building units in the development. The applicant plans to begin the first phase this year with site grading to be completed and the construction of Novak Avenue North. The ponding outlots for both the existing wetland and proposed pond would be completed. The first phase of buildings (Units 1 2 67) would be started this year with the timing of the construction of the remaining units and private streets depending upon unit sales. The plans include right -of -way to be dedicated with the plat. The Planning Commission and City Council should discuss the need for and the timing of 59 Street as part of the discussions of the concept plan. Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved in July 2005, removing the Central Business District (CBD) designation and replacing it with B- 4, Limited Business; 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 Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. The B -4, Limited Business District lists two family, townhomes and multiple family dwellings as a conditional use. Subdivision. A preliminary plat was submitted with this application and Planning Commission and City Council will review as part of the general plan of development review. 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. B-4, Limited Business Standards. Section 401.301.E.9 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the CUP 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. 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.0. d. Compliance with conditional use requirements of Section 401.03.A.8. 3 e. The development does not conflict with existing or potential future commercial uses and activities. f The density, setbacks, and building height 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. Residential use be governed by all applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Housing Code and Fire Codes. Residential and non- residential uses shall not be contained on the same floor. k. Residential uses shall be provided with a separate entrance, and separately identified parking stalls. 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 Planning Commission and City Council will need to review these issues as part of the concept 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 one 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 would result in an area per unit of 4,712 square feet. The calculations for the second phase would result in an area per unit of 5,485 square feet. Proposed Street/Access. The plans indicate a different layout plan from the previous concept and general plans that have been reviewed by the City for this project. Novak Avenue North would remain in the same location to connect 58 Street with 60 Street (Highway 36 frontage road). Novak is provided an 100 foot right -of -way with a 34 foot wide street. Nutmeg Avenue and direct access to 58 Street North from the proposed development has been eliminated. Access will be from a private street network. The Planning Commission has previously discussed the need to provide adequate separation between the residential uses in the east portion of the B -4 and the commercial areas to the west. The City Engineer has indicated that 100 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 tree grove on the 4 north side of the existing wetland and pond and plant a screen of trees between Novak and the townhome units. The Planning Commission may want to comment further on the need for additional separation and landscaping including a planted berm along the length of Novak on public and private right -of -way, The plans also include a 50 foot right -of -way dedication for Oakgreen Avenue as required by the City Engineer. This development, with the added traffic, will increase the need to improve Oakgreen Avenue with shoulders and turn lanes. Utilities wilt be placed within the Oakgreen Avenue right -of -way to serve this development. The City Council should consider timing for the Oakgreen Avenue improvements with construction of this development. The plans include dedication of 66 feet of right -of -way for a future 59 Street. The Planning Commission and City Council should discuss this roadway and its necessity as part of the overall plans for this area. The City will require the right -of -way dedication to allow future roadway development. The City Council will need to make a policy decision as it relates to the private street network for this project. In the past, the City has not allowed significant private streets to serve as access to this number of housing units. The private roadways are proposed at a 28 foot width. A temporary through - street at the east portion of Phase 1 is proposed to accommodate temporary circulation. The Fire Marshal and Police Chief should also review the plans to determine accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development. Private Driveways. The plans include the private roadways, most which are designed with a "thru" design. The plan has been revised to include 20 foot driveways between the front of the garage and the private driveway area, The City Engineer will require a 28 foot private roadway system. Trails /Sidewalks. The plan includes a system of private trails that would intersect with the City's trail system. A continuation of the eight foot trail along the Xcel power line easement is planned to extend to Novak Avenue. A five foot sidewalk is also planned on the private property right -of -way on the north side of 58 Street. The plans show a City sidewalk on the east side of Novak Avenue. The sidewalk will need to continue from 58 Street to 60 Street. The internal system of private sidewalks will provide access throughout the development and around the wetland natural area. The Planning Commission and the Park Commission should comment on the proposed private and public trail system and connection east to Oakgreen Avenue North in Phase 2, Setbacks. Within a PUD, the base district setback requirements (B--4) are applied only to the perimeter of the project. The B -4 specifies setback requirements as follows. 40 feet front yard, 20 feet rear yard and 1 0 feet side yard. If the lot is on a corner, not less 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 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. 5 All of the setback requirements would be met with the exception of Unit 1, 32 and 44 which measure 5 -7 feet. As part of the PUD, all perimeter units must maintain a 20 foot setback to the lot lines. The applicant will provide additional information as part of the general plan review to determine if the building to building setback requirements will be met. Minor adjustments to the building setbacks may be required to comply with the PUD section of the Zoning ordinance. Traffic. The applicant should provide projected vehicle count information for the proposed development. The City Engineer will require additional information and analysis of how the development will affect the traffic on Oakgreen Avenue and 58 Street, as well as the proposed Novak Avenue. The applicant should provide this information for Planning Commission review. Tree Preservation /Landscaping. The applicant has provided preliminary information on existing tree coverage and a landscape plan. The existing conditions map indicates the tree masses that would be removed to accommodate the development. The City Arborist will review the detailed tree preservation plans and landscape plans as part of general plan of development review. The City Arborist advises that 9 different species of maple creates an ecological monoculture which is susceptible to disease devastation. As part of the general plan stage, the applicant will be required to tabulate an inventory of existing trees, calculate a tree replacement list and reduce the number of maple species proposed. Park. The applicants have provided a small park area in Phase 2 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. The City Engineer will comment on any issues with the plan at development stage. A separate conditional use permit has been submitted for temporary stockpile storage of topsoil and granular particles. This application will be reviewed in a separate planning report. 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. Parking. Two spaces within an enclosed garage are provided per unit. Forty nine (49) guest parking spaces are proposed in various locations throughout the development; 29 parking spaces in Phase 1 and 20 parking spaces in Phase 2. The plans also allow for 20 feet of driveway in front of each garage door. To be consistent with the City Engineers recommendation, the driveways need to be 22 feet and the private streets 28 feet. Parking on one side of the street could be allowed on a 28 foot roadway. Architectural Appearance. The application materials include preliminary drawings of the proposed townhome and four -plex units. The structures are basic townhome row units with small porches, varying roof lines with brick and lap siding. The four -plex housing units lack architectural detail as they portray extensive horizontality and no 6 change in material. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment in general on these changes for the more complete review that will be done as part of the general plan of development review. 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 well as payment for area changes, would be included. The contract will specify conditions of approval and issues related to phasing the development. 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 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. The current plan provides significantly more open space and is less dense than previous plans. The primary issue may be the significant system of private roads that will be required for this plan. If the Planning Commission is favorable to the concept plan, it could be recommended to the City Council with the following conditions: 1 B -4 District standards are compliant with the proposed project application. 2. The applicant provides a property appraisal, acceptable to the City Attorney to calculate park dedication, 3 The plat shall dedicate right -of -way for Novak Avenue, 59 Street, and Oakgreen Avenue as required by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 4 The Planning Commission and City Council should discuss the need for and the timing of 59 Street as part of the discussions of the concept plan. 5. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the design of Novak Avenue including screening, landscaping and berms that may be required. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the acceptability of the private street network for this development. 7. The Fire Marshal and Police Chief should review the plans and determine the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development. 7 8. The Planning Commission and Park commission should comment on the proposed private and public trail system. 9. All required setbacks to conform with zoning and wetland ordinance requirements shall be incorporated in the general plan of development. 10. All perimeter units must maintain a 20 foot setback to the lot lines. 11. The applicant shall provide vehicle count information and projections as required by the City Engineer. 12, Detailed tree inventory, tree preservation, and landscape plans shall be provided for general plan of development. 13. Detailed park plans will be required for general plan of development review. 14. Detailed grading, drainage and utility plans shall be provided for general plan of development review. 15. Detailed architectural plans for the proposed buildings in the project shall be required for general plan of development review. 16. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the need for upgrades to Oakgreen Avenue as part of this development. 8 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST BY TIM NOLDE, REPRESENTING ANCIIOBAYPRO INC. AND VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES ALLIANCE, FOR A REVISED PUD CONCEPT PLAN FOR THAT AREA WEST OF OAKGREEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF 58 STREET FOR A TOTAL OF 67 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS PART OF A. FIRST PHASE OF THE OAKGREEN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SIHOULD BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request from Tim Nolde, representing Anchobaypro Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance, for a revised PUD concept plan for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street for a total of 67 residential units as part of a first phase of the Oakgreen Village development; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning Commission of Oak Park Heights makes the following findings of fact: l . 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 A RECOMMENDING RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA SEE ATTACHMENT B 1 The subject property is zoned B -4, Limited Business District which allows for residential development as a conditional use. The Oakgreen Village development is proposed as a planned unit development; and 4. City staff prepared a planning report dated March 2, 2006 reviewing the request for the concept plan of development; and 5. The March 2, 2006 planning report recommended approval of the concept plan of development subject to the fulfillment of conditions; and 6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their March 9, 2006 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: A. The application submitted by Tim Nolde, representing Anchobaypro Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance, for a revised PUD concept plan for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street for a total of 67 residential units as part of a first phase of the Oakgreen Village development 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 approval subject to the following conditions: l . B-4 District standards are compliant with the proposed project application. 2. The applicant provides a property appraisal, acceptable to the City Attorney to calculate park dedication. 3. The plat shall dedicate right-of-way for Novak Avenue, 59 Street, and Oakgreen Avenue as required by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the City acquire the right-of-way for 59 Street as part of the Oakgreen Village plat but not construct the roadway at this time. 5. The Planning Commission is favorable to the design of Novak Avenue including the screening, landscaping, and berms proposed on the preliminary plans. 6. The Planning Commission recommends a public street network for this development. 7. The Fire Marshal and Police Chief should review the plans and determine the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development. 8. The Park Commission should comment on the proposed private and public trail system. 9. All required setbacks to conform with zoning and wetland ordinance requirements and shall be incorporated in the general plan of development. 10. All perimeter units must maintain a 20 foot setback to the lot lines. 2 11. The applicant shall provide vehicle count information and projections as required by the City Engineer. 12. Detailed tree inventory, tree preservation, and landscape plans shall be provided for general plan of development. 13. Detailed park plans will be required for general plan of development review. 14. Detailed grading, drainage and utility plans shall be provided for general plan of development review. 15. Detailed architectural plans for the proposed buildings in the project shall be required for general plan of development review. Recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of Oak Park Heights this 9th day of March 2006. ATTEST: Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator Mike Runk, Chair 3 ATTACHMENT A . Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING 4 SURVEYING + ENGINEERING Oakgreen Village Preliminary Plat -Legal Description (Legal Description of Property Surveyed Taken by Boundary Survey of Kurth Surveying, Inc. January 31, 2002.) .M.1 of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township g shs 29. Range 20. Washington: County Minnesota, except the following: th`a t part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Qarter of � p Section . 5. Township 29. Range 20: described as foll ow. s : Commencing at the South east comer of said North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast orn Quarter: thence North along the East line thereof 560 feet to the point,of beginning of this description.: thence Westerly at right angles to the last described line 200 feet to p a o int: thence North and parallel with the Bast line of the South east Q uarter of r zbast North line of said Southeast 100 feet to a point on the N o the No Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence East alon said North line 200 feet to the East lxn Quarter e of said Southeast of the Northeast Quarter: thence South along said East line 100 feet to the point of beginning of this description. Anal. except: . That part of the North. Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter ' said North Half of described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of sax the South east Quatter of the Northeast Quarter: thence north along East line thereof. 182 feet point � t to the oi.nt of beginning 'ring of this description: thence continue Northerly • along said Bast line 218 feet to a point: thence West and perpendicular to last ' line 200 feet to a point: thence South and parallel with the East line of described hn P said. Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter 218 feet to a point: thence East and perpendicular to last described line 200 feet to the point of beginning. Together with.: Tracts A and B. Registered Land Survey No, 114 Also together with: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter described as follows: Beginning at a point oint on the East line of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 472 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof: thence West on a line parallel with the Souta line thereof. 275 feet to a point: thence North on a line parallel with the East line thereof. 110 feet to a point. thence East on a line parallel with the South line thereof p ereof 275 feet to a point on the Bast line thereof: thence South on the East line thereof 110 feet to the point of beginning. 1 oft Also together with: • . , • That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5. Township 29', Range 20. Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Beg-inning at a point on the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 242.00 feet north of the southeast corner thereof. thence west on a he para1lel with the south line thereof. 150.00 feet to a point: thence north an a line parallel with the east line' thereof. 11 5.00 to a point: thence east on a' line parallel with the south line thereof. 150.00 feet to a point on the east line thereof: thence south on tho east line thereof. '115.00 feet to the point of beginning. Also together with: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section. 5. Township 29. Range 20. Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point 242.00 feet north of the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. and 1 50.00 feet west of the east line of said •Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence west on a line parallel with the south line of said Northeast. Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 125.00 feet to a point: thence north on a line parallel to the east line thereof 115.00 feet to a point: thence east on a line parallel with the south line thereof. 125,00 feet to a point: thence south on a line parallel with the east line thereof 115.00 feet to . the point of beginning. Also together with: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5. Township 29. Range 20: Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner thereof and run thence west along the south Line thereof. 150.00 feet to a point: thence north on a line parallel with the east line thereof. 80.00 feet to a point: thence East do a lln.e parallel with the south line thereof. 150.00 feet to a point on the east line thereof: thence south 80.00 • feet to the point of b eginn ng. Also together with: Ali that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 385 feet to West of the South East torner thereof: thence North on a line parallel with the Bast line thereof. 80 feet to a point: thence East on a line parallel with South line thereof. 225 feet to a point: - thence South on a line parallel with the Bast line thereof. 80 feet to the South line thereof: thence West on the South line thereof. 225 feet to the point of beginning. Outlot A, BOUTWELLS LANDING, according to the plat on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Mirnesota. 2 oft ATTACHMENT B Planned Unit Development (PUD): Revised Concept Plan OAKGREEN VILLAGE Application Materials • Application Form • Fees • Plan Sets (3 Large Scale Sets /20 11X17 Sets) • Written Narrative and Graphic Materials Explaining Proposal O Mailing List from Washington County (500' from subject property) • Proof of Ownership or Authorization to Proceed ® Property Tax Statements )!Legal Description(s) Planning Commission Public Hearing & Recommendation: March 9, 2006 Required Approvals: PUD: General Concept Planning Commission 4/5 City Council 4/5 PUD: General Concept — Effect of Concept Plan Approval: Unless the applicant shall fail to meet time schedules for filing General Plan of Development Stage and/or Final Plans or shall fail to proceed with development in accordance with the plans as approved or shall in any other manner fail to comply with any condition of Ordinance 401 or any approval granted pursuant to it, a General Concept Plan which has been approved and a PUD Agreement signed by the applicant shall not be modified, revoked or otherwise impaired pending the application for approval of the General Plan of Development Stage and Final Plans by any action of the City of Oak Park Heights without consent of the applicant. (401.06.C.2.d) PUD: General Concept - Limitation on General Concept Plan Approval: Unless a General Plan of Development covering the area designated as in the General Concept Plan as the first stage of the PUD has been filed within twelve (12) months from the date Council grants General Concept Plan approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file General Plan of Development Stage and Final Plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and of an approved General Concept Plan, the approval may be revoked by Council action. (401.00.C.2.e) follows, to wit: and and RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST BY TIM NOME, REPRESENTING ANCHOBAYPRO INC. AND VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES ALLIANCE, FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN FOR THAT AREA WEST OF OAKGREEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF 58 STREET FOR A TOTAL OF 67 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS PART OF A FIRST PHASE OF THE OAKGREEN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 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 for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street for a total of 67 residential units as part of a first phase of the Oakgreen Village development; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning Commission of Oak Park Heights recommended that the request be approved with conditions. 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: SEE ATTACHMENT B 3. The subject property is zoned B -4, Limited Business District which allows for residential development as a conditional use. The Oakgreen Village development is proposed as a planned unit development; and 4. City staff prepared a planning report dated March 2, 2006 reviewing the request for the concept plan of development; and 5. The March 2, 2006 planning report recommended approval of the concept plan of development subject to the fulfillment of conditions; and 6. The Planning Con nission held a public hearing at their March 9, 2006 meeting, took comments from the applicants and public, closed the public hearing, and recommended that the application be approved with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING: A. The application submitted by Tim Nolde, representing Anchobaypro Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance, for a PUD concept plan for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street for a total of 67 residential units as part of a first phase of the Oakgreen Village development and affecting the real property as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A Be and the same as hereby approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights subject to the following conditions: 1. B -4 District standards are compliant with the proposed project application. 2. The applicant provides a property appraisal, acceptable to the City Attorney to calculate park dedication. 3. The p lat shall dedicate right-of-way for Novak Avenue, 59 Street, and Oakgreen Avenue as required by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 4 . City The Cit Council resolves that the City acquire the right-of-way for 59 Street as part of the Oakgreen Village plat but not construct the roadway at this time. 5. The Cit y Council is favorable to the design of Novak Avenue including the screening, landscaping, and berms proposed on the preliminary plans. 6. The Cit y Council shall discuss a public street versus private street network for this development. 7. The Fire Marshal and Police Chief should review the plans and determine the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development. 8. The Park Commission should comment on the proposed private and public trail system. 9. All required setbacks to conform with zoning and wetland ordinance requirements and shall be incorporated in the general plan of development, 2 10. All perimeter units must maintain a 20 foot setback to the lot lines. 11. The applicant shall provide vehicle count information and projections as required by the City Engineer. 12. Detailed tree inventory, tree preservation, and landscape plans shall be provided for general plan of development. 13. Detailed park plans will be required for general plan of development review. 14. Detailed grading, drainage and utility plans shall be provided for general plan of development review. 15. Detailed architectural plans for the proposed buildings in the project shall be required for general plan of development review. 2006. ATTEST: Approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 28th day of March Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator David Beaudet, Mayor 3 Holz, F r e e man, Ericks on, Inc. LAND PLANNING + SURVEYING v ENGINEERING ATTACHMENT A Qakgreen Village Preliminary Plat --:- legal. De (Legal. Description. of Property Surveyed Taken by Boundary Survey of Kurtb. Surveying, Inc. Ianuary 31, 2002.) All of the North Half of th.e Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section. 5, Township 29.. Range 20. Washington County Minnesota, except the foliowxng: � e North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Qiiarter of All that part o�`th Section . 5, Township Range , ' hx 29, Ran e 20: described as follows: Commenc±ng at the Southeast corner of said North Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast • thence North along the East line thereof 560 feet to the point,of beginning Quarter. theme g ofthr this description: thence Westerly at right angles to the last described line 200 feet thence North and parallel. with the East line of the Southeast Quarter of to a point: then p line said Southeast the ortheast Quarter , 100 feet to a point on the North line of san th. N Quattei: of the Northeast Quarter: thence East along said North line 200 feet to the ' `d Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence South along East lxn.e of say said d Bast line 100 feet to the point of beginning of this description. " escription. , And. except: . That part of the North Hof of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter s: Con n at the Southeast corner of said North Half of described as follow g East line thereof. Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence north along the S out continue Northerly feet to the point of beginning of this description: thence con. y �` S p and perpendicular to last along said East line 218 feet to a point: thence West an. p rp with . g thence South. and parallel with. the East line of described. line 200 feet to a point: �e p • of the Northeast Quarter 218 feet to a pout: thence East and sand Southeast Quarter , perpendicular to last described line 200 feet to the point of beginning. p�end To geth.er Tracts A and B. Registered Land Survey No. 114 • Also together with: ed as follows: Northeast That part of the ofthe Northeast Quarter desor b Beginning at a point on the East line of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 472 feet North of the Southeast cornier thereof: thence West on a line South line thereof. 275 feet to a point: thence North on a line parallel with the Sou parallel Bast line thereof. 110 feet to a point. thence East on a Line par parallel with the has line thence South. with line thereof. 275 feet to a . point on the East line thereof: then with the South l�.n � , on the East line thereof 110 feet to the point of beginning. Also together with • , • .That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5. Township 29', Range 20. Washington County, Minn described as follows : Beginning at a point on the east line nne of said N'ortheast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 242.00 feet north of the southeast corner thereof. thence west on a line parallel with the south line thereof. 150.00 feet to a point: thence north On a line parallel with the east lin6 thereof. 115.00 to a point: thence east on alne :parallel with the south line thereof 150,00 feet to a point on the east l n6 thereof: thence south on. the east line thereof '115.00 feet to the point of beginning. Also together the That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 29. Range 20, Washington County, Mitin.esota described as follows: Beginning at a point 242.00 feet north of the south line of said Northeast Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter, and 150.00 feet west ofthe east line of said 'Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence west on a line parallel ith the south line of said Northeast, Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 125.00 feet to a point: thence north on a line parallel to the east line thereof. 115.00 feet to a point: thence east on a line parallel with the south line thereof. 125,00 feet to a point: thence south on a line parallel with, the east line thereof 115.00 feet to . the point o f beginning. Also together with: That part of. the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5. Township 29, Range 20: Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: , • Begindng at the southeast corner thereof and run hence west along the south line thereof. 150.00 feet to a point: thence north on a line parallel, with the east line thereof. 80.00 feet td a point: thence East dn. a line parallel with the south line thereof. 150.00 feet to a point on the east line thereof: thence south 80.00 • feet to the point of beginning. Also together with.: that part of the Northeast Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 385 feet to West of the Soutli Bast corner thereof: thence North on a line parallel with the East line thereof. 80 feet to a point: thence East on a line parallel with. South line thereof. 225 feet to a point: thence South on a line parallel with the East line thereof. 80 feet to the South line thereof: thence West on the South line thereof 225 feet to the point of beginning. Outlot A, BOUTWELLS LANDING, according to the plat on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. 2 of ATTACHMENT B Planned Unit Development (PUD): Concept Plan OAKGREEN VILLAGE Application Materials • Application Form • Fees • Plan Sets (3 Large Scale Sets /20 11X17 Sets) • Written Narrative and Graphic Materials Explaining Proposal . O Mailin g List from Washington County (500' from subject property) e Proof of Ownership or Authorization to Proceed • Property Tax Statement(s)/Legal Description(s) Planning Commission Public Hearing & Recommendation: March 9, 2006 Required Approvals: PUD: Ge neral Con t Planning Commission 4/5 Cit y Council 4/5 PUD: General ConceIL — Effect of Concept Plan Approval: Unless the applicant shall fail to meet time schedules for filing General Plan of pp Development Stage and/or Final Plans or shall fail to proceed with development in accordance with the plans as approved or shall in any other manner fail to comply with an y condition of Ordinance 401 or any approval granted pursuant to it, a General Concept Plan which has been approved and a PUD Agreement signed by the applicant shall not be modified, revoked or otherwise impaired pending the application for approval of the General Plan of Development Stage and Final Plans by any action of pp the City of Oak Park Heights without consent of the applican t. 401,06.C.2.d ) PUD general conce t - Limitation on General Concept Plan Approval: Unless a General Plan of Development covering the area designated as in the General Concept Plan as the first stage of the PUD has been filed within twelve ( months from the date Council rants General Concept Plan approval, or in any case where the g applicant fails to file General Plan of Development Stage and Final Plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and of an approved General Concept Plan, the approval may be revoked by Council action. .(401.00.C.2 e)