1997-01-14 Planning Review
N
!RTHWEST ASSOCIATtD CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Steve Feneis
FROM:
Elizabeth Stockman
DATE:
14 January 1997
RE:
Albertville - Senior Housing
FILE:
163.06 - 97.01
Thank you for sending me your concept plans for a revised senior housing project in Albertville.
The site location is much improved over the previous site primarily due to land use and zoning
issues, not to mention the lack of wetland problems. The Center Oaks and Kenco (now Pilot Land
Development Company) land at the intersection of CSAH 19 and 57th Street is better suited to
increased residential densities given the adjacent collector and arterial streets. Furthermore, I
would suspect that opposition to the project should be little to none in this area without adjacent
(existing) single family residences. To facilitate detailed plan preparation prior to formal submittal
of the project, I have conducted a preliminary review of development issues:
1. The existing platted parcel owned by Pilot Land Development Company encompasses
6.25 acres, is zoned B-3 (Highway Commercial) and is designated for either commercial
or medium density residential development on the City's Land Use Plan. You also show
an additional 4.97 acres immediately south of here which is zoned R-1A (Low Density
Single Family Residential) and designated for low density residential land uses.
Your proposal will therefore require both an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan and rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
2. You are proposing 36 units of owner occupied quadraminiums on the 6.25 acres and 32
cottage homes plus 12 townhomes (both rental) on the 4.97 acres. This number of units
is appropriately within the City's medium density guidelines with regard to medium density
limitations (less than 10 units per acre).
3. The rental portion of the development will require approval of a plat to subdivide this peice
from the remainder of the land.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 16
PHONE 6 12-595-9636 FAX 6 12-595-9837
COTTAGES OF ALBER:
.
.
.-----
,
,
"
\
,
\
/,
/ \
\
\
\
\
I
,
\
J
.
J
J
I
I
I
I
- -----'no
\
\
\
,
I
\
I
\
\
\
/
/
/
,/
,-
t-/
0..'0
/
//
-T--"-/"!
I
,/
,/
"
,,"
--
_G\bb.... :
---1----- -1
" _.... - - - - -- - - q68 - - --
/1
-.......;A-=7Gb-, --
/", '
I '
W' ' "\
\ i
\',1,., ;=> \--l ,-
,~ --._--_._,/'/'
> '-~~"'::." _.-.. _ ....;;..;-.--"".-:-=--
- - - -- + -- -- :< - -1- _ - - -- -- - - ()
-.--- '-., q&6-_~
.' -...t
I I 1--
__--------..---- ------qb4. ()
. ~ -lfi-
I .... - . -- - -
.;
/
,/
....
\
\
\
\
\
I
a
z
<(
-3
--.J
~
':J
/,'lbb ,
\
\
,
....
\
\
_"< _ . ,L.
1- ...
\
',,""
~
6",
\
"
t - d
\
\
\
\
'.
'~...........
,
...- -1.-.----_,>-'<- -. -- ~ -./
....
"\
....
,
,
--
i --.----_
I ---
\--.,::"'i~l Une ~-..f PAf..:t:'.":oIC'E ...'::-:-rj
T Ht~::,,- .~I'.Ql DOb/.... - __, ~__,/
CONCEPT PLAN
CITY OF l~LBERTVILLE
J-
/
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
/~
J
STR.EET
~S6 .06
+
I
I
;J
0-
J
- /~
0..'O~
,
I
I
,
I
51TH
N.E.
I. J
----
IQ.e(04
"
.;"
----
o..rorJ --
./'
/.;/ 0.."\0----
,/ /
/
,
J
I -....",.
(y --
. /
" I /
0- j
I / I
\
\_/ ..../ \
.... \
I- I
1 \
I I
I
, i
1
I ,
I /
... ... - _.~
---
- -- -'--
...
....
....
_ ,-e -" - - - - C:1"/2 - - -- ------ - -"
. --. ------
- <:
9/0
- -968
--
-,
... c;,: :::. _' - - - - - - - - - - .- -I
,
\
\
....
...
,
\
I
./
"
,
....
/
/
\
\
"
,
,
--.."-
-.--
....
....... .... ~~. "'"
'f '.,' "h ~',1'<~ ..~-11"I;' ~lf: 1/4
- \. '.
--
....
...
....
---
/
/
/
/
,,--
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0..
I
,
,
I
\
I
\
\ r- I
"'u::/
If)
\)l
'1"
-----
/
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
I
,
--
....
....
..../
1
/
....
....
....~
~
,
~
:_ --I
----
....
,
,
,
,
\
\
,
....
\
\
\
\
\
,
..
,
"
....
.....
......,
....
.....
.....
1--
441.11
Sf ': ,)RNc f< l.}f' THt r~l~ i.f I >f' --
Sb.> 2. T!20N, R).l Ii
, I
I J
I ,
I 1
I ,
\ I
I I
\ I
\ ,
, \ I
I II
1"-""'11
: :'1
WIi ,..,
Z":l III
,,/ I
I '
'"\ \
W; \
>, \
~/ i\
~ \
:::J
~
~
I~
q
u\
-I
I I
I I
I I
() 1 ,
-0 I ,
cr- , I
I I
: ' l-<t
I 1 I ~
I IIW
I I , :z:
I , ~
, I '..c;
I I ~
I I I
I I I ()
I I I t\)
1 " .s:
I I 1 -l
I II
I II .j)
I , I G
I II W
I I I
I I I
i i 1
,I
, I
II
I I
"
\ ~
I"~
II
II
".
,I:.
I'
II
II
II
II
, I,
1\' '1
: \ ()
I \ ~I
LI
I I I
: i >-:
.... I I' /f'1,
, I I 'l...
IJ : ~:
, -r-I
'11\ cD'---,!
'1', I II/-'\
I ",I -,
~II' I I
II. I ~'
11,."1'.... I
~I\" I
:i i : ~' ;
() '" I
-0 II I I
cr- \I I I I
I II, '
J II I : I
1 \1 r '
II" 1 II
J I r . I 'L.
" . I Xf":'
I .
II I '
, 1/, ! I J'I
J\}r r -I \.l..I.
II.: ~J
110 ii'
I' 1 ,
,; I
" I
''''t. I I
'-0 I
I cr- I
, I I
I ,
I I I
,I .,-, I
I I I, I,
I "{.I \ I
I I I 'I
I I I I I I
" I
I . I. I \
I' I I I
,I ,
"I ,
I I I
I \ I I
_J) \ 1)(1 1 '
-:;.,...--r.. .-r-~--I
, ,! I'
'-, \ I "
rl'" I I I I
I I I I' 1 I
I \ I I I 1 I
I \' I I I
\ \ I, I I
\ ~: :: ' I
I" -0:
'I -0 '
cr-'
1
,
I
-j
.
.
4. Access to the sites has been shown as all interior, coming from 57th Street and other local
streets, however, the proposed alignments will need to be changed somewhat. The two
private street intersections and 4 private driveway intersections onto 57th Street is viewed
as excessive. I feel that the two private drive intersections are acceptable, but that there
should be no direct driveway access to 57th Street given the proximity to CSAH 19 and
large number of vehicles from areas further west which will ultimately use this collector
route. I like the U-shaped design of the private street and the fact that there are no cul-de-
sacs as in the previous plan.
The townhome/cottage home rental portion of the project also has some access problems.
If I understand the plan correctly, the rental community will not be tied into the quad
community via roadways. If this is the case, the proposed access to the rental community
must come from a public street platted as part of the project (ie: an extension of Kalland
Avenue). I would like to see the land further west of the rental community (all that you
have an option on) be included as part of the plat and PUD, so that we can establish the
necessary roadways and conceptually plan future development. This concept will be of
interest during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning process and will also
be critical in establishing the nearby park area. It would be best to process everything all
at once.
5. The amount of dedicated right-of-way for CSAH 19 must be reviewed and approved by the
Wright County Engineer.
6. A PUD zoning district shall at a minimum have a 35 foot front yard setback and 10 foot side
setbacks. The City Council may increase these standards as appropriate. No building
may be located less than 15 feet from the back of the curb along raodways which are part
of the internal street pattern. No building may be located closer to another building less
than one half the sum of the building heights.
All property line setbacks are acceptable, however the distances between some buildings
are not, like the center units of quad homes and those labeled townhomes. The setback
distance to the rental community on the south side is not adequate for the establishment
of screening and landscaping which will be required. A minimum of 20 feet must be
provided here to accommodate a large screening tree.
7. Living units classified as senior citizen housing, except as otherwise allowed by CUP shall
have the following minimum floor areas per unit:
Efficiency
One Bedroom
440 square feet
520 square feet
8. Parking standards for the proposed development as outlined in the City's Zoning
Ordinance require that two enclosed spaces per unit be provided for single, two-family,
townhouse (all rental units on the plan) and quadraminium (all owner occupied) units. The
garages must be a minimum of 20 by 20 feet in size. A total of 58 exterior parking spaces
2
.
.
have been provided in the rental community in addition to the driveway areas which are
available in front of garages, but only single garages have been shown. Since the rental
and owner occupied communities both meet the required number of stalls and since the
Zoning Ordinance requires only one parking space per unit for elderly/senior housing, I
would agree to waive the double garage requirement if this is acceptable to the Planning
Commission and City Council. The only risk I see in this is the rental of units to those
outside of the elderly/senior classification if not managed properly or if the development
should fail and be converted to other uses.
9. Although park and trail dedication requirements have not been discussed as of yet, recent
studies as part of the City's Park and Trail Plan have identified a need for a Neighborhood
Park just west of the site (adjoining the existing Parkside 3rd park) as well as connecting
trails. I have attached three draft plans relating to parks and trails which are to be
discussed on 14 January 1997 at the Planning Commission meeting. After this date, I will
be able to provide more detailed information as to the City's desires for park and trail
locations.
10. A landscape plan is required for the project which should be developed with emphasis on
the boundary or perimeter of the property and at the immediate perimeter of the structures.
The applicants have indicated that residents who own a unit within the development are
allowed to plant trees, shrubs and/or flowers in areas around their homes. While this can
be a positive aspect of the development, some consistency among plantings and softening
of structural elements is important for aesthetic purposes. It is my understanding that the
developer is in agreement with this concept. A landscape plan should be submitted for
review along with other required plans prior to formal application and scheduling of public
hearings on the project.
11. A detailed lighting plan is also required which shows the type, style, location and wattage
of lights to be used on the exterior of homes, to light parking/service areas, and to light the
streets and common areas.
12. A draft homeowners/renters association agreement should be submitted for review by the
City Attorney.
If you have any questions about issues highlighted herein, please do not hesitate to call. Although
there are issues to be resolved, I do not think they are as extensive as they were in the previous
proposal, so I think getting construction underway in the Spring is feasible. If possible, I would
like to meet with you again at the City Staff Meeting scheduled for 22 January. Please talk with
Gary about getting you on the agenda.
pc: Gary Hale
Linda Houghton
Pete Carlson
Mike Couri
Kent Roessler, Pilot Land Development Company
3