HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-06 NAC MemorandumNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTSI INCI,
4800 Olson Mernoriai Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, flyN 55422
Telephone, 703.2x1 .2655 Facsimile: 763.23'1 .2561 plan ners(cPnacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: April 6, 2086
RE Oak Park Heights — Oakgreen Village: Revised concept Plan,
City council review
FILE NO: 798.02 — 08.08
As you are aware, the city council, at their March 28, 2006 meeting, discussed issues
related to the revised PUD concept plan for that area west of Oakgreen Avenue and
north of 58 Street, known as Oakgreen Village. The Planning Commission, at their
March g, 2006 meeting, had recommended the revised PUD concept plan with
conditions. The city Council directed staff to review the following issues prior to the
consideration of the PUD at the April 11, 2006 meeting:
PUD 'versus r -3 District Development Standards. The city council asked if the
project, as proposed, would conform to r -8 District performance standards, The project
would not conform in that it has been designed with private roads and without dedicated
public right-of-way. The distance from front to front of townhorne units is slightly over 60
feet. if developed as an R-3 District development without a PUD and with public
streets, a right-of-way of 60 feet would be required and front yard setbacks of 80 feet
would be required. The distance between those units that face the street would need to
double. The McKean Square development featured public streets with a 50 foot right-
of -way. As part of the PUD, 8 feet back to back streets were developed with all of the
units maintaining a 20 foot separation from the curb line of the street network. The city
Council accepted this PUD with a narrower public street width in order to maximize the
tree preservation in the development. The Mc ern Square development also featured a
significant variety in housing styles and unit types.
Private Versus Public Streets. As designed, city staff would recommend that the
City not accept right -of -way and the roadways in Oakgreen Village as public. The
design of the development, with the long cul -de -sacs, the numerous driveways, and the
long term maintenance requirements, would not be feasible for the city, especially from
a public works perspective. The Planning Commission had recommended that the
Oakgreen Village development be approved with a public street network. if the city
Council is inclined to allow the development but with public streets, a significant
redesign would need to be done. In the alternative, the City Council could allow the
development as proposed with a private street network that would be maintained by a
homeowners association.
59 street. City staff has recommended that as part of the plat the right- of-way for
59 Street should be secured at this time. The current right- of-way and design of the
street extends northward into developable area north of the Xcel Energy power line
easement. The project engineer has indicated that he would provide an alternative
design that would place more of the ponding area to the east and provide a partial right -
of -way and street that would not extend all of the way to Oakgreen Avenue. The city
Council should consider both plans and provide direction at the April 11 2096 meeting.
Traffic. The concept plan approvals require applicants to provide traffic count
information and projections as required by the city Engineer. It is expected that the
information will be provided at the time of general plan review and discussed at that
time. The overall unit counts and resulting traffic generation would be lower than the
general plan that was approved for this area by the city council in March of 2904.
Fire Protection/ Suppression. The City council asked if the units will be equipped
with sprinkler systems. The applicant has indicated that all of the units would be
equipped with sprinkler systems in accordance with the Building Code.
2