1999-09-08 Comp Plan Amend, Rezoning, CUP/PUD
,.
...
N
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Albertville Mayor and City Council
Albertville Planning Commission
FROM:
AI Brixius I Deb Garross
DATE:
8 September 1999
RE:
Albertville - Albert Villas
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Rezoning
CUP I PUD (Concept PUD & Development PUD)
Preliminary Plat
FILE:
163.06 - 99.08
BACKGROUND
K. C. Land Company has submitted plans for development of 338 single-family lots as part of the
Albert Villas project. The subject site contains 235.17 acres of land which is bounded on the east
by Swamp Lake, the north by CSAH 18, the south and west by the City of St. Michael. The newly
opened Cedar Creek Golf Course is located north of the subject site. The PUD concept plan
covers the entire land holdings of the applicant. The developer desires to preliminary plat the
part of the site (approximately 136.75 acres located north of County Ditch #9) into 182 single-
family lots.
APPLICATIONS
The developer has submitted a series of applications requesting the City to consider changes in
its land use objectives and development standards, to allow for a more intense development
pattern within the southwest part of the community, than has been planned by the City. Early this
spring, the applicant requested the City to consider an R-1 zoning classification for the subject
site. Following careful review and consideration by both the Planning Commission and City
Council, the developer was directed to plan according to the R-1A Zoning standards which were
felt to be more suitable for the subject site.
A number of meetings have been held with the developer and written correspondence has been
forwarded to the applicant outlining key issues and submittal requirements. The applications
s~tt~~9~Ai1;~of~~ei,ve~H!RIj\Em!~lSim~.rEt~irgg,FC..~WPU~~EtIj{ni~~.
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
..,
The applicant requests CUP/PUD approval to obtain "relief' from the standards of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance, in order to plat a site that contains several development restrictions
(existing wetlands, pipeline and powerline easements). From a planning perspective and that of
the Zoning Ordinance, the PUD process is intended to result in the following:
· Innovations in development; higher standards of site and building design;
· More convenience in location and design of development and service facilities;
· Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics;
· Creative and efficient use of the land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets;
· A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and a
more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through strict application
of zoning and subdivision regulations.
"The PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles. (Zoning
Ordinance, Section 2700.1, (g))." Staff has attempted to make the applicant aware of these
principles and to obtain complete, accurate information for the Planning Commission and City
Council to base its decisions. The Planning Commission and City Council will make the final
determination as to whether the applicant has been successful in fulfilling the City's planning
principles.
This report outlines the issues based upon application of current Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan guidelines to the proposal. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be necessary to allow the
single family, low-density residential proposal within an area guided for agriculture and rural
development. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural/Rural. Rezoning to R-1A, Low
Density Single Family, is requested. A Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development is also
necessary to allow flexibility from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to
setbacks, lot area, and width. A preliminary plat for development of the north 136.75 acres of the
site has also been submitted for review and approval. A series of conditions are suggested
herein to ensure that the PUD concept plan and preliminary plat fulfill with minimum requirements
of the City. Further direction is needed from the Planning Commission concerning the degree of
flexibility that should be granted for the project as well as the specific park, trails, and project
design issues identified herein.
Attachments:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Site Location Map
Letter from Kevin Conway dated 7-28-99
Albert Villas Existing Conditions Map
Albert Villas Concept Phasing and Landscape Plan
Albert Villas Preliminary Plat
Albert Villas Wetland Mitigation Plan
Lot Width Calculations I Numbers of Lots
Letter from Wright County dated 8-6-99
Letter from Wright County dated 7-29-99
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation
The requested approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, CUP/PUD and
preliminary plat requires that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the applications
in relation to established Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance review criteria and Comprehensive
Plan policies. The decision to approve, deny or approve the project subject to conditions is
viewed as a policy decision to be made by the City Council. Should they find the submitted plans
acceptable, it is recommended that the following be imposed:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment I Rezoninq
The City is being requested to change its land use plan to facilitate urban development in the
southwest corner of the City at this time. Based on past concept presentations, the City indicated
that a land use change and rezoning may be appropriate for low density single family residential
development and suggested R-1A zoning.
The suggested land use and zoning change affects the entire southwestern portion of the City. In
this respect, the Planning Commission and City Council in their decisions, must make the
following findings.
1. The proposed change is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed land use is compatible with present and future land uses in the area.
3. The proposed PUD fulfills the purpose and intention of the R-1A zoning district and PUD
provisions of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance.
4. The proposed development will fit within the City's infrastructure and transportation system
planning.
If upon review of the development, the City makes affirmative findings, the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezoning may be approved subject to the following items:
1. The EAW process shall be completed prior to City Council approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, CUP/PUD and preliminary plat.
CUP/PUD
The PUD is a request for flexibility from the R-1A standards as a means of responding to the
physical conditions unique to the property involved. The applicant is requesting concept stage
approval for the entire property and development stage and preliminary plat approval for the area
north of the County Ditch.
In establishing the R-1A zoning district the City is defining the desired land use and design
standards for this area of the City The City must determine the range of flexibility that is
appropriate in its consideration of the PUD and preliminary plat. Any approval pertaining to the
PUD and Preliminary Plat should include the following conditions.
3
,.
1. Phase III of the PUD Concept Plan must be amended to illustrate the intended land uses
and subdivision design that meets City zoning standards.
2. The City must determine if the degree of flexibility is consistent with the R-1A standards
and is acceptable as requested.
We believe some flexibility is warranted with regard to lot area, lot width and setbacks.
However, the current proposal more closely resembles the R-1 zoning standards than the
requested R-1A. Some adjustments should be made in the PUD design to increase the
PUD lot area and width standards.
3. A Planned Unit Development agreement is prepared which includes all development plans
and specifications, sets forth specific land use and performance standards which must be
adhered to throughout the life of the PUD, and shall be approved by the City Attorney.
4. A revised screening plan is submitted showing berm areas at a maximum 3: 1 slope and a
minimum of two rows of evergreen trees (in staggered locations) consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance. This information is needed to justify flexibility being requested from the buffer
yard width.
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
5. Concerning streets, utilities, and grading, the preliminary plat should be amended as
follows:
a. To show 65' of right-of-way for CSAH 18 as required by the Wright County Engineer.
b. To show temporary turn-around facilities at the end of all streets, conforming to the cul-
de-sac requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and as required by the City
Engineer.
6. The number of building permits which will be issued to the project will be limited to 50 until
such a time as the entire length of Kahl Avenue/4th StreetlKallard Avenue is installed to
provide a secondary access to the development.
7. The City Engineer provide comments and recommendations on the following:
a. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan.
b. Water and Sanitary Sewer Plan
c. Wetland Mitigation Plan
d. Easement location and sizes on preliminary plat.
8. The preliminary plat must provide easement access to all proposed storm water
management ponds, as required by the City Engineer.
4
" ~
9. The 1 DO-year flood elevation for County Ditch #9, all wetlands and storm water ponds shall
be identified on the preliminary plat to ensure that the proposed low floor elevations of all
structures are at least 2 feet above the 1 DO-year floodplain elevation.
10. The ordinary high water mark for Swamp Lake shall be identified on the preliminary plat to
ensure that the proposed low floor elevations of all structures and lakeshore setbacks
conform to Ordinance requirements.
11. The applicant submits letters from NSP and Amoco identifying that each entity has
reviewed the preliminary plat and PUD and that the storm water management ponds, trails,
roads and other improvements proposed within the respective easements are acceptable
to each entity.
12. The building pads in Block 6 abut the NSP easement. These building pad locations will
preclude future building additions, decks, accessory buildings, and play equipment behind
the homes. Sales information and a deed restriction will be required as part of the PUD
approval disclosing this development restriction to future homebuyers.
13. The preliminary plat is amended to show driveway spacing, elevation, and setback
requirements consistent with City ordinances.
14. Concerning parks and trails, the preliminary plat should be amended as follows:
a. The PUD concept plan and preliminary plat is amended to incorporate the trail
suggestions outlined on pages 14 and 15 of this report.
b. The Planning Commission make a recommendation on the suitability of the parks as
they are proposed related to number, size, configuration, location, and access. The
PUD preliminary plat shall be revised in accordance with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
c. The preliminary plat is revised to dedicate all land proposed for public use as "park,
trail or public open space" on the plat.
d. The applicant provides the proposed means to disclose the location of all parks to
future, prospective lot owners.
e. The PUD concept plan and preliminary plat is amended to show a trail along the south
side of CSAH 18.
15. The developer indicates the timing and method for removing and/or relocating the existing
buildings located on the subject site consistent with Sections 1400-1 and 900 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
16. The developer indicates the proposed use of model homes consistent with Section 2200 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
17. The developer indicates the types of homes proposed for the project and the means to
assure compliance with floor area, garage size, exterior materials and other minimum
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This information is required to provide the
foundation for the setback flexibility being requested.
5
18. The preliminary plat is amended to show all required setbacks on each lot including the
35' PUD periphery setback, 20' setback from the O-H-W of all wetlands, storm water
management ponds and County Ditch #9.
19. A property maintenance agreement and property owners association covenants are
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval
subject to the requirements of Sections 1100 and 2700 of the City Zoning Ordinance. Said
documents should address the location and maintenance provisions for any proposed
subdivision identification signs (if applicable), the means by which the proposed homes will
conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements for single family detached uses, minimum
garage size and floor area requirements. The agreements, covenants, and restrictions are
to be filed with the Wright County Recorder's office as a deed restriction against the title of
each unit lot.
20. The preliminary plat is revised to increase the upland/building area of all lots adjacent to
wetlands, storm water management ponds, and County Ditch #9, to a minimum of 12,000
square feet.
21. The preliminary plat is amended to show building footprints for proposed Lot 20, Block 6
and Lot 1, Block 4, which will allow for a structure to be constructed meeting all required
setbacks.
22. If a sign is desired by the developer to identify the Albert Villas development, a sign plan
should be submitted for review and approval of the City Planner.
23. A street lighting plan is submitted specifying the style, height, strength/wattage and
distribution of exterior lights proposed within the development. Any exterior lighting on site
must be arranged as to deflect light away from public streets. The source of lights shall be
hooded.
24. Conditions of the City Engineer and/or other City staff.
25. Any other conditions as set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council.
Issues Analvsis
EAW Process. The scope of the project required that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) be prepared and reviewed pursuant to the process established by the Environmental
Quality Board (EQB). The EAW process mandates a 30-day official review period during which,
the local unit of government may not grant any project approvals. The EAW review period ended
on August 25, 1999. The EAW process mandates a 30-day official review period for the public
and various agencies to comment on the proposed project. The City Engineer will address EAW
issues in a separate report along with his comments regarding this proposal.
6
'"
Once the items identified by the City Engineer are incorporated, the EAW may proceed to the City
Council for adoption of a negative declaration (a finding that the project will not result in major
environmental impacts). Once the negative declaration is made, the City may proceed with the
review and approvals for the project however, said approvals should be contingent upon
completion of the EAW process. There is an additional 30-day appeal period following a finding
for negative declaration whereby an agency or the public may challenge the City's decision. Due
to the fact that the comments received concerning this project have been duly noted and will be
made conditions of project approval, an appeal of the City's decision regarding the EAW is not
anticipated.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezoning. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan guides the
subject parcel and the entire area south of CSAH 18 and west of CSAH 19 for agricultural/rural
land use. This land use designation is reflective of the development constraints associated with
this property including poor soils, abundant wetlands, Natural Environment Lake designation for
Swamp Lake, NSP and Amoco pipeline easements. The agricultural/rural designation is also
reflective of the lack of/or insufficient capacity of municipal utilities to serve this part of the
community. The agricultural/rural designation contemplates future agricultural use of the
properties and/or large lot, residential development.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests that the agricultural/rural land use designations could be
redefined if and/or when this area is served with public utilities. In March/April 1999, the City
reviewed the possibility of changing the land use designation of this site to low density residential
use and determined that R-1A, Low Density Single Family use may be appropriate. The applicant
is formally requesting low-density residential land use for the entire site, a change which must be
approved by the City prior to rezoning, CUP/PUD or preliminary plat approval. In considering this
land use change the City should determine the acceptability of the entire project and how it will
relate to the balance of the City as well as land uses in abutting, St. Michael.
Rezoning. The subject site is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural. The southeast portion of the property
is also within the Shoreland Overlay District of Swamp Lake, which requires a minimum lot size of
40,000 square feet for lakeshore lots and 20,000 square feet for non-Iakeshore lots, and a
minimum lot width of 125 feet. Following the direction of the City Council, the applicant is
formally requesting R-1A, Low Density Single Family zoning for the entire parcel. The minimum
lot size for this zone is 15,000 square feet with 100 feet of frontage, measured at the 30 foot, front
yard setback line.
CUP-PUD. It is imperative for the City to carefully consider the merit of the entire PUD concept
plan at this time, even though the applicant is proposing only to preliminary plat the north 136.75
acres. This PUD and the forthcoming preliminary plat will establish road alignments, lotting
patterns, land uses and the build-out of the community's park infrastructure for southwest
Albertville as well as establish major neighborhood linkages with the City of St. Michael.
Furthermore, the proposal contemplates developmenUdedication of the majority of parkland with
future development of the land areas located south of County Ditch #9, not within the area
proposed for the preliminary plat. As such, the overall PUD design is integral to the project and
warrants attention to street layout, park location and size, trail connections and overall lot density.
7
..
The Zoning Ordinance identifies that the City should consider and make its judgment about a
PUD based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the
area.
c. The proposed use conforms with all Zoning Ordinance performance standards
contained herein.
d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the City's service capacity.
f. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
The proposed application is inconsistent with subparts (a), (c) and (e) above. If the City chooses
to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment to low density residential, item (a) will be
satisfied. The City Engineer will evaluate and provide review comments concerning item (e).
While the project and site are capable of being in conformance with all Zoning Ordinance
performance standards, the current proposal falls short in many areas. As such, item (c) has not
been satisfied. The following discussion will outline the specific areas where the proposal is
inconsistent with Ordinance requirements.
Through the previous concept presentations, the applicant has illustrated the development
constraints unique to this area of Albertville that complicates and raises the expense of utility
construction and site development. In recognition of these constraints, the applicant initially
requested an R-1 zoning to allow 180 foot wide lots and 12,500 square foot lot areas as a means
of establishing density that would offset development costs. The City Council, however, directed
the applicant to pursue the R-1A Zoning District, which mandates 100 foot lot widths and 15,000
square foot lot areas.
The applicant has requested rezoning the parcel to R-1A, however, the CUP/PUD also requests
flexibility from the R-1A requirements pertaining to lot area, lot width, buildable lot area, lot depth
(buffer yards), and side yard setbacks. The result is that the actual plat design is more reflective
of R-1 standards than R-1A. The City may grant design flexibility through the PUD, however, the
Planning Commission and City Council should believe that the purpose of the R-1A and the PUD
are being accomplished. The following table provides comparisons of proposed lots throughout
the PUD in comparison with R-1A standards. This table is provided so that the City can evaluate
the degree of flexibility that is being requested.
8
Lot Area, Setback, Height and Coverage Requirements.
Standards Required R-1A Proposed PUD
Density (Units per Acre) 2.9 1.34
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sf 80 lots (44%)
Range of Lot Sizes 15,000 sf 12,505 - 35,647 sf
Required Minimum Useable Upland lot area 12,000 sf 30 lots (16% < 12,000)
above O-H-W (80% of required lot area
must be above O-H-W)
Lot Width 100 feet 80 - 150 feet (143 or 79%
of the lots are less than 100'
wide)
Lot Width Corner Lot 120 feet 90 - 130 feet
2 Lots (10%) conform to
requirement
Average Lot Width Corner Lot 101 feet
Buffer Yard Lot Depth (lots adjacent to 170 feet 165 feet*
arterial or major collector streets)
Buffer Yard (lot width requirements for side 25 feet 1 0 feet
yards)
Setback (PUD Periphery) 35 feet Unknown
Setbacks (front) 30 feet 30 feet
(side-interior) 15 feet 10 feet
(side-corner) 30 feet (side yard 20 feet
abutting a public street)
(rear) 25 feet 30 feet
Wetland setback from O-H-W 20 feet Unknown **
Building Height Maximum 35 feet Unknown
Maximum Lot Coverage for Structures 25 percent of lot area Unknown
Minimum Floor Area per Dwelling Unit 600 sf first floor plus Unknown
100 add'l sf for each
bedroom
*
The lot depth calculations are based upon the Wright County Highway Department requirement to
dedicate 65' of R-O-W for CSAH 18.
Wetland and Ditch #9 setbacks are measured from O-H-W which has not been provided.
**
Lot Area. Our review reveals only 44 percent of the total lots meet the R-1A total lot area
standard. Additionally, 16 percent of the proposed lots do not meet Albertville's R-1A net
buildable lot area of 12,000 square feet.
9
Lot Width. The R-1 A lot width standard is 100 feet for interior lots and 120 feet for corner lots.
For interior lots, 79 percent of the proposed lots fall below 100 feet in width. The common interior
lot width is 85 feet. The majority of corner lots fall below the 120 foot lot width standard with
averages being 101 feet.
Setbacks. The applicant is also requesting flexibility in the building side yard setbacks from the
R-1A standard of 15 feet to 10 feet. Based on the requested standards, the PUD and plat more
closely resembles the R-1 zoning standards than the requested R-1A zoning. The City will need
to determine if this range of flexibility is warranted in view of the physical constraints of the
property involved.
The applicant has often referred to the Cedar Creek Golf Course PUD and flexibility granted by
the City as rationale to approve the Albert Villas project. It is important to note that each
application for PUD must stand on its own merits and the City is not obligated to grant or allow the
same degree offlexibility between projects. However, staff did review the Golf Course PUD in an
attempt to provide the Planning Commission with information for comparison purposes and for the
sake of consistency in the review of this application. The following table illustrates that the
degree of flexibility requested for Albert Villas exceeds that which the City granted for the Cedar
Creek PUD.
ALBERT VILLAS/GOLF COURSE COMPARISON
Standard Albert Villas Cedar Creek Golf Course/PUD
# Lots 182 278
# Lots < 15,000 sf 100 (55%) 16 (6%) a1/12,500 min.
Lot Area RanQe 12,505 - 35,647 sq ft 12,510 - 43,481 sq ft
Average Lot Area 16,039 sq ft 16,855 sq ft
% Lot 100' - wide 21% 62%
Lot Width Range 80-1 50' 80 -188'
Average Lot Width 92.27' 95.72'
Corner Lot Width RanQe 90 - 130 ' 95 - 140'
Corner Lot Width Average 101' 109'
% Corner Lots comply w/ 10% 12.5%
Width standard
PUD Periphery Setback (35') 30' 30'
Front Yard Setback 30' 30-90' (CovinQ)
Side Yard Setback Interior 10' 10'
Lots (15')
Side Yard Setback Corner 30' 30'
Lots
Rear Yard Setback 30' 25'
Maximum Site Coverage Unknown 25%
(25% )
Maximum Building Height Unknown 35'
(35')
Trail Access (30') 20' 30'
10
Density - Units per Acre 1.34 1.52
Park Dedication (10%) * 9.35 Acres 8.08 acres (42% land)
(13.5 = 10% 58% cash ($265,200)
dedication)
Amenities . Parks . 18 - Hole Golf Course (117.29
. Open Space acres)
. Trails . Homes on Golf Course 1/3 brick
. Garages 480 sq. ft.
. Resident % discount for golf fees
. Coving lot/setback design
. 8' Trail (Karstan Ave)
. 8' Trail (CSAH 18 through Center
Oaks)
*
Land area calculation above O-H-W for natural wetlands, storm water management ponds, Swamp
Lake and County Ditch #9 required to verify park dedication amounts.
The applicant is requesting CUP/PUD approval to allow for development of a single-family
residential project as identified on Exhibit D. The PUD is requested in order to allow for the future
platting of lots within the Shoreland Management District of Swamp Lake and to allow for lot width
flexibility within the north 136.75 acre part of the site. With regard to the Shoreland Management
District, the PUD is requested to allow for the platting of lots, which are smaller than the 40,000
square foot lakeshore and 20,000 square foot non-lakeshore lot requirements. The Shoreland
Management PUD regulations specify certain residential densities that may be permitted,
provided additional lakeshore setbacks, open space and other requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance are incorporated into the project.
An issue of concern is that the proposed Future Phase III does not conform to the density
standards of the Shoreland PUD regulations. The Shoreland PUD standards specify the number
of units that can be located within a series of tiers or within specific proximity to the lake. Overall,
the concept PUD plan shows too many lots being located too close to the lakeshore. This issue is
important because the number of lots, their width, area and arrangement directly relate to the
ability to finance and ultimately construct streets, parks and infrastructure. The future extension
of Underwood Lane (proposed street located adjacent to Swamp Lake) from St. Michael, will likely
be the only additional street connection permitted to CSAH 18 within this area of the community.
As such, it is essential to make sure that the street connections proposed and associated lot
arrangements are realistic.
The concept PUD proposes to create a series of park and open space areas along County Ditch
#9, Swamp Lake and in the south central part of the site. Due to the number of building
constraints within this part of the project area (located north of the County Ditch), the applicant
proposes to locate the majority of parkland south of the Ditch. The concept plan illustrates that the
majority of lots within the PUD will back up to wetlands, watercourses, open space and public
parks. From a homeowner's perspective, this type of system is often viewed as desirable. From a
City maintenance and recreational use perspective, a centralized larger park facility is more
desirable. A trail system is shown utilizing the NSP and Amoco power/pipeline easements and
adjacent to the County Ditch.
11
At issue is the ability of Phase III to provide for the recreational needs of the southwest part of the
City with respect to park and trail dedication. It is contemplated that a number of lots shown on
the concept PUD may be lost due to implementation of the Shoreland PUD requirements,
relatively fixed locations for street extensions and location/amount of existing wetlands and future
storm water management ponds. The 1997 Park and Trails Plan calls for a neighborhood park
consisting of 5 - 10 acres to serve this part of the community, which could ultimately contain a
population exceeding 700 people. The desired site characteristics for this type of park include the
land area being suited for multi-use development, easily accessible to neighborhood population,
geographically centered and with safe walking and bike access. The PUD concept plan does not
include a suitable land site for a neighborhood park but rather, provides a series of unconnected
open space areas. The Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposed PUD
concept plan will adequately provide for the recreational needs of this area of the community.
A second issue relates to the proposed trail system in that no trail corridors have been identified
within Phase III. The City of St. Michael has developed a linear park system including a
bituminous trail which is located adjacent to and south of Swamp lake. Please note, the St.
Michael/Swamp lake trail/open space corridor does not currently connect to the southern border
of Albertville. However, St. Michael City staff has indicated a desire to obtain an easement over
the two vacant lots in order to provide for a continuous trail connection around the lake Swamp
lake (should Albertville decide a lakeshore trail/open space corridor is desirable). The PUD
concept plan should identify the location of this and any other existing or proposed trail/parks
located within close proximity to the City limits. Also, in overlaying the concept PUD with the
preliminary plat and existing features, it has been noted that existing wetlands preclude the ability
to utilize the proposed park connection locations to either access the park areas and/or provide
trail connections. A revised concept PUD Plan should be submitted for review by the Planning
Commission which accurately shows the location of wetlands, and proposed storm water ponds in
relation to the proposed parks and trails. The plan should also include acreage calculations for
wetlands, storm water management ponds, and the proposed park areas (located above the O-H-
W of any water bodies) in addition to the area and length of proposed trails. This will provide a
clearer understanding of the amount of usable parkland that is being proposed.
The majority of the PUD will be served by a curvilinear street system that provides three
connections to CSAH 18 and connections to existing streets (south of Albertville corporate limits),
within the City of St. Michael. The street system will require two crossings of County Ditch #9.
Future street access points along CSAH 18 will be limited by Wright County design and spacing
guidelines. The Subdivision Ordinance also requires that a sketch plan for the properties adjacent
to the subject site to be developed showing the possible relationships between the proposed
development and future existing or potential adjacent subdivisions and land uses. The PUD
concept plan identifies a future road connection between proposed Kalenda Avenue and 52nd
Street. A third access to CSAH 18 is indicated approximately 600' southeast of proposed Kalland
Avenue, which will serve as a north/south local street system connecting St. Michael residents to
CSAH 18. The PUD concept plan does not show a local street access to the parcel located
directly north of Block 1, nor does it show an easUwest street extension within Phase III,
connecting Kagan Avenue to St. Michael to the west. It is recommended that the applicant
provide existing conditions information for the areas immediately north of Block 1 and west of
Outlot C, in order to evaluate locate street and/or trail extensions to these areas. The City
12
Engineer will need to determine the suitability of the proposed street system within the concept
PUD.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ISSUES:
Lots. As the tables on pages 9 and 10 indicate, the proposed development contains a substantial
number of lots which fall below lot area, setback and buildable/upland lot area requirements. The
smallest lots are those proposed adjacent to 52nd Street in Blocks 5 and 7 and proposed adjacent
to the wetlands in Outlot D. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance in this area is to ensure that there
is some usable yard area for family recreational use and/or accessory structures. The Zoning
Ordinance also requires developers to plan for accessory uses including but not limited to third
stall garage units, porches and decks. Because there is no storm water management, wetland
mitigation nor area calculation information available for Phase III, there is a concern that
additional small lots will occur within this phase as well. It is suggested that the applicant review
the preliminary plat and PUD concept plan to widen the lots and/or amend the plans to conform to
the minimum 80% (12,000 square foot) minimum building/upland lot requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. In review of the preliminary plat and PUD, we would recommend reducing the number
of lots and increasing the lot area and width of the remaining lots.
Building Type and Construction. While requested, no information was provided by the applicant
concerning this issue.
Signage. If a sign is desired by the developer to identify the Albert Villas development, a sign
plan should be submitted for review and approval of the City Planner.
Lighting. Plans for street lighting and/or lighting of subdivision entrance monuments or other
features, have not been submitted by the applicant. In the event the applicant desires to add
lighting to areas of the development, detailed plans which specify the style, height,
strength/wattage and distribution of exterior lights proposed for the subject site will need to be
submitted for review and approval by the City. Any exterior lighting on site must be arranged as
to deflect light away from public streets. The source of lights shall be hooded.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires one (1) two thousand five hundred (2,500)-lumen light, or
equal at each street intersection within or abutting the subdivision. The light standards shall be
approved by the City. The City may desire to encourage the applicant to install decorative lighting
(NSP has a number of standard, decorative light posts available) as a feature to add to the
character of the PUD.
Screening and Landscaping. Exhibit D shows the landscape and screening plan for the project.
The proposal is to construct a series of berms ranging from 6 - 10' in height in the rear yard of the
lots that are contiguous to CSAH 18. The proposal also includes planting a single row of
Colorado Blue Spruce trees (consisting of 23 trees) along the berms/rear yard lot lines. The
landscape plan also specifies that "Building pads in wooded areas to be individually graded to
minimize impact on existing trees."
13
The landscape and screening standards of the Zoning Ordinance require the following:
· 1 shade tree (2" diameter potted/bare root or 8&8) or 1 evergreen tree (3-4') conforming to
the species requirements of the Ordinance, is required per lot. (Pursuant to the
preliminary plat, a minimum of 182-yard trees are required for the development).
· All boulevard areas, front and side yards of lots abutting public streets shall be sodded.
· All areas not requiring sod are to be seeded and mulched within 30 days of building
occupancy.
The lots located adjacent to CSAH 18 are required to be 170' deep in order to provide for buffer
yards and screening to minimize the impacts of the major collector, high traffic volume street. The
screening can consist of landscaping, fencing and berms as long as the screening is provided to
a height of 6 feet. The proposed berms provide the desired screening height however their
slopes are too steep for lawn mowing and maintenance equipment and should be reduced to a
maximum slope of 3: 1. In addition, the spruce trees should be staggered and planted in two or
more rows, as stipulated in the Ordinance. As an aside, the landscape plan indicates that
individual grading of building pads will occur in wooded areas to preserve existing trees however,
the grading plan indicates that the majority of trees will be lost due to cut and fill which will occur
in the vicinity of Kahler Court. It is recommended that a revised landscape/screening plan
(consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance) be required as a condition of preliminary
plat approval.
Park and Trail Dedication. Under the City's current Ordinance a 10% park land and/or cash
dedication is required. A land dedication of 23.5 acres for the entire project, cash or combination
of land and cash will be required for this development. Specific acreage calculations for the
amount of park land (above the O-H-W of wetlands, lakes, storm water management ponds and
the County Ditch) along with trail acreagellength estimates will be needed from the developer in
order to more accurately identify the actual amount of park land that is proposed. The cash
dedication for a single-family development is $1,300.00 per lot which in this case would result in
$439,400 dollars for the entire PUD (338 lots multiplied by $1,300.00 per lot). The cash
dedication for the preliminary plat would be $236,600.00 (182 lots multiplied by $1 ,300.00 per lot).
The park dedication for the development will be required at the time of final plat approval for each
phase of the development.
A series of trails are designated for the subject site in the City's 1997 Park and Trail Plan. A trail
is also contemplated adjacent to CSAH 18. As previously noted in this report, the PUD concept
plan does not include a proposed trail system within Phase III. A trail system is shown north of
the County Ditch and along the western edge of the NSP easement (proposed Outlot C). With
regard to the proposed trail system, the following changes to the PUD concept plan are
suggested for consideration by the Planning Commission:
· Consider deleting the trail segment shown within Outlot C, located north of 52nd Street, as
there is a wetland located on the property north of the Albert Villas site, which will likely
preclude a connection to CSAH 18, once that parcel develops.
· Consider deleting the section of trail proposed along the west side of Outlot C near the
storm water management pond, as the extension would require a separate bridge crossing
over County Ditch #9.
14
· Consider relocating the proposed trail between Lots 11 and 12, Block 11 and Lots 12 and
13, Block 10, to the edge of the County Ditch instead of jogging between the lots.
· Consider relocating the trail along Kalenda Avenue to the west side of the R-O-W so that it
connects to the trail proposed along the south side of 52nd Street.
· Consider extending the proposed trail along the south side of 52nd Street to the eastern
edge of Outlot E.
· Consider requiring a trail along the south side of CSAH 18.
· Consider requiring the PUD concept plan to be amended to show trail locations within
proposed future Phase 3. Said trails should be located in areas where future connections
between the parks/open spaces can occur (i.e. trails should not be planned through
wetlands).
· Consider requiring the trail system to connect the parks within the PUD, and to provide a
connection between the CSAH 18 trail system and the shoreland park proposed along
Swamp Lake.
· Consider requiring the trail system to provide links to existing/proposed trails within St.
Michael.
· The Zoning Ordinance requires lands to be dedicated as "parks, trails or public open
space" on the plat instead of the easements as proposed on the PUD concept plan.
Consider requiring the preliminary plat to be amended accordingly.
· Consider requiring the PUD concept plan and preliminary plat to be amended to dedicate
30 foot "park" or "trail" areas instead of the 20' easements shown on the plans.
· Consider relocating the trail proposed to be located directly west of proposed Lot 1, Block
11, further to the west (adjacent to the east side of County Ditch #9).
As an alternative to the trail system proposed, the City may wish to consider a sidewalk system to
be constructed along the entire length of proposed Kahl Avenue and possibly future Kagen
Avenue and Underwood Lane. These three streets will carry a large amount of traffic, as they will
connect to CSAH 18 and with the City of St. Michael. Sidewalks would provide for pedestrian
circulation with maintenance (snow removal) to be done by the adjacent lot owners. The sidewalk
alternative would provide a safe place for people to walk and serve as a means to connect the
entire development to the park system, the proposed trail located adjacent to County Ditch #9 and
ultimately the shoreline of Swamp Lake. The Planning Commission will need to make a
recommendation to the City Council as to the location and types of trails and/or parks that should
be required.
Trail dedication standards require the developer/owner to construct trails as shown on the
Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. The cost for installation of trails shall be counted as
credit toward the above mentioned park dedication requirement. Trails and/or sidewalks, if
required, may be located within the public right-of-way and shall be constructed to city standards
as is required by the City Engineer.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities. Exhibit E shows plans for grading, drainage and utilities. The
Zoning Ordinance requires that low floor elevations adjacent to wetlands and watercourses be
identified. The grading plan does not identify the 1 DO-year flood elevation for County Ditch #9
and therefore does not contain sufficient information to assure compliance with this section of the
Ordinance.
15
. ,
The majority of proposed storm water management ponds do not have access provided to them
for maintenance purposes. As it will ultimately is the responsibility of the City to maintain the
storm water system and periodic dredging of said ponds will likely occur, access to the ponds
must be provided for in the preliminary plat.
The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances set forth driveway spacing, elevation and setback
requirements. It is suggested that the preliminary plat grading plan be amended to show the
required driveway information.
All grading, drainage and utility issues shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer. Except by written authorization by the City Engineer, the top of the foundation of all
structures shall be one and one-half (1 1/2) feet above the grade of the crown of the abutting
street( s).
Streets. The PUD concept plan and preliminary plat were developed showing 60' of R-O-W for
CSAH 18. Wright County has issued two letters concerning the proposal which are attached to
this report as Exhibits H and I. The original response indicated that a 60' R-O-W would be
required however, a subsequent response from the County indicates that 65' of R-O-W is desired.
The preliminary plat will need to be amended accordingly to provide for the 65' dedication.
The Subdivision Ordinance specifies the need to provide for temporary turn around facilities for
streets that will not be extended with current projects. As such, the preliminary plat will need to
be amended to provide for temporary turn-around facilities at the following locations:
. The east and west limits of proposed 52nd Street
· The north limits of proposed Kalenda Avenue
. The west limits of proposed 53rd Street
. The southern limits of Kagan Avenue
. The southern limits of Kaiser Avenue
The Subdivision Ordinance limits the number of units which may be platted on local and minor
collector streets without providing a second street access int%ut of the subdivision. The
application of this provision will limit the developer to three building permits within Phase 2 of the
development until such a time as the entire length of Kahl Avenue/4th StreeUKallard Avenue is
installed.
City Engineer, Pete Carlson will provide additional review comments for issues related to the
proposed streeUtransportation network within the project, under separate cover.
Planned Unit Development Agreement. The City Attorney will draft a PUD agreement which will
include all development plans and specifications. The agreement shall set forth specific land use
and performance standards which must be adhered to throughout the life of the PUD. City staff
will review and comment on the development agreement which will then be approved and
finalized by the City Attorney.
16