Loading...
2000-08-21 CC Findings of Fact )" .~ CITY OF ALBERTVILLE 8/21/00 City Council Findings of Fact and Decision Applicants Name: Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) Homer H. Thomokins III. President Request: CPDC has submitted plans for development of 150 single family lots in a neighborhood called Towne lakes PUD. The property includes 85 acres located between School and Mud lakes in the northeast quadrant of Albertville. The application requests a rezoning from R-1A, low Density Single Family Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; a CUP/PUD and variance under the Shoreland Regulations and a preliminary plat. Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 21, 2000 Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the City Council makes the folllowing findings of fact and decision: 1. The legal description is attached as Exhibit A. 2. The planning report, dated July 7, 2000, prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. is incorporated herein. 3. The requirements of Sections 400,500,4800, and 4900 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance have been reviewed in relation to the proposed plan. 4. The proposed development will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 5. The proposed development will not unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. 6. The proposed development will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 7. The proposed development will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of this Chapter. 8. The proposed development does not violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. The development of 150 lots on 85 acres is a density of 1.76 units per acre. 10. The proposed development meets the criteria for variance in that the land is encumbered by wetlands and utility easements that limit the location of buildable property and the plan preserves significant trees and provided a shoreland buffer. 11. The developer is proposing a plan that creates a single-family residential neighborhood with 20 acres designated for park and open space amenities. 12. The property is unique within the community in that it is located between two natural enviomment lakes. 13. The plan incorporates tree preservation, wetland mitigation and enhancement, a shoreland buffer, landscaping in excess of the ordinance, open space in excess of the olrdinance, and public and private design features that make the neighborhood and PUD proposal unique. 14. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications on July 12, 2000, and no member of the public submitted written or oral objections to the plan. Recommendation: Based upon the findings and applicable ordinances, the City Council hereby approves the PUD/CUP, preliminary plat and variance under the Shoreland Regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. All actions on this item are contingent upon successful completion of the EAW process. Any required modifications to the plan will require resubmittal to the City. No final approvals should be granted until the EAW is complete. 2. No rezoning of the property shall occur until the final plat is approved by the City Council. 3. The plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. A PUD agreement shall be drafted by the City Attorney and shall incorporate all items related to the design flexibility and the responsibilities of the developer and the City regarding improvements. 5. Homeowners Association documents shall be submitted and are subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 6. The Plans are subject to review and comment of Wright County. { 7. The plans are contingent upon issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and a permit under the Wetland Conservation Act. 8. Written approval shall be obtained from the DNR. 9. House designs acceptable to the City shall be submitted to demonstrate the ability to build on the smaller lots. 10. Park dedication shall be 20% of the 85 acre site. 11 . Sidewalks sahli be installed by the developer on both sides of the loops street as part of roadway construction. 12. Trails identified within the plat shall be installed by the developer with a material to be approved by the City. 13. Tree trimming within the development shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 14. A second access into the site shall be addressed as phasing of the project proceeds... _ Adopted by the Albertville City Council this 21st day of August, 2000. City of Albertville ATT~ By: ~ ~ Linda Goeb, City Clerk .)" ..~ CITY OF ALBERTVILLE 8/21/00 City Council Findings of Fact and Decision Applicants Name: Contractor Propertv Developers Comoany (CPDC) Homer H. Thompkins III. President Request: CPDC has submitted plans for development of 150 single family lots in a neighborhood called Towne Lakes PUD. The property includes 85 acres located between School and Mud Lakes in the northeast quadrant of Albertville. The application requests a rezoning from R-1A, Low Density Single Family Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; a CUP/PUD and variance under the Shoreland Regulations and a preliminary plat. Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 21, 2000 Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the City Council makes the folllowing findings of fact and decision: 1 . The legal description is attached as Exhibit A. 2. The planning report, dated July 7, 2000, prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. is incorporated herein. 3. The requirements of Sections 400,500,4800, and 4900 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance have been reviewed in relation to the proposed plan. 4. The proposed development will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 5. The proposed development will not unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. 6. The proposed development will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 7. The proposed development will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of this Chapter. 8. The proposed development does not violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. The development of 150 lots on 85 acres is a density of 1.76 units per acre. 10. The proposed development meets the criteria for variance in that the land is encumbered by wetlands and utility easements that limit the location of buildable property and the plan preserves significant trees and provided a shoreland buffer. 11. The developer is proposing a plan that creates a single-family residential neighborhood with 20 acres designated for park and open space amenities. 12. The property is unique within the community in that it is located between two natural enviornment lakes. 13. The plan incorporates tree preservation, wetland mitigation and enhancement, a shoreland buffer, landscaping in excess of the ordinance, open space in excess of the olrdinance, and public and private design features that make the neighborhood and PUD proposal unique. 14. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications on July 12, 2000, and no member of the public submitted written or oral objections to the plan. Recommendation: Based upon the findings and applicable ordinances, the City Council hereby approves the PUD/CUP, preliminary plat and variance under the Shoreland Regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. All actions on this item are contingent upon successful completion of the EAW process. Any required modifications to the plan will require resubmittal to the City. No final approvals should be granted until the EAW is complete. 2. No rezoning of the property shall occur until the final plat is approved by the City Council. 3. The plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. A PUD agreement shall be drafted by the City Attorney and shall incorporate all items related to the design flexibility and the responsibilities of the developer and the City regarding improvements. 5. Homeowners Association documents shall be submitted and are subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 6. The Plans are subject to review and comment of Wright County. [ 7. The plans are contingent upon issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and a permit under the Wetland Conservation Act. 8. Written approval shall be obtained from the DNR. 9. House designs acceptable to the City shall be submitted to demonstrate the ability to build on the smaller lots. 10. Park dedication shall be 20% of the 85 acre site. 11. Sidewalks sahli be installed by the developer on both sides of the loops street as part of roadway construction. 12. Trails identified within the plat shall be installed by the developer with a material to be approved by the City. 13. Tree trimming within the development shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 14. A second access into the site shall be addressed as phasing of the project proceeds._ . _ Adopted by the Albertville City Council this 21st day of August, 2000. City of Albertville A~ By: ~ ~ Linda Goeb, City Clerk -...-- , /../2'"'" -/- ---;",",.-.1_- / J" . 'Y:..:'; U6-./6't-C/~~ r- /'\., ~ . "'" 'if'T. i4J...' r,tr', II ~ - / , / - / Z -0/ (!! '. .;fii~ I ~/ Pennit Applicatic'.. C:UrlITtJerll5 ,",r. , .' . I Basin 3 is currently a w..:ciand, which will be vartjally excavated and self mitigating. . There is an expectation h~r~ to get mitigation credit for conversion of one wetland type~o another. Based on the plan and the wetland permit there is no "new" wetland being created here only wetland type conversion. At a minimum, what they are attempting to do here needs further explanation. Basin 3 is a type 2/3 wetland that still maintains some native vegetation. By disturbing this wetland through filling and excavation it is very likely that the native vegetation will be removed or at least highly impacted. Basin 3 is the one wetland area of the project site that maintains a native vegetation population and this vegetation should continue to be maintained if not enhanced by no impacts. It is contradictory to say that the proposed project will increase public value of wetland areas by creating planted wetland areas while a wetland with some native vegetation is impacted. The natural Type 3 wetland with native vegetation should be protected and avoided. Basin 4 - It is unclear why this basin needs to be impacted (other then lot arrangement). If the same argument holds true that the hydrology will be affected for this basin, how could the mitigation area, being over twice the area of the existing basin have enough hydrology to support it (as stated on Page 5 of the application)? Basin 5 - this wetland is adjacent to a proposed park and could be incorporated into the parkland by rearranging the lots in the area. This would avoid wetland impacts and still provide some hydrology to the wetland. There is substantial open space (i.e. "green space") In the development which is good to see. However, this is not addressing why impacts to the existing resources (wetlands) are occurring. To trade more open space (manicured parkland) for existing wetland resources doesn't meet the requirements of the regulations. There is no direct discussion on this issue. Why impacts to the existing resources cannot be avoided or minimized other then they were "avoided or minimized to the extent practicable" as stated on page 5. I would question this since there is so much open green space shown on the plans. It appears that the open space is preferred over trying to protect the existing resources from being impacted in order to create the preferred design. This is not sufficient and does not meet the avoidancelminimization criteria. This project does not meet the required avoidance or minimization to the maximum extent practicable as required under the LOP standard conditions section. The wetland areas could all be incorporated as open space by redesigning the prc:>ject. Based on the proposed plan it does not appear that some of the lots meet the State of Minnesota setback requirements for lots in the Shoreland Protection Zone of 125 feet. In fact the developer has been granted a variance from the City of Albertville Shoreland Ordinance being contingent upon MNDNR approval which has not given their approval at this point. I ;'DO UOVfcS $€H ~c..