1996-10-29 Concept Plan Review
N
I RTH W EST ASS OC I AT'D CON S U L TAN TS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Gary Hale
FROM:
Elizabeth Stockman
DATE:
29 October 1996
RE:
Albertville - Senior Housing (Proposed Feneis Project - Marx Property)
FILE:
163.06 - 96.19
A concept plan for the proposed senior housing project was presented at the City Staff meeting
on 23 October. The project involves approximately 23 acres of property owned by Bernie Marx,
including the land upon which the Meadow View Plat was planned and eventually abandoned.
The current senior housing concept shows 56 rental town home units with each rental unit having
a private entrance and an attached single car garage. There are 36 carriage homes (sale units)
situated in clusters of four units per building. Each sales unit has a private entrance and an
attached two car garage. A community room is located in one of the rental buildings which
provides a public gathering space for all members of the rental unit association.
The process for review and approval of the project, including the identification of issues which
must be resolved, has been outlined as follows:
1. A public hearing must be held to rezone the property from R-1, Single Family to Planned
Unit Development.
2. Development density for the project was evaluated individually, as the owner and renter
occupied units will be located on separate parcels. There are 56 rental units on 8.73 acres
which yields 6.42 dwelling units per acre and 36 owner occupied units on 8.11. acres which
yields 4.44 units per acre. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary to
accommodate the rental housing which is classified as medium density. The
Comprehensive Plan shows the area as low density at the present time.
Whenever a Planned Unit Development is to be developed in stages, no such stage shall,
when averaged with all previously completed stages, have a residential density that
exceeds one hundred (100) percent of the entire Planned Unit Development.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 I 6
PHONE 6 12-595-9636 FAX 6 12-595-9837
.
.
3. The applicants have been warned of the potential neighborhood opposition to the project
and should be prepared to provide documentation in support of the project as well as basic
information, ie: project need/market study data, rent range/home prices, how units can be
guaranteed as senior only, etc.
Note: In December of 1995, Congress passed the "Housing for Older Persons Act of
1995". The new law removed the requirement that senior housing (55 years old +) must
provide services and facilities to meet the physical and social needs of older persons.
Projects can now be marketed as "Senior Only" without being discriminatory, if 80% of the
units have one person 55 or older.
For comparison purposes, the Meadow View project proposed 25 units on 9.37 acres of
property zoned R-3, Single and Two-Family Residential (with Conditional Use Permit
Planned Unit Development). This ratio yielded a density of 2.67 units per acre, inclusive
of eight two-family homes and nine single family homes. Neighborhood opposition to the
project revolved around the location of multiple family units adjacent to the single family
property, the price/value of the homes and concern that they would someday end up as
low income housing and/or rental housing.
4. A plat is required for the project to subdivide the land from the remainder of the Marx
property and combine the parcels into two lots (one for rental housing and one for owner
occupied housing). The plat must also include the extension of public streets that are
necessary to serve the project. The full eighty (80) foot width would have to be dedicated
for 57th Street so that access can be provided to the dwelling units from the north.
5. Given the past neighborhood opposition to the Meadow View plat, the biggest concern with
this project is the location of rental housing units which abut the existing single family
homes. While they can apparently be limited to senior citizen occupants, the density is
nearly double that of the owner occupied units. A better option would be to switch the
location of the two development types and locate the rental units closest to 57th Street.
This would create the best transition of uses from low to moderate and get the rental units
furthest away from the single family neighborhood.
6. The concept shows a system of private streets which make connection between 55th, 56th,
and 57th Streets NE as well as Lambert and Lachman Avenues (Lambert Avenue is the
street that abuts the site from Psyk's Addition to the south and Lachman Avenue is the
north-south street which will someday make connection with 57th Street).
The private streets are proposed at 24 feet wide, with no parking. Several concerns can
be raised with this aspect of the design. As was discussed, the number of access points
onto 57th Street must be minimized and is limited to intersections at 500 foot intervals.
The access points should be in alignment with access points across 57th Street, which
may require update of a portion of the Marx concept plan.
2
.
.
The proposed development is situated within an area of the City which is very limited in
terms of through street access given the location of the large wetland upon which the
property fronts. Therefore the establishment and interconnection of local streets is critical
for the proper movement of traffic. For this reason, it is recommended that the two primary
streets within the project be constructed at local, public street standards and possibly be
dedicated to the City. The first street is that which connects between 56th and 57th Streets
and the second makes connection between 55th Street and Lachman Avenue. This would
also eliminate the need for any cul-de-sacs. The approved Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(attached) shows these street connections as part of the overall development plan.
7. The site contains a large wetland which drains the majority of the Marx property. The City
Engineer has requested that a grading and drainage plan for the whole Marx property be
submitted for review along with detailed plans for the project area. A wetland elevation
needs to be established for the property which will dictate the amount of storm water that
it can accommodate from the region.
8. Living units classified as senior citizen housing, except as otherwise allowed by Conditional
Use Permit, shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit:
Efficiency Units
One Bedroom
440 square feet
520 square feet
9. A Planned Unit Development Zoning District shall at a minimum have a thirty-five (35) foot
front yard setback and a ten (10) foot side yard setback. The City Council may increase
these standards as appropriate. No building may be located less than 15 feet from the
back of the curb line along those roadways 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 of the two buildings.
Setbacks to adjacent single family development range from ten (10) to twenty (20) feet.
This is not an adequate area to provide separation from existing residences to the parking,
driveway and refuse areas or within which to provide a dense landscape screen.
10. 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 and quadraminium units. The garages must be a minimum of 20 feet by 20
feet in size. A total of 118 spaces has been provided for rental housing, but with only 56
enclosed spaces (62 other spaces).
The owner occupied development area does not include any designated visitor parking
which is separate from driveway areas. This is a concern given the 24 foot street width
and no parking requirement. A street constructed to city standards would allow space for
some on-street parking.
3
.
.
11. Park dedication requirements have not been discussed as of yet, although the applicants
have agreed to provide a multi-use trail around the wetland. Recent studies as part of the
City's Park and Trail Plan have identified a need for a Neighborhood Playground area in
the region of between 1 and 5 acres. Consideration should be given to dedicating land as
part of the plat, potentially located along Lachman Avenue. If the park need is not
accommodated with this plat, the facility will likely be acquired as part of future Marx or
Psyk subdivisions. Further discussion of recreational elements is required prior to project
approval.
12. 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. For this reason, we are
recommending that only a portion of ground area surrounding buildings be left for use by
residents and that landscaping be provided by the developer in other areas as units are
built. This is critical in the City as native vegetation is extremely limited.
13. 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.
14. A draft homeowners/renters association agreement should be submitted for review by the
City Attorney.
Many of the issues highlighted herein give an indication that the site is being over utilized. The
density of rental units is a critical factor which may cause some disagreement among Planning
Commissioners and City Council members (not to mention neighbors) given the recently
approved Comprehensive Land Use Plan which shows low density development in this area.
Consideration should be given to reducing the number of rental units to a density of less than 5
units per acre which would classify the development as low density.
Another option would be to investigate the usage of other portions of the Marx property where
multiple family development would be more appropriate. There is an area of medium density
development indicated north of 57th Street, just east of the commercial uses along CSAH 19. In
my opinion, anywhere along 57th Street which separates the proposed development from the
existing neighborhoods to the south would be viewed more favorably. This pessimistic feed back
is not meant to scare the project away, as the senior housing concept is very desirable in
Albertville, I am simply trying to be realistic in predicting the reaction to the proposal.
4
.
.
It would be a good idea for us to meet again with the applicants after you and they have had a
chance to review the issues highlighted herein. We could do this at the November staff meeting
or sooner if you wish. Before we take any proposal to the Planning Commission for a public
hearing, more detailed data is needed. The submission requirements of Planned Unit
Development (Development Stage) design as outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance have been
attached for reference. The City Administrator has requested that five sets of plans be submitted
to the City rather than ten as the attached information indicates. The sets must include both full
size and reduced scale (11x17) drawings.
If you have any questions regarding the project, please call.
pc: Linda Houghton
Pete Carlson
Mike Couri
Kevin Mealhouse
Steve Feneis
Bernie Marx
5
.
po c../k'~
.
-(
!., :-1
'<'I
c ,J
! I
J
.
!. I :
~:: \
\1.. "
uJ \ \ '. '\
Z 1\ \.' \
: \ \ \ \ \
~-., I.; \ \ \ i
I1J . \
> I . \ I
-<( Ii.. .. \
'. " '. \
,
'f"
"
_'&.~ ,--
:-w:c
f
/.
1
.;
l
.. I,'
II.'
i !
\
\
\
06TH
ST ~~t
./
\ '
. '.
~
l\
~\
t
~
~
~
~
1;.
S>.
l>.
~
" ~
._,-~",..-
>2 __ _"".~~~~
./
z
4:
~
:r:
,.
U I,
:s 1\
/
~ i
\
\
I
\ '
i:,'
\1
I.
I
'-
'\
-i
,
o
- -.
- -. - -- -. ~.
--.
ST
NE
./
"
5~,
- '1 )/..0
-j:v<.s v - '7
~v
.
.
(11) The Zoning Administrator may excuse an applicant from submitting any
specific item of information or document required in this stage, which it finds
to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal for PUD
approval.
(12) The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of any additional
information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to
full consideration of the proposed PUD or any aspect or stage thereof.
(b) Development Stage. Development stage submissions should depict and outline
the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD.
Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to
provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall
include but not be limited to:
(1) Zoning classification required for development stage submission and
any other public decisions necessary for implementation of the proposed
plan.
(2) Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans, drawn to a scale of not less than one
(1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet or scale requested by the Zoning
Administrator containing at least the following information:
a. Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor
be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore
recorded in Wright County).
b. Property boundary-lines and dimensions of the property and any
significant topographical or physical features of the property.
c. The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories
and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor
area, of proposed buildings, and existing buildings which will remain,
if any.
d. Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts,
parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other
circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site
coverage of all elements.
e. Location, designation and total area of all common open space.
2700-8
.
.
f. Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or
dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school
sites and recreational facilities.
g. Proposed lots and blocks, if any, and numbering system.
h. The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on
adjacent properties.
I. Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping.
J. General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD.
k. Any other information that may have been required by the
Planning Commission and City in conjunction with the approval of the
general concept plan.
(3) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which
final development plan approval is sought.
(4) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and
expected population.
(5) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial
and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.g. drug store, dry cleaning,
supermarket).
(6) Preliminary architectural "typical" plans indicating use, floor plan,
elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed buildings, including
manufactured homes.
(7) A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout,
design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights-of-way, utility lines and
facilities, lots, blocks, public and common open space, general landscaping
plan, structure, including manufactured homes and uses.
(8) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to
existing topography and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly
reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept
plan.
(9) A preliminary plat prepared In accordance with the Subdivision
Regulations of the City.
2700-9
.
.
(10) A Soil Erosion Control Plan acceptable to watershed districts,
Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other
agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to
be used during construction and as permanent measures.
(11) A statement summarizing all changes which have been made in any
document, plan data or information previously submitted, together with
revised copies of any such document, plan or data.
(12) Such other and further information as the Planning Commission,
Zoning Administrator or City Council shall find necessary to a full
consideration of the entire proposed PUD or any stage thereof.
(13) The Zoning Administrator may excuse an applicant from submitting any
specific item of information or document required in this Section it finds to be
unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal for PUD approval.
(c) Final Plan Stage. After approval of a general concept plan for the PUD and
approval of a development stage plan for a section of the proposed PUD the
applicant will submit the following material for review by the City staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
(1) Proof of recording any easements and restrictive covenants prior to the
sale of any land or dwelling unit within the PUD and of the establishment and
activation of any entity that is to be responsible for the management and
maintenance of any public or common open space or service facility.
(2) All certificates, seals and signatures required for the dedication of land
and recordation of documents.
(3) Final architectural working drawings of all structures.
(4) A final plant and final engineering plans and specifications for streets,
utilities and other public improvements, together with a City/Applicant
Agreement for the installation of such improvements and financial
guarantees for the completion of such improvements.
(5) Any other plan, agreements, or specifications necessary for the City staff
to review the proposed construction. All work must be in conformance with
the Minnesota State Uniform Building Code.
2700-10