1997-02-10 Concept Review
~EB-11-1997 08:45
eNAC
.
612 595 9837 P.09/11
N
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITYPLANNINO - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Albertville Golf Course Committee
Albertville Mayor and City Council
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
EJ izabeth Stockman
DATE:
10 February 1997
RE:
Albertville - Cedar Creek Golf Course Concept
FILE:
163.06 - 97.03
In review of the concept plan for Pilot Land Development, prepared by Rick Harrison, I offer the
following comments which are to be discussed at the 11 February 1997 Golf Course Committee
meeting at 6: 15 PM.
Layout. Two concept plans have been prepared for the site, one "traditional" layout with 86 lots
(86 single family lots) and one "coving" layout with 88 lots (106 units; 70 single family and 18 two-
family). Mr. Harrison is trying to show that a more aesthetic subdivision plan can be achieved
with the provision of curvilinear streets, varied lot sizes/widths, and varied setbacks (minimum
standards met)_ While I generally agree with this idea. I question whether the benefits or positive
results outweigh the negative aspects of the project (outlined below).
Area-Wide Plan. The submitted plan does not include other lands owned by Pilot nor does it
show the golf course design. The City wishes to see the "big picture", so to speak, prior to
making a formal decision on the prOject As has been stated in the past, in order to deviate from
lot size requirements and other established policies and standards, the developer must trade
other amenities in return.
Inconsistency with City Policies and Standards. The property is zoned R- 1 A. not R-1 as is
indicated on the ('traditional" layout submitted. This plan shows minimum lot sizes of 12,500
square feet with widths of 90 feet for interior lots and 100 feet for comer lots (except that two lots
shown are less than the required minimums). The ''traditional" concept can therefore not be used
as a base for comparison purposes when the density exceeds that allowed under the current R-
1 A zoning designation. Despite this critical factor, I proceeded with my review of the "coving"
plan.
5 7 7 5 WAYZATA
BOUI..EVARD, SUITE 55!
ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 554 r e
PHONE 6 I ia-595-9636 FAX IS 12-595-9837
2
FEB-11-1997 08:45
eNAC
.
612 595 9837 P.10/11
Density. The l'traditional" layout shows a density of 2.51 units per acre while the "coving" plan
shows a density of 2.87 units per acre. In addition to increasing overall density by adding 18
units to the prOject through the provision of two-family homes on the "caving" plan, Pilot is further
increasing their profit by having to construct less linear feet of streets and utilities. Using the R-
1A zoning designation as a comparison, the overall density should average about 2.0 units per
acre. If the developer would like to incorporate two-family homes, for instance, in the area zoned
as R-1 A, the City needs to gain something in retum.
Access and Utility Easements. It is proposed that the front setback area which varies between
30 feet and 168.6 feet, be established as a blanket easement area within which trails can be
located and utilities installed. If the location of utility lines is to also deviate from the standard
location within the street right-of-way, the City Engineer may want to comment on this.
Usable Lot Area. One significant difference in the platting of "coving" lots versus "traditional" lots
is the amount of usable yard area which remains. In the "coving" plan. the front yards of all lots
are reduced between 30 and 168.6 feet by establishing an access/utility easement within which
nothing can be constructed (fences. landscape features. or other accessory structures).
Additionally, landscape plantings installed by the homeowner are at risk of being disturbed to
install or repair trails or utilities located there. Furthermore, the front yard is typically the more
public portion of a lot, more visible by passers-by, so owners are less inclined to make use of the
area for eating, relaxing, etc.
The rear yards of many proposed lots are also extremely limited in terms of usable area. In the
l~raditional" plan, the average width at the rear property setback is 90+ feet, with only two lots
'Atlich taper to less than 60 feet. The "caving" plan contains 2610t$ which taper to less than 60
feet at the rear building setback line, many of which are triangular in shape. By limiting the rear
yard areas significantly, outdoor storage, play equipment, and other such accessory items are
forced into the front yard. where some of them may not be allowed under the present city code.
Furthermore, fencing or the establishment of hedges are two items which would be ridiculous to
consider on these pie-shaped lots. What good does it do to have larger lots if the space isn't
usable?
Abutting Lots and Perceived Lot Area. The location of Ilcoving" lots adjacent to Summerfield
Addition or any other "traditional" neighborhood creates somewhat of a conflict in relation to one
another. The traditional lot owner has a view of six or eight homes behind himlher (although
some may be setback more than average) when abutting a "coving" layout rather than two or
three as is typical. Conversely, the owner of a "caving" lot does not have the ability to screen his
view of traditional neighbors to the rear because the rear yard area may be less than the width
of his/her home on irregular shaped parcels.
In order to achieve the concept of varied lot widths. the "coving" plan contains parcels which have
side lots lines with two angles rather than a single lot line which radiates from the street. Property
owners have a hard enough time trying to determine where their property lines lie upon lack of
a survey, without complicating matters. While there will always be instances where an owner
assumes that a property line is somewhere it isn't, the multi-angled lot lines create additional
headaches.
2
~il.
"}: '\
/
}
FEB-11-1997 08:46
eNAC
.
612 595 9837 P.11/11
Streets. The proposed "coving" design shows the paved street width as 30 feet rather than the
36 foot required width. Also of concern is the number of vehicles per day which will use the
planned local streets. It is imperative that for this determination we have an area-wide plan to
analyze. In the proposed subdivision alone, the maximum recommended 1 ,000 trips per day for
local streets has been exceeded by 60 trips per day, not including adjacent areas to the south and
east which may also use the streets. While KadJer Avenue is located on the western edge of the
site and could be considered a collector route if improved. no connecting access has been
provided to it. On the other hand, the municipalities which have jurisdiction over Kadler Avenue
have made no formal decisions to vacate the roadway in the near future, although this idea has
been rumored. It is these types of transportation details which have to be resolved.
Trail Access. While a trail has been positively located along the primary street route in the
proposed subdivision, there have been no connections proposed to planned park areas or toward
neighboring land areas for future extension. This item will have to be considered in future plans,
as will the proposed trail construction specifications requiring a minimum of ten (10) feet for
shared pedestrian and bicycle trails on one side of the street.
Remnant Land. In the northern portion of the site. adjacent to the wetlands. the "caving" plan
has created an island of leftover land which is not part of platted lots nor accessible from the park
planned on the other side of the wetland. This island should be eliminated prior to subdivision
approval for this area. ~.
pc:
Gary Hale
Linda Houghton
Pete Carlson
Mike Couri
Kevin Mealhouse
~.
(,'
"
~ ~)
3
'FEB-11-1997 08:55
eNAC
.
"TRADITIONAl" z ;;~'NCEPT :
....... ...,
. . ~, .. ,
~I' ",'
,
,
P.01/01
, .
. ,
. ,
Illllll!1111I111111111
" \
,
,
,
,
,
.'
(
~..-_..--
\
~"
r
,
I
,
,
1
I
,
,
I
I
.
- . .. .. .. .. . .. too. .. " - ...., ... .
, I
1 ,
, I
I ,
I ,
, ,
I ,
, ,
, I
~..__._ J.. ......"..
,"
,
,
,
I
I
I
,
,
I . I
I.. . " .. I .. ..I...... _ _ _~,
, ,
,
I
,
,
,
,
'.. ,..."'. '...... ...,,"
" ,
I
,
o ,
,
I
I
I
,
J
,
(
,
"
, \
,
,
,
,
"... .- .. - -...
J. ...... - - -,..-
,
,
,
roo
.
.
.
,
I
Ct, I
,
.
,
~. .~. I
. . . r .. .... .. L ..,.
,
I
I
I
I
, I
. ._....~....._.__.. .----.... --
("
]r-
",,-~\ "'.._~J...'--................
,'" 'I ....... .........
:"--->' ( . ... -- ~:_~,~.'" ;::: f7.:!~=~~~J' ':c: ::: B _(I
\~__".."r ~~-~-~--"..:':..::~~--,-:,;-- '.'.. '.0 ~
..~.
,.,t,. " -\:; :
.t....?...A...~,,'.~.~.~....'.....:. i
.r-~"- .
,:+". ~. I
. 'J:,;" ..~I
,PI .,\..~
,'/:.1.. ",
~ ~t- ~._ \
,., ... ,
'...r'.-----r------r --
, , I
I
I
I
I
I