HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-03 Planning Report TPC3801 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303 � �E 2
Phone: 763.231.5840
Facsimile: 763.427.0520
TPCQ Plann i ngCo.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: July 3, 2014
RE: Oak Park Heights — Palmer Station — Property Subdivision —
Rezoning, Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit,
and Preliminary/Final Plat Approval — 13999 60th Street North.
TPC FILE: 236.02 — 14.02
BACKGROUND
Nick Hackworthy, representing Creative Home Construction Investments, LLC has
made an application for approval of a 13 lot subdivision on the Palmer property at
13999 60th Street North. The property is south of Oak Park Boulevard, and east of
Oakgreen Avenue North. The application consists of requests for Rezoning, Planned
Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP), and Preliminary/Final Plat
approvals.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at their June 12,
2014 meeting. The public hearing was continued to the July 10, 2014 meeting. The two
primary issues addressed by the public at the meeting were the allowances requested
through the Planned Unit Development process related to the lots and right of way, and
the storm water drainage for lots to the south of the development.
Since that meeting, City Staff has met with the Applicants to address these issues.
Please find as follows a discussion of the two issues.
The review is based upon the following submittals:
Exhibit 1: Planning Report - June 5, 2014 (Please bring your paper copy from the
June meeting)
Exhibit 2: City Engineers Report— Chris Long, Stantec—June 26, 2014
Exhibit 3: Project Engineer's Memo - Steve Johnston, Elan Design Lab— July 2,
2014
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Lot Width and Rights of Way
Residents who spoke at the public hearing expressed concerns with the allowances that
were being granted for lot widths and the right of way. Dan Thurmes, Cornerstone Land
Surveying, Inc., has done the survey and plat work for the project. He provided this
information following the Planning Commission meeting:
"I did some measurements based on County GIS Mapping in Oak Park Heights and
came up with the following:
1. The majority of the sampled street widths are 32 feet wide.
2. The sampled street widths in Autumn Ridge are 30 feet wide.
3. All the cul-de-sacs sampled were either 45 feet or 46 feet radius. Again, this is
what they are proposing. I did not see any "no parking"signs.
4. The cul-de-sac length is the same as the one to the west(58th street)
One of the major reasons they are asking for a smaller street width is to decrease the
hard surface to help with the neighbor's drainage problem. I would be against smaller
street widths if this was a through street, but this is a minimal length cul-de-sac.
I appreciate your concern for safety but if the City thought that we needed an alternate
fire truck route for a cul-de-sac then it would be part of their design guidelines.
- The surrounding 15 lots on the east, south and west have an average lot area of
13,700 square feet.
- The proposed 13 lots have an average of 16,900 square feet.
- That would be about 20% less density."
Lot Requirements.
The lots proposed with this development are as follows:
Lot Number Lot Size (minus wetland) Lot Width at Front Setback
Lot 1 15,795 square feet 83.3 feet
Lot 2 12,327 square feet 81.6 feet
Lot 3 12,878 square feet 72.4 feet
Lot 4 13,172 square feet 72.4 feet
Lot 5 15,343 square feet 72.3 feet
Lot 6 16,712 square feet 76.5 feet
Lot 7 21,187 square feet 112.3 feet
Lot 8 18,928 square feet 66.1 feet
Lot 9 17,045 square feet 79.5 feet
Lot 10 14,203 square feet 73.1 feet
Lot 11 15,335 square feet 75.5 feet
Lot 12 13,696 square feet 92.8 feet
Lot 13 32,750 square feet 72.8 feet
2
The R-1 District requires a minimum lot size of 10,400 square feet and a lot width of 80
feet. The lot width is measured at the front yard setback (30 feet) which is represented
in the table above. The lot area minimum requires major drainage-ways, wetlands,
water bodies, and road rights of way, to be removed from the overall lot size. The areas
indicated above reflect the definition of lot area minimum.
While the proposed lot widths do not meet R-1 District standards, the lots all meet and
some far exceed the minimum lot size. Through the PUD/CUP process, the City could
allow lot widths to be less than the minimum required. The Planning Commission
should further discuss this issue.
Street Design Requirements. The Subdivision Ordinance specifies a maximum length
of a cul-de-sac to be 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the City Council. As
indicated, the 600 foot cul-de-sac design is dictated by the existing shape and length of
the parcel. The Subdivision Ordinance specifies a right of way radius of not less than
65 feet for a cul-de-sac. The proposed right of way radius for the cul-de sac is 55 feet.
The street right of way width for a local street is specified at 60 feet. The proposed right
of way width of the street is 50 feet. Through the PUD/CUP process, the City could
allow the right of way dimensions to be less than the minimum required. The Planning
Commission should discuss this issue. The dimensions proposed are similar to what
the City has allowed for private street development and is typical of other developments
in the area.
The City may want to consider requiring 15 foot drainage and utility easements adjacent
to the right of way instead of the proposed 10 feet to allow adequate space for all utility
placement.
Oak Cove will be a City street and constructed by the City. The street is proposed to be
constructed to 28 feet from face to face of curb and 30 feet from back to back. The cul-
de sac will have a pavement with a 45 foot radius. The City Engineer should comment
on these dimensions. For emergency vehicle access purposes, it is proposed that
parking be allowed on one side of the street only, and no parking be allowed within the
cul-de sac. The Fire Chief and Police Chief should also comment on the proposed
street widths and limited parking.
Stormwater
The City Engineer, Chris Long has provided a report reviewing the storm water, grading,
and utility plans, as well as the preliminary plat. To address the storm water issue for
residents to the south of the proposed development, Mr. Long will require a storm water
pipe between 5519 and 5523 Oakgreen Place North to handle the 100 year storm
event. His report indicates the following:
"2. Due to existing storm water drainage concerns to the south between the properties
of 5523 Oakgreen Place North and 5519 Oakgreen Place North, please provide details
on how the storm water overflows will be controlled.
3
a. The current proposed design of the emergency overflow from the
redevelopment site continues to the south, and the City is requiring the
installation of a storm water pipe between the properties to address a 100
year storm event(see attachment for the general installation location of
this pipe).
City Staff has met with the Applicants and determined that the storm water pipe could
be directionally drilled so as not to disturb the lawns between the properties affected.
Only the boulevard area between the two homes would be disturbed. The cost of
installing the storm water pipe is approximately $62,000.00.
In his memo, the Project Engineer Steve Johnston has proposed that the City share in
the cost of installing the storm water pipe. He has proposed that the City share be 50
percent or $31,000.00. He has also requested that the developer receive some
compensatory relief from the tree replacement requirements. His report outlines the
request to reduce the required tree replacement per lot from 15 to 10. They also
request to reduce the builder installed trees (after home construction) from five to four
per lot.
The City Council will need to determine if there will be any sharing of the cost. The City
policy has been that the developer pays all costs, whether utility or street, that result
from development of a property. This policy has applied even if the improvements are
off-site and are being done to correct an existing situation. The City Council will not
consider a reduction in the tree replacement. There has not been a deviation from this
requirement allowed in the past. Either the trees will need to be replaced or
compensation will be paid by the developer based upon the formula in the Zoning
Ordinance.
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission is to consider the following as it relates to this request:
1. Rezoning of the property to R-1 Single Family Residential
2. Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit
3. Preliminary/Final Plat
Based upon the preceding review, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review the issues raised herein, especially as it relates to the requests to vary from the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance standards through the PUD/CUP process.
If the Planning Commission is ready to make a recommendation on the application
consisting of requests for Rezoning, Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit
(PUD/CUP), and Preliminary/Final Plat approvals, please find as follows a list of
suggested conditions:
4
1. The preliminary and final plat, as well as the dedication of easements shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
2. The Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of 10 percent of the fair market
value of the land payable as specified in the Development Agreement.
3. An easement with the City of Oak Park Heights shall be required to provide
access to Oak Park Boulevard.
4. An easement with the City of Oak Park Heights shall be required for placement of
the entrance monument sign.
5. Drainage and utility easements along the road/cul-de-sac right of way shall be
increased to 15 feet to compensate for the proposed road right of way width and
radius.
6. The Fire Chief, Police Chief and City Engineer shall comment on the proposed
street dimensions and adequacy for emergency vehicle access.
7. The Planning Commission and Parks Commission should comment on
sidewalk/trail development and connections to the existing trail system. The City
should determine if it should retain additional easement areas for trail
development.
8. All tree removal and landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of
the City Arborist. There shall be no reduction allowed for the required tree
replacement.
9. The proposed wetland buffer impact/mitigation plan is subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
10. The street construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
11. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to City Engineer and applicable
watershed authority review and approval. The City Engineer shall require will the
installation of a storm water pipe between 5519 and 5523 Oakgreen Place North
to address the 100 year storm events. The City Council shall determine if there
will be any cost sharing by the City for the storm water pipe installation.
12. All utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
13. The Applicant shall be responsible for capping the well and removal of the septic
systems, cistern and oil tank in compliance with Washington County and if
applicable, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards.
5
14. The City will not maintain the landscaping and monument entrance sign; that will
be the responsibility of the home owners. The City will specify the provisions
related to the easement and maintenance in the Development Agreement.
15. The Planning Commission and City Council may comment on the final building
appearance, colors, materials and the variety of the house plans as part of the
PUD/CUP review
16. For emergency vehicle access purposes, parking shall be allowed on one side of
the street only, and no parking be allowed within the cul-de sac.
17. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the request to
reduce the allowable setback on the garage side of the home to a minimum of 5
feet. The setback to the dwelling portion of the home would remain at 10 feet. A
garage to garage setback would be required to be 15 feet.
18. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement. The
development agreement shall secure site improvements and municipal
infrastructure. The development agreement shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Attorney and City Council.
19. Any other conditions of City staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
pc: Mick Lynskey, Nick Hackworthy Steve Johnston, Julie Hultman
6
T P 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 EXHIBIT J
Anoka, MN 55303 V
Phone: 763.231.5840
Facsimile: 763.427. 2O
TPCQPIan ningCo.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: June 5, 2014
RE: Oak Park Heights— Palmer Station — Property Subdivision —
Rezoning, Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit,
and Preliminary/Final Plat Approval — 5625 Oakgreen Ave. North.
TPC FILE: 236.02 — 14.02
BACKGROUND
Nick Hackworthy, representing Creative Home Construction Investments, LLC has
made an application for approval of a 13 lot subdivision on the Palmer property at
13999 60th Street North. The property is south of Oak Park Boulevard, and east of
Oakgreen Avenue North. The application consists of requests for Rezoning, Planned
Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP), and Preliminary/Final Plat
approvals.
The existing site contains a single family home with outbuildings. The total parcel is
6.76 acres, with 0.48 acres of wetland, .083 acres of new and 0.41 acres of the existing
33 feet of Oakgreen Avenue right of way.
The review is based upon the following submittals:
Exhibit 1: Project Narrative
Exhibit 2: Liberty West Sales Brochure
Exhibit 3: Cover Sheet
Exhibit 4: Existing Conditions (C1.1)
Exhibit 5: Demolition Plan (C1.2)
Exhibit 6: Grading Plan (C3.1)
Exhibit 7: Erosion Control Plan (C3.2)
Exhibit 8: Wetland Buffer Impact/Mitigation Plan (C3.3)
Exhibit 9: Grading Details (C3.4)
Exhibit 10: Grading Details (C3.5)
Exhibit 11: Utility Plan (C4.1)
Exhibit 12: Utility Details (C4.2)
Exhibit 13: Preliminary Plat (C5.1)
Exhibit 14: Tree Preservation Plan (L1.1)
Exhibit 15: Tree Preservation Schedule (L1.2)
Exhibit 16: Landscape Plan (L2.1)
Exhibit 17: Planting Schedule and Landscape Details (L2.2)
Exhibit 18: Palmer Station Final Plat (Two pages)
Exhibit 19: Reports of the City Arborist— May 20, 2014 and June 3, 2014
Exhibit 20: Report of the City Engineer
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Steve Johnston, the project engineer has provided a narrative related to the request for
the Palmer property development. Please find the narrative attached as Exhibit 1.
Assess to the site will be by a connection to Oak Park Boulevard, the street that
services City Hall. There will be one street, to be referred to as Oak Cove. The street
will be public and will be approximately 600 feet in length and end in a cul-de-sac. The
13 residential lots result in a gross density of 1.92 units per acre, and a net density of
2.58 units per acre. The average lot area is 18,485 square feet and the minimum lot
area is 12,327 square feet.
Oak Cove is to be developed as a City street and will be constructed by the City.
Utilities are available to this property. A 12 inch watermain is located within Oak Park
Boulevard which will be connected with an 8 inch watermain to serve the development.
As part of the Highway 36 reconstruction project a new sanitary sewer will be
constructed in the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Oakgreen Avenue. An 8 inch
sanitary sewer will be extended to serve the development.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Adjacent Uses. Uses adjacent to the subject site are listed below:
North of Site: Present Zoning —0-Open Space Conservation
Present Use — Oak Park Blvd and Single Family Residential
South of Site: Present Zoning — R-1 Single Family Residential District
Present Use —Single Family Residential
West of Site: Present Zoning — 0-Open Space Residential
Present Use — Oakgreen Blvd, Single Family Residential and Open
Space
East of Site: Present Zoning — R-1 Single Family Residential District
Present Use —Single Family Residential
2
Comprehensive Plan. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as low
density residential. Low density residential is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as 1-3
units per acre. The Comprehensive plan anticipated that this area would be rezoned to
R-1 Single Family Residential District. The proposed Palmer development is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning. The property is currently zoned 0-Open Space Conservation District. The
Applicant has proposed a rezoning to R-1 Single Family Residential District. The
Applicant has also proposed PUD/CUP consideration to allow minor reductions in lot
widths, street right of way widths, street widths, building setbacks, and wetland buffering
width averaging. Section 401.22.E of the Zoning Ordinance allows residential planned
unit development as a conditional use within the R-1 District. The Concept and General
Plans shall be reviewed simultaneously with this request.
Subdivision. The applicant has provided a preliminary plat labeled Palmer Station. A
final plat has also been provided. Both documents are complete in terms of the
information as required by Section 402.06 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The preliminary and final plat, as well as the dedication of any easements, shall be
subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City Attorney.
Lot Requirements.
The lots proposed with this development are as follows:
Lot Number Lot Size (minus wetland) Lot Width at Front Setback
Lot 1 15,795 square feet 83.3 feet
Lot 2 12,327 square feet 81.6 feet
Lot 3 12,878 square feet 72.4 feet
Lot 4 13,172 square feet 72.4 feet
Lot 5 15,343 square feet 72.3 feet
Lot 6 16,712 square feet 76.5 feet
Lot 7 21,187 square feet 112.3 feet
Lot 8 18,928 square feet 66.1 feet
Lot 9 17,045 square feet 79.5 feet
Lot 10 14,203 square feet 73.1 feet
Lot 11 15,335 square feet 75.5 feet
Lot 12 13,696 square feet 92.8 feet
Lot 13 32,750 square feet 72.8 feet
The R-1 Districts requires a minimum lot size of 10,400 square feet and a lot width of 80
feet. The lot width is measured at the front yard setback (30 feet) which is represented
in the table above. The lot area minimum requires major drainage-ways, wetlands,
water bodies, and road rights of way, to be removed from the overall lot size. The areas
indicated above reflect the definition of lot area minimum.
3
While the proposed lot widths do not meet R-1 District standards, the lots all meet and
some far exceed the minimum lot size. Through the PUD/CUP process, the City could
allow lot widths to be less than the minimum required. The Planning Commission
should discuss this issue.
Park Dedication. The City will not require the dedication of park land in this area but
will require a cash dedication. The Subdivision Ordinance, in Section 402.8 specifies
the formula's for land and cash dedication. With a net density of 2.58 units per acre, the
cash to be dedicated should be 10 percent of the fair market value of the land. The
Applicant has provided a purchase agreement that qualifies under the criteria in the
Ordinance to establish a fair market value.
Proposed Street/Access. Access to the property is from Oak Park Boulevard. This
access will cross a narrow strip of City owned property which will require an easement
from the City. The street will be referred to as Oak Cove, which is a cul-de-sac design
of approximately 600 feet in length.
Street Design Requirements. The Subdivision Ordinance specifies a maximum length
of a cul-de-sac to be 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the City Council. As
indicated, the 600 foot cul-de-sac design is dictated by the existing shape and length of
the parcel. The Subdivision Ordinance specifies a right of way radius of not less than
65 feet for a cul-de-sac. The proposed right of way radius for the cul-de sac is 55 feet.
The street right of way width for a local street is specified at 60 feet. The proposed right
of way width of the street is 50 feet. Through the PUD/CUP process, the City could
allow the right of way dimensions to be less than the minimum required. The Planning
Commission should discuss this issue. The dimensions proposed are similar to what
the City has allowed for private street development and is typical of other developments
in the area.
The City may want to consider requiring 15 foot drainage and utility easements adjacent
to the right of way instead of the proposed 10 feet to allow adequate space for all utility
placement.
Oak Cove will be a City street and constructed by the City. The street is proposed to be
constructed to 28 feet from face to face of curb and 30 feet from back to back. The cul-
de sac will have a pavement with a 45 foot radius. The City Engineer should comment
on these dimensions. For emergency vehicle access purposes, it is proposed that
parking be allowed on one side of the street only, and no parking be allowed within the
cul-de sac. The Fire Chief and Police Chief should also comment on the proposed
street widths and limited parking.
Trails/Sidewalks. The current trail system includes off street trails on the west side of
Oakgreen Avenue and the south side of Oak Park Boulevard. The developed
neighborhoods to the south and east currently do not have trail connections to this area.
In that it is a cul-de-sac, the Applicants have not proposed placing a sidewalk within the
development. City Staff had discussed the possibility in the future of a trail along the
east side of Oakgreen Avenue, but there are no current plans to develop such a trail.
4
Retention of an easement along the east side of Lots 1-7 should be considered for
future trail purposes. City Staff had also discussed retention of an easement between
Lots 6 and 7 for a future trail connection. The Planning Commission and Parks
Commission should comment on sidewalk/trail development and connections to the
existing trail system. The City should determine if it should retain additional easement
areas for trail development.
Setbacks. The R-1 District requires a front yard setback of 30 feet, side yard setbacks
of 10 feet and year yard setbacks of 30 feet. If the lot is on a corner, the required
setback is 30 feet from the lot line.
The Grading Plan (Exhibit 6) indicates proposed building pads. In all of the lots, the 30
foot front yard setback is complied with. Additionally the 30 foot rear yard setback is
complied with in all lots. The Applicants have proposed reducing the allowable setback
on the garage side of the home to a minimum of 5 feet. The setback to the dwelling
portion of the home would remain at 10 feet. A garage to garage setback would be
required to be 15 feet. On Lot 1, the building pad is proposed at 10 feet from the north
property line. This is intended to preserve existing trees and is not an issue due to the
width of the City owned property that is adjacent. Through the PUD/CUP process, the
City could allow the setbacks to be less than the minimum required. The Planning
Commission should discuss this issue.
Easements. The Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 13) indicates that 10 foot drainage and utility
easements are placed around each of the lots in compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance. As indicated, it is recommended that the drainage and utility easements
along the road/cul-de-sac right of way be increased to 15 feet to compensate for the
proposed road right of way width and radius.
The easement for the access via Oak Park Boulevard and for the entrance monument
sign will need to be addressed as part of the Development Agreement.
Wetlands. The plans indicate that there is no direct wetland impact as a result of this
development. The four wetlands are classified as Managed 2 requiring a 30 foot buffer.
The wetland buffer impact/mitigation plan (Exhibit 8) indicates the proposed wetland
buffers and the plan for signing. The Applicant has proposed to reduce the buffers of
small seasonable flooded wetlands (#2 and #3) from 30 feet to a minimum of 15 feet.
They propose to mitigate the reduced buffer at a ratio of approximately 3 to 1 with the
dedication of additional buffer/conservation easement. The City Engineer will need to
comment on the acceptability of this mitigation.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping. The Applicant has provided a tree inventory and
landscape plans for the development. The City Arborist has reviewed the plan in the
memos as found in Exhibit 19. The total number of trees to be replaced is 194. The
Applicant will replace 129 trees at the time of initial site construction and a minimum of
five trees are to be planted in each of the lots after home construction. The landscape
plan indicates the extensive screening plantings to be installed that will mitigate the
impact of the development to existing neighbors. The landscape plan also indicates the
5
trees to be planted on private property adjacent to the boulevard to provide street trees.
The plans shall be subject to the final approval of the City Arborist.
Existing Wells/Septic Systems and Oil Tank. The Applicant has provided a diagram
indicating the location of a well, septic systems, a cistern and an oil tank that currently
exist on the property. As part of the development of this property, the Applicant will be
responsible for capping the well and removal of the septic systems, cistern and oil tank
in compliance with Washington County and if applicable, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency standards.
Street Plans. Detailed plans for the street have been provided. The City Engineer and
shall review and approve all street plans. The City Engineer has provided a separate
report that is found as an Exhibit 20.
Grading and Drainage. Detailed grading and drainage plans have been provided as
part of the development submittals. The City Engineer and the applicable watershed
authority shall review and approve all of the grading and drainage plans. The City
Engineer has provided a separate report that is found as an Exhibit 20.
Utilities. A 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 public and built to City specifications. The City Engineer has
provided a separate report that is found as an Exhibit 20.
Lighting. There are two existing street lights on Oak Pak Boulevard spaced nearly
evenly between the proposed development entrance. The Applicants have proposed
one standard street light at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Signage. The Applicants have proposed placing a monument sign on City property at
the entrance to the development. The landscape plans indicate that the sign will be
landscaped with shrub and perennial plantings. The City will require the developer to
obtain an easement for the sign placement. The City will not maintain the landscaping
and sign; that will be the responsibility of the home owners. The City will specify the
provisions related to the easement and maintenance in the Development Agreement.
Traffic. The potential number of car trips from a single family home averages ten on a
daily basis. With 13 homes, 130 to 150 trips per day generated from this development
should not have an adverse impact on Oak Park Boulevard or the intersection with
Oakgreen Avenue North.
Parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new single family homes are provided
with at least a two stall garage. All of the potential house plans submitted by Creative
Homes, Inc. indicate two stall attached garages within the development.
Building Height. The R-1 District specifies a maximum building height of 35 feet. All
homes will be expected to comply with this standard.
6
Architectural Appearance. The application materials indicate that specific homes
have not been designed for this project. All of the homes will be constructed by
Creative Homes, Inc. The project narrative includes building plans and elevations that
are currently being used by Creative Homes, Inc. in the Liberty West neighborhood in
Stillwater. It is expected that the same or similar style homes will be constructed at
Palmer Station.
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 may comment further on
the building appearance and materials as part of the review.
Section 401.15.C.8 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies provisions for residential building
type and construction. The Palmer Station development will need to comply with these
provisions:
8. Building Type and Construction.
a. General Provisions.
25
1) Compatibility. Buildings in all zoning districts shall maintain a high
standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding
properties. Compatibility means that the exterior appearance of the
building, including design, architectural style, quality of exterior building
materials, and roof type and pitch are complementary with surrounding
properties.
25 2) Maintenance. All buildings in the City shall be maintained so as not to
adversely impact the community's public health, safety, and general
welfare or violate the provisions of the Nuisance or Hazardous Building
provisions of the Oak Park Heights Code of Ordinances.
25 3) Metal Building Finishes. No unfinished steel or unfinished aluminum
buildings shall be permitted in any zoning district. High quality, non-
corrosive steel, aluminum, or other finished metal shall be allowed for
walls or roofs.
25 4) Prohibited Materials and Structures.
a. Pole buildings and Quonset structures.
b. Wood or metal poles as principal structure support where such
supports are not affixed to a floor slab but inserted directly into
the ground to achieve alignment and bearing capacity.
25 5) Accessory Buildings. All accessory buildings to residential dwelling units
and non-residential uses shall be constructed with a design and materials
consistent with the general character of the principal structure on the lot
as specified in Section 401.15.D of this Ordinance.
7
25 b. Exterior Building Finishes — Residential: The primary exterior building façade
finishes for residential uses shall consist of materials comparable in grade to the
following:
1) Brick.
2) Stone (natural or artificial).
3) Integral colored split face (rock face) concrete block.
4) Wood, natural or composite, provided the surfaces are finished for
exterior use or wood of proven exterior durability is used, such as
cedar, redwood or cypress.
5) Stucco (natural or artificial).
6) High quality and ecologically sustainable grades of vinyl, steel and
aluminum. Vinyl shall be a solid colored plastic siding material.
7) Fiber cement board.
8) Exterior insulation and finish systems.
9) Energy generation panels and devices affixed to a roof or wall. If
not in use, the panels or devices should be removed and building
surface restored to the original condition.
25 c. Exterior Building Finishes— Commercial: The exterior architectural elements and
finishes for all buildings in the business zoning districts shall be subject to
Section 401.16 of this Ordinance known as the Design Guidelines.
25 d. Single Family and Multiple Family Containing Up to Five (5) Units to Include All
New Construction and Remodeling:
1) Entrances. Primary entrances on principal structures shall face the
primary abutting public or private street or be linked to that street by a
clearly defined and visible walkway or courtyard. Additional secondary
entrances may be oriented to a secondary street or parking area.
Primary entries shall be clearly visible and identifiable from the street, and
delineated with elements such as roof overhangs, recessed entries,
landscaping, or similar design features.
2) New Construction and Remode ling. New Construction and remodeling
shall relate to the design of surrounding buildings where these are
present. Design features such as similar setbacks, scale, façade
divisions, roof lines, rhythm and proportions of openings, building
materials and colors are possible design techniques, while allowing
desirable architecture innovation, variation, and visual interest. All sides
of buildings shall use similar quality building materials and other
architectural treatments as principal facades.
25 e. Single Family and Multiple Family Containing Up to Five (5) Units to Include Only
New Construction:
1) Window and Door Openings. For principal residential buildings, above
grade window and door openings shall comprise at least fifteen (15)
percent of the total area of exterior walls (excluding the area of garage
doors) facing a public/private street or sidewalk. In addition, for new
principal residential buildings, above grade window and door openings
8
shall comprise at least ten (10) percent of the total area of all exterior
walls.
2) Garage Doors/Street Facing Building Facade. Public or private street
facing garage doors shall be allowed to project no more than four (4)
feet from the front or side facades of the ground floor living area portion
of the dwelling or a covered porch (measuring at east eight (8) feet by
eight(8) feet).
3) Garage Doors/Building Design for Attached or Detached Garages.
Garage doors may be located on another side of the dwelling ("side or
rear loaded")provided that the side of the garage facing the front public or
private street has windows and other architectural details that mimic the
features of the living portion of the dwelling.
4) Garage Doors/Building Frontage. Garage doors shall not comprise more
than fifty-five (55) percent of the ground floor public or private street
facing linear building frontage. Alleys and corner lots are exempt from
this standard.
5) Garage Door Height. Except in the rear yard, garage doors facing a
public or private street shall be no more than nine (9) feet in height.
Development Agreement. The applicant will be required to enter into a development
agreement with the City should approval of the development be granted. The
development agreement shall be required to secure site improvements and municipal
infrastructure. The development agreement shall be subject to review and approval of
the City Attorney.
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission is to consider the following as it relates to this request:
1. Rezoning of the property to R-1 Single Family Residential
2. Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit
3. Preliminary/Final Plat
Based upon the preceding review, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review the issues raised herein, especially as it relates to the requests to vary from the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance standards through the PUD/CUP process.
If the Planning Commission is ready to make a recommendation on the application
consisting of requests for Rezoning, Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit
(PUD/CUP), and Preliminary/Final Plat approvals, please find as follows a list of
suggested conditions:
1. The preliminary and final plat, as well as the dedication of easements shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
9
{
2. The Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of 10 percent of the fair market
value of the land payable as specified in the Development Agreement.
3. An easement with the City of Oak Park Heights shall be required to provide
access to Oak Park Boulevard.
4. An easement with the City of Oak Park Heights shall be required for placement of
the entrance monument sign.
5. Drainage and utility easements along the road/cul-de-sac right of way shall be
increased to 15 feet to compensate for the proposed road right of way width and
radius.
6. The Fire Chief, Police Chief and City Engineer shall comment on the proposed
street dimensions and adequacy for emergency vehicle access.
7. The Planning Commission and Parks Commission should comment on
sidewalk/trail development and connections to the existing trail system. The City
should determine if it should retain additional easement areas for trail
development.
8. All tree removal and landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of
the City Arborist.
9. The proposed wetland buffer impact/mitigation plan is subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
10. The street construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
11. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to City Engineer and applicable
watershed authority review and approval.
12. All utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
13. The Applicant shall be responsible for capping the well and removal of the septic
systems, cistern and oil tank in compliance with Washington County and if
applicable, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards.
14. The City will not maintain the landscaping and monument entrance sign; that will
be the responsibility of the home owners. The City will specify the provisions
related to the easement and maintenance in the Development Agreement.
15. The Planning Commission and City Council may comment on the final building
appearance, colors, materials and the variety of the house plans as part of the
PUD/CUP review.
10
16. For emergency vehicle access purposes, parking be allowed on one side of the
street only, and no parking be allowed within the cul-de sac.
17. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the request to
reduce the allowable setback on the garage side of the home to a minimum of 5
feet. The setback to the dwelling portion of the home would remain at 10 feet. A
garage to garage setback would be required to be 15 feet.
18. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement. The
development agreement shall secure site improvements and municipal
infrastructure. The development agreement shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Attorney and City Council.
19. Any other conditions of City staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
pc: Mick Lynskey, Nick Hackworthy Steve Johnston, Julie Hultman
11
EXHIBIT 2
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West
St.Paul MN 55113
Tel: (651) 636-4600
Stantec Fax: (651) 636-1311
June 26, 2014
File:193800151
Attention: Eric Johnson
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N
P.O. BOX 2007
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Reference: Palmer Station-Plan Review
Dear Eric,
We have reviewed the site Development plans for Palmer Station as submitted by
Creative Home Construction Investments on May 14, 2014. Following are our comments
and/or recommendations.
Storm Water Construction Permit Comments (provide previously on June 6,2014):
As the development creates 1.24 acres of new impervious area, construction activities
will be subject to the requirements of the MPCA NPDES Construction Permit.
• Per the Construction Permit, "Where a project's ultimate development replaces
vegetation and/or other pervious surfaces with one (1) or more acres of
cumulative impervious surface, the Permitee(s) must design the project so that the
water quality volume of one (1) inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces
created by the project is retained on site."
o Based on 1.24 acres of impervious area, 4501 cf of volume must be
retained. This required volume is achieved in the larger infiltration basin
(6100 cf capacity).
• However, as shown in the City of Oak Park Heights Wellhead Protection Plan, Part
2, the project area is located in the City's High Vulnerability DWSMA (see attached
DWSMA Figure). Section III.D.1.j.vii. of the Construction Permit states "Infiltration is
prohibited when the infiltration system will be constructed in areas with a Drinking
Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp.
13., unless allowed by a local unit of government with a current MS4 permit.
Design with community in mind
June 26, 2014
Mr.Eric Johnson
Page 2 of 4
o As the development area also falls within the Emergency Response Area
(approximately 1-year recharge time), the City will not allow for infiltration
on the project. (See attached ERA Figure)
• As infiltration will not be allowed, the City recommends that the plans be revised to
treat the required water quality volume of one inch over the impervious (4501 cf)
through filtration. Any filtration system should be designed based on the most
recent update of the MN Stormwater Manual.
Sheet C1.2- Demolition Plan
1. Clearly label and identify all trees being removed as well as all site clearing areas.
2. For the installation of the sanitary sewer, full width removal of the street will be
required at the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Oakgreen Avenue North.
3. Remove and replace curb and gutter along Oak Park Boulevard per City standard
detail STR-31.
Sheet C3.1 -Grading Plan
1. Provide detail on the emergency overflow for Wetland 1. Is the overflow planned
to be to the north into the proposed infiltration basin?
2. Due to existing storm water drainage concerns to the south between the
properties of 5523 Oakgreen Place North and 5519 Oakgreen Place North, please
provide details on how the storm water overflows will be controlled.
a. The current proposed design of the emergency overflow from the
redevelopment site continues to the south, and the City is requiring the
installation of a storm sewer pipe between the properties to address a 100-
year storm event (see attachment for the general installation location of this
pipe).
b. All easements for the properties to the south of the redevelopment need to
be identified on the plans.
c. As discussed in the stormwater construction permit comments above, the
infiltration basins must be redesigned to filter the storm water. Therefore, the
infiltration basin identified to the north of Wetland 1 will require redesign and
may require a drain tile pipe and outlet.
3. The mill and overlay patch shown on Oak Park Boulevard needs to be shown for
the full width (end radii) of the proposed Oak Cove street.
Design with community in mind
5
June 26,2014
Mr. Eric Johnson
Page 3 of 4
Sheet C3.5-Grading Details
1. Provide a geotechnical report with soil boring data. The proposed street typical
section will be reviewed after receiving this information.
Sheet C4.1- Utility Plan
1. It is typical City standard to install drain tile uphill of the catch basin low point
locations. Following storm water filtration revisions this detail and the remaining
storm sewer can be reviewed.
2. Sanitary sewer MH-2 needs to be located in the center of the roadway alignment,
while maintaining 10' separation between the new water main and sewer.
3. Water main shall be installed at a minimum cover of 8.5'.
4. Pipe materials:
a. Water Main: CL 52 DIP with polywrap
b. Storm Sewer: RCP
5. The connection to the water main on Oak Park Boulevard via wet tap is not
allowed. The new water main shall be connected with a sleeve and tee, and gate
valve to be located at the end radius of Oak Cove.
6. Standard hydrant and casting specifications will be provided and plan notes will
need to be revised.
Sheet C5.1 - Preliminary Plat
1. Consider providing easement for future trail connection to the south of the
development.
General Comments
1. Additional standard details will be provided from the City.
2. Consider providing a sanitary sewer service to 5565 Oakgreen Avenue North. It has
been the intention of the City to provide service to this property upon the
redevelopment of the proposed Palmer Station site, as a grinder pump is currently
utilized to lift sewage to a higher elevation on 56th Street North.
Design with community in mind
June 26,2014
Mr. Eric Johnson
Page 4 of 4
If you have any questions or require further information please call me at (651)604-4808.
Regards,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Christopher W. Long, P.E.
Attachments:STR-31; Sketch of Storm Sewer Connection to Oakgreen Place North
c. Andy Kegley, Julie Hultman-Oak Park Heights; Scott Richards-City Planner;Mark
Vierling -City Attorney; Kathy Widin-City Arborist; Brad Reifsteck, Rob Monk, Lucas Miller
-Stantec.
Design with community in mind
/ 1
EXISTING YARD REMOVE & REPLACE EXISTING
SOD WITH 4" TOPSOIL
CONTRACTION JOINT EXISTING CONTRACTION
(TYP.) JOINT (TYP.)
D ..
. . .
•
LL..
4 760
GUTTER LINE
O'-2' 2' 4' MIMIMUM 2' O'-2'
EXISTING CONCRETE
CURB &GUTTER
EXISTING NON-WEAR
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
g. EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING D428
CURB & GUTTER
Q SAWCUT
1/4"/FT. MIN.
=1
REMOVE EXISTING 1 1/2" TYPE LV3 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD
NON-WEAR BITUMINOUS SURFACE
SECTION
CONCRETE CURB REPLACEMENT LAST REVISION:
ci Stantec
NON DRIVEWAY LOCATION March 2004
PLATE NO.
OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MN ) STR-31
• 1 1 14499 L a- 99snv LL 1 w� y�
9 m L11°
S w ! 6ssrL
C9 0
WL' Q 'so,' L
N ' __F
CO = u o s
OM
:
09.1 1 CO . v L s►SYL
bsb t,t3L € S£S11. (1) 1— t
W
ze., 9f1 LZSr LI LL9S t�
ct c p UE No gt
EMI, °L �: HP N EOSYLI _�
x
- - i �. - � L LsY p,V 4
`-
� O
eYL , 8
--1
0 0 3� ..
L� 1 ' I 1� �c,-� ,ar 11/1 " W It 1
,' lJJ
+'u LL` �, 1rM'� 0}p�1
4 J 14437 �Q o�� ,1 .. �� F
M iNi
1 14421 yyy
1. r.t.r. 1 .1 •�,1• O i
LU 14428 �1 C 1 Q.
N
Z .i 14403 +, 0 - .14405 CO
CC
f— L� , _.. _ 1 _ m
I rr N
14391 a `1 1 o 114 ! `I4393 N CO \
,. MK, - �,1a E c Ire 1
CO 4
tb s " g j1 14367 - o
Z[EYl
■ I
i i a ., :
so 14335 C5 vz vz
O
h M
y � So y! •
8b ` '9
Q � S
! .14297 N 3
. iYLCYL
Q 1 In so 0
bOEYL17 D
• 14293
00051. i 86ZYL ..., .. ,.� A __-..'v `.1429... 0
1
NO nyp -
otl7 �i
r x , 14287
+ N f-- 1_ E6Zri 14298 G
r S6ZY4 46014.n i��. htYl r.--. i --<
4
OELO
Q ,
Z 14� ~',MI.G 14286 0 14285 U�
BBZYL S
r ■
x 68051 H �, 0 C , _.-... Tyr
/ w... �. 1 G + 1z 14249
14250
~ -- ' + sLZb 14250
men i� ZBZYL C9 � l�1 �4 H �
1- 69011.11 bLZb< H f tan -
1 < L ��� 14241 14240
9901 //��
0 1- 'W U) x I 14240 -- �-.J
i YL1 .� 1.._ �i5 b � 14231 1427
1Y
< 'W 8001 t �` 114230 ��
L • x LYZbL f
e - It_ 00. -- °O (n�Z 14221 14
' , 1 O `;: o�'1 c
' fN LEZbI _J� O �. 14220 G -.. CO
III O� 14211 14210 F
Y�PI SLZYI CL V 1 �-V I—C/) CD
^ �j \0 "I� CD
t bL LOZYL i L gi 14200 L tif] r �,'..
YN•
06161. "� Q L iX
x
i i ' IsilOci)1, -.1 IVA 4lltiliqlIlliF ft
O
F 1 .?
olst. If
S a O g
+X O
! x R
> a- Lss O
r
as
iiss
H4 2 1
LL N34$IO)i`
It - LOSS
4cc� <
1 td
�� H12iON 3f1Nt1 N332�OO _
, �"" 0
EXHIBIT 3
From: Steve Johnston [mailto:sjohnston @elanlab.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 7:31 PM
To: Eric Johnson; Christopher Long(Chris.Long@stantec.com); Scott Richards
(S cott@PlanningCo.com)
Cc: Mick Lynskey; nick(a,creativehci.com; Dan T
Subject: Palmer Station offsite drainage improvements
Gentlemen,
We have reviewed your request for the developer to install storm sewer in the development to the
south of the site. Under our current proposed design we are reducing the volume and rate of
runoff from our site. We have identified options to provide filtration of stormwater instead of
infiltration and are confident that we can engineer a solution without the offsite storm sewer. In
other words, it is our opinion that from an engineering perspective,we do not need the pipe.
We have reviewed the grading plan,plat and record drawings for Valley Point 2nd Addition and
note that prior to development the contours indicate water flowed unimpeded from our site to the
south. After development in 1990 the runoff from our site was limited to a swale in a 15 foot
public drainage and utility easement between Lots 4 & 5 Block 1. We have no way of knowing
if the swale was ever constructed properly but today the easement is encroached upon by two
fences and the grade is more than a foot higher than the original design. The owners of our site
did not create the drainage issues. They were created 25 years ago when Valley Point 2nd
Addition was developed and the infrastructure was designed and installed by the City of Oak
Park Heights.
With that said we are supportive of the installation of the offsite storm sewer system since it
provides some benefit for our project and especially for the adjacent neighbors that are currently
experiencing drainage issues. A storm sewer at our southern border will simplify the filtration
design and provide a positive well defined discharge point for Palmer Station, which is beneficial
for us. But, more importantly it could be utilized to lower the seasonal groundwater affecting the
neighbors basements,provide them with a greater degree of confidence that they will not see an
increase in runoff issues and show our intention to be good neighbors.
As we discussed in today's meeting we believe that the most cost effective way to install storm
sewer in this fully established neighborhood is by directional drilling. Under this scenario a pipe
would be bored in the east boulevard of Oakgreen Place N. from the existing pipe between Lots
4 & 5, Block 2, north to the lot line between Lots 4 & 5, Block 1. From there a second pipe
would be installed along the property line,between Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, again by directional
drilling. A storm manhole structure would be built over the existing storm sewer line, at the
connection point, and a second storm manhole would be built at the extension of the 4 & 5
common lot line. Once the pipe reaches our site it would be extended into a redesigned detention
basin. Drain tile could also be installed along the plat line to provide ground water control.
The real benefit of directional drilling is that we will only need to disturb the boulevard where
the two structures are built, compared with typical construction where the street or entire
boulevard would be torn up and all trees, landscaping, sod, fences and driveways would be
disturbed. With directional drilling the most suitable pipe material is a thick solid wall
polyethylene pipe. These pipes come in 50 foot pieces that are butt welded together on site to
create a single durable pipe. The only concern with this atypical approach is that the pipe would
be curved around corners, which actually improves flow characteristics. We have confirmed the
following unit prices with an installer of these pipe, E J Mayers Construction. They also
confirmed that they can maintain grade of less than 1%without significant dips as long as they
do not hit a lot of rocks. They would televise the line after installation and open cut to repair any
significant settlements. The 12"pipe could be installed at a depth of approximately 5 feet at a 2%
grade, or it could be installed at a flatter grade to provide more depth at the plat line—the cost is
roughly the same.
Estimated Cost
550 LF 12"PEP @ $75 = $41,250
2 CB Manholes @ $2500= $5,000
Restoration $5,000
Contingency $5,000
Subtotal $56,250
Engineering 10% $5,600
Total $62,000
As discussed above the Palmers did not create this problem, and a result we believe the
community should share some of the responsibility for the cost. We request that the City use a
funding source of their choosing to pay 50%or$31,000. We further request that as part of the
PUD the developer receive some compensatory relief from the tree replacement requirements.
As discussed in the planning staff report our plan saves a 72%of the existing trees on the site
which equates to 7 trees per lot. However the tree replacement formulas require us to replace
429 caliper inches of trees or 195 trees (15 per lot). Clearly, this is more trees than are needed to
create an urban forest. To help offset our share of the off-site storm sewer line we request a 5
tree per lot reduction. This still leaves an average of 7 large existing trees and 10 new trees per
lot(plus numerous small trees not counted in the inventory). We would propose to reduce the
builder installed trees to 4 per lot and group the remaining 78 developer installed trees in
strategic locations around the perimeter of the site where they provide the greatest aesthetic and
buffering benefit.
If there are any questions please let me know.
Steve Johnston, PE
Principal Engineer
.640
D E S I G N 'or
L A B
Gwf u.auUoe kchntou,r ICarxuctwSewn
901 N 3rd Street, Suite 120
Minneapolis, MN 55401
c 612.382.4804
d 612.260.7982
f 612.260.7990
www.elanlab.com