Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 07-29-13THE CITY O LAKE ELMO 3800 Laverne Avenue North (651) 747 -3900 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, July 29, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. July 22, 2013 4. Business a. PRELIMINARY PLAT — LENNAR HOMES. The Planning Commission will consider a Preliminary Plat application submitted by Lennar Homes. The application includes a proposed 310 unit residential development in the I -94 Corridor Planning Area. 5. Updates a. City Council Updates b. Staff Updates i. Upcoming Meetings: • August 12, 2013 • August 26, 2013 c. Commission Concerns 6. Adjourn THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 22, 2013 Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:01 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Haggard, Larson, Morreale, Dodson and Kreimer; COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Reeves and Dorschner; and STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt, City Planner Johnson and City Administrator Zuleger. Approve Agenda: The Planning Commission accepted the agenda as presented. Approve Minutes: June 24, 2013 M /S /P: Kreimer /Dodson, move to accept the minutes of June 24, 2013 as amended to include mention that the Hammes Estates Sketch Plan lacks a neighborhood park, Vote: 4 -0, Motion Carried, with Haggard not voting. Public Hearing: Savona Preliminary Plat— Lennar Homes Klatt began the Staff presentation by explaining the Planning Commission's role in reviewing preliminary plat applications. He noted that plat applications are subject to the City's Subdivision Ordinance, wherein the rules of land subdivision are established. These ordinances include provisions related to grading, streets, utilities, storm water management and other considerations related to establishing new subdivisions or other development. Klatt moved on to present a general overview of the Preliminary Plat application submitted by US Homes Corporation (Lennar Homes). The subdivision is located on 112 acres and includes 310 residential units. He then provided a location map that highlighted all the parcels of land that are included in the application. He also described the existing land uses that surround the proposed subdivision. Regarding utilities, Klatt noted that the applicant and other landowners in the area have submitted a petition to extend sanitary sewer and water to the proposed development site west of Keats Avenue North (CSAH 19). This project would extend utilities throughout the Stage 1 development area identified in the Comprehensive Plan, making Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 connection to sanitary sewer and water possible for other parcels in the area. The project also includes a lift station. Klatt noted that the parcels included in the application are currently zoned Rural Development Transitional (RT). As far as the history is concerned, the Planning Commission reviewed a Sketch Plan on December 10, 2012. In addition, the City Council approved the Environmental Assessment Worksheet required for the project on July 2, 2013. Regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan, Klatt explained how the proposal relates to the City's Planned Land Use Map. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use, density and expected number of residential units for the area. Klatt noted that the proposal shifts the minor collector road in the 1 -94 Corridor to the south. This change enlarges the area guided for Low Density Residential, as the collector road serves as the boundary in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Moving on, Klatt described how the proposed subdivision compares to the City's zoning districts. He highlighted the basic details of the proposed residential lots that will be included in the subdivision. Getting to the plat application itself, Klatt presented the basics of the proposal. In addition, he gave an overview regarding the Staff Report. Regarding action, Klatt noted that Staff has identified 27 conditions of approval. The largest of these included the greenbelt buffer of 100 feet, there needs to be adequate room for a 30 foot trail set back to the exception lot, the developer is responsible to install new median and a trail connection across Keats to the East and the full 10% park dedication. There were also a number of Engineer conditions that including a secondary access and realignment of the street. These conditions would be required to be resolved in advance of Final Plat approval. Klatt noted that the developer has requested to modify conditions 17, 18, and 24. Staff recommends that language can be added to condition #18 to allow secondary access to the north. In addition, Staff is comfortable with the language proposed for condition #24 related to the 429 public improvement project. Klatt did note some base findings for the Planning Commission. In addition, Klatt noted that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the preliminary plat application for approval to the City Council with 27 conditions of approval. Morreale noted that he is confused regarding the density in the proposal. He felt that the proposal should adhere to the low end of the allowed density range, which is 2.5 units per net acre. Klatt explained that the comprehensive plan approved a range of density that was 2.5 to 4 and was not specific to numbers. Klatt also stated that it should be noted that this proposal is described in net density terms, which includes the park and open areas as well. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 Haggard asked about the requirements of parkland dedication vs. open space. Klatt noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not require open space, but it is encouraged. The Subdivision Ordinance requires parkland dedication at time of subdivision (10% in this case). Haggard also asked what the fee in lieu of parkland dedication would be. Klatt noted that it would be the equal market value of 4.6 acres. He did not venture what that would equate to. Williams asked what the determination of the Park Commission was regarding the Savona concept for parkland. Klatt noted that Staff did locate the minutes for that meeting. There was no formal motion from the Park Commission regarding the Savona Concept. Williams also asked about acreage of Reid Park. Klatt stated that Reid Park is 2.6 acres with parking, 1.9 acres without. Larson asked about the park structures included in the tot lot. He would like to see seating and shade for people to watch their children. Morreale asked why the City would accept fee in lieu of land dedication when there is a need for more parkland. Klatt noted that the Parks Commission has expressed concern about the City's ability to maintain additional parkland when there is a need for maintenance for the City's existing facilities. Staff felt that this development was so close to the Park Preserve that people in this development would probably use those facilities in addition to City parkland. Kreimer asked if the applicant has to present the types of homes they intend to build, including information about pricing and architectural style. Klatt noted that this type of information is typically not reviewed in a plat. Dodson asked about the budgetary /financial implications of the new development proposal. Administrator Zuleger noted that sewer and water extensions costs come from enterprise funds, and the tax revenue from the new homes will pay for additional public safety considerations, such as sheriff deputies and fire protection. Haggard asked about the pedestrian crossings of 5 I Street. Klatt noted that with any improvement there would be a crosswalk, but no controlled intersection. Administrator Zuleger also noted that there is a 10' bituminous trail on the north side of Sch Street and 6' sidewalk on the south side of 5th Street. These facilities will aid pedestrian circulation on 5th Street Haggard asked about the architectural design of the townhome area. Klatt noted that the applicant has not submitted any additional information and that it is not required until the final plat. Williams noted that there is only so much level of detail that the City can evaluate the proposal on at Preliminary Plat. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 Ell Morreale asked if the City is allowed to make the developer lower the density of the proposal to 2.5 units per acre. Klatt noted that the Planning Commission would have to make findings that support why the request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Klatt noted that the proposed density currently does comply with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. If the City wanted to stick to the 2.5 units per acre density requirement, the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to reflect this requirement. Williams asked about Outlot K. Klatt noted that the area includes all the common areas of the townhome portion of the development. Johnson noted that Outlot K is private and would be part of the Homeowners Assoc. for the townhomes. This is consistent with a common interest community and the roads in Outlot K are private. The townhome area will also require a CUP for the current configuration. Williams asked about the wording of Condition #17, 18, and 24 per the applicant's request. Klatt shared the requested language of Condition #17 would be to work with the engineer to find the best solution for the road alignment, 18 would be that there be a secondary access to the north and 24 would be that there would be no final plat approval until the order of the 429 improvements. Joe Jablonski, Lennar Homes, spoke representing the applicant. Regarding the discussion of density, he noted that the gross density of the single family area is 2.04 units per acre. The net density is driven up to 3.0 units per acre due to the open space, storm water facilities, and roads that are included on the site. Regarding different elevations and architectural styles, Mr. Jablonski highlighted the variety that Lennar brings in an attempt to avoid redundancy. There are currently 6.1 acres in park land and that number could go up if the tot lot in the townhome area was included. In terms of open space and ponding, Jablonski noted that there is 26.6 acres. Regarding 5th Street, Mr. Jablonski noted that Lennar's vision for 5th Street is very similar to the City's vision. He noted that the design of the parkway makes a good pedestrian environment. Moving on, Jablonski spoke about the townhome portion of the plat, noting that there is sufficient parking to serve the site. He also spoke about Condition #17, pertaining to the alignment of Streets A and E. He noted that Lennar is opposed to the alignment because they are concerned that this alignment would encourage speeding. Dodson asked about the finances of the Common Interest Community. Jablonski noted that there would be financial reserves for the structures, landscaping, streets and other elements as dictated by the state of Minnesota. Morreale noted that it looks like the applicant is proposing a nice community. He wanted to know who is responsible to maintain a large portion of the landscaping. Jablonski noted that the open areas would be maintained by the HOA. Home owners would be responsible to maintain the trees in front of their property. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 Public Hearing opened at 8:35pm. Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave. N., noted that he would like to talk about density and parks. He noted that he does not think that it is appropriate for kids to play in the street. He also noted that he is concerned about the parking facilities in the subdivision. The second issue that he wanted to discuss was the density included in the proposed subdivision. He is concerned that the neighborhood will not be a quality environment. He feels that the neighborhood is too dense. Greg McGrath, 15th St. Ct., asked where the funding is coming from for the utilities. Zuleger noted that the extension is being assessed to the property owners. McGrath asked where the water utility is coming from. Zuleger noted that the temporary solution is from Oakdale. The system will be hooked up to the Lake Elmo City water system once water is extended down Inwood Ave. North. McGrath then inquired about the Landscape Plan of the proposal. He asked who is responsible to ensure performance. Zuleger noted that the City will not release the financial credit for the landscape plan until the plan has been fully executed. Williams asked Staff if there have been any written comments submitted. Klatt stated that there were no other written comments received. Nancy Andert, noted that the 697 Julep Ave. sewer will be N., asked where sewer will be extended from the Eagle Point dug to serve the site. Klatt Business Park along Hudson Blvd. to Keats Ave. north to a lift station to the north of the subject parcel. Public Hearing closed at 8:48pm Morreale began the discussion by talking about the City's park system. He noted that the Stonegate Park is not large enough to serve all of the homes that are prepared for this area. In addition, he noted that he is concerned about on- street parking. Finally, Morreale noted that he prefers that the trail follow closer to the Lennar subdivision as opposed to closer to the Stonegate neighborhood. Larson asked if the property to the north could collaborate with Lennar on a larger, more traditional park to serve the entire area. Zuleger noted that the Parks Commission made recommendations about adding parkland in the north central area of the Hammes property. Larson asked if the residents of the proposed development could walk to the park in the Hammes neighborhood. Staff confirmed that the park that ultimately serves the Hammes property would be accessible to the residents of the Lennar neighborhood. Dodson asked about transit facilities that may serve the site. Zuleger noted that 5`" Street would be able to be served by local transit service. Johnson stated that transit planning is always being evaluated by Metro Transit when Comprehensive Plans are amended. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 M Haggard addressed the comment made by Mr. Prowse, recommending that the City only allow parking on one side of the street. She said that this recommendation is based on consideration for public safety and children walking and biking in the neighborhood. Klatt noted that the City's base standard is a 28' wide street. The City also requires 2 off street parking spaces per home and additional parking for multi - family. Haggard noted that she prefers parking on one side of the street only and no overnight parking. Morreale and Dodson both noted that it is difficult to eliminate on- street parking completely. Currently the City parking ordinance allows a 48 hour maximum. Williams noted that he could not find any conditions related to the required permits for watershed district. Klatt stated that it is part of the engineers report and is covered under Condition #11. Kreimer noted that he did not agree with the realignment of Streets A and E. He suggested deleting Condition #17. Next, Kreimer noted that the Landscape Plan utilized Linden Trees, which tend to be negatively affected by Asian Beetles. Williams commented that species should be conditioned upon salt tolerance and other considerations. Moving on, Kreimer noted that 51h Street may be moved to the South. He noted that he has concern about moving the plat forward when this issue is not resolved. Klatt noted that if they have to revise their plat, it would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Kreimer also asked about the alignment of Street A with the proposed development to the North. Regarding the trail along Stonegate, Kreimer wanted to ensure that this is moved further south. Kreimer noted that he feels strongly that there should be more parkland in the neighborhood. He suggested having a joint park between the Lennar and Hammes. Haggard asked about parking considerations. Klatt noted that the conditions only address the items or requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Code, or Comprehensive Plan that are currently lacking. If the Planning Commission wishes to have a broader discussion about parking, Klatt recommended evaluating parking City wide as opposed to subdivision by subdivision. Zuleger suggested adding to Condition #3 & #4 that the trail in Outlot A be move to the south closer to the Savona neighborhood. This would meet the spirit of the greenbelt buffer agreement. Williams asked for a straw vote. First, he asked if there should be more parkland in the plat. Most of the Commissioners agreed that more parkland would be prudent. Klatt presented information about neighborhood parks vs. regional parks. He also mentioned that the City was looking for some park dedication money to help fund a future community sports complex in the Village Area that would serve the entire Lake Elmo community. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 M /S /P: Williams /Morreale, move to postpone consideration of the Plat until the Planning Commission receives consultation regarding the parkland from a member of the Parks Commission, Vote: 5 -1, Motion Carried, with Haggard voting no. Larson asked if consideration of the parkland will include collaboration with neighboring properties. Morreale noted that he is still concerned about the parking issue. Klatt noted that parking is not directly addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance. He recommended not making parking regulations subdivision by subdivision. Rather, the City should evaluate parking ordinances City wide, not neighborhood by neighborhood. The Planning Commission had consensus regarding the changes related to other Conditions of the Plat: delete #17 and revise #4. Business Item: Zoning Text Amendment — Landscape Requirements. Johnson presented a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new section concerning landscaping that will replace three existing sections of the code that deal with landscaping requirements. Johnson reviewed the existing sections of the ordinance that address landscaping, including the Subdivision, Site Plan Review, and Open Space Preservation (OP) Ordinances. He stated that it is important to organize the landscape requirements into one location in the code. Johnson reviewed the general outline and requirements of the proposed landscape ordinance. Morreale asked if the ordinance requires a minimum caliper measurement of 2.5 inches versus 1 inch. Johnson replied that the new ordinance specifies minimum sizes of landscape materials, including trees, in Table 6 -1. Kreimer asked about a maximum height requirement on the Code. Johnson replied that this standard is referencing a situation with a berm. He also asked about the timing of tree plantings, and questioned if there was a way to allow the plantings to occur as homes are built. Johnson noted that he would look into other options related to the timing of tree installation. Dodson expressed concern over the approval of landscaping plans and how a developer could be held responsible for this work once their project is completed. Dodson asked i the ordinance could address situations in which a developer prefers to keep more open space or to restore native prairie areas, and if the City can require developers to plant trees that are native to Minnesota. Johnson explained that he would research this issue. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 Williams commented that the correct plant species for the correct area should be an important consideration of the ordinance. The Commission requested clarification on some of the specific aspects of the draft ordinance, and requested that Staff provide a red -lined version of the ordinance with any changes made by Staff prior to further discussion on this matter. Updates and Concerns There will be a special Planning Commission meeting on July 29th. The Lennar Development will be brought back and the staff will make an effort to have Parks Commission Chair Weiss and others there. Council update Council Update —The City Council adopted the Administrative and Enforcement Ordinance at the July 2nd meeting with some minor changes. They removed the design and demolition standards until the design standards manual is done. The City Council adopted the fence ordinance at the July 16th meeting with some minor changes regarding solid wall fences up to 6 feet on properties smaller than % acre. The City Council approved plans and specifications for the section 34 utility project at the July 16th meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm Respectfully submitted, Nick Johnson Planner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7 -22 -13 I .I IF CI.I.I. OF PLANNING COMMISSION LAKE ELMO DATE: 7/29/13 BUSINESS ITEM: 4A CASE # 2013 -22 ITEM: Savona Residential Subdivision — Preliminary Plat SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Dean Zuleger, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to continue its discussion on a Preliminary Plat request from Lennar Corporation for a 310 unit residential development to be located on 112.6 acres west of Keats Avenue and within the City's I -94 corridor planning area. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with a series of conditions as noted below. One of the reasons for tabling this request was to give the Park Commission an opportunity to address the Commission directly on issues that were raised concerning the dedication of park land within the proposed subdivision. Shane Weiss, the chair of the Park Commission, will be attending the July 291h meeting and will be addressing the Planning Commission at this time. The applicant has also submitted two different concepts for the larger park area within the Savona subdivision to illustrate the types of activities and improvements that could be accommodated within this dedicated park area. Additionally, Staff has prepared the attached list of responses to specific issues that were raised at the last meeting for consideration by the Commission. Because the Planning Commission tabled this item, Staff has not attached the previous meeting materials to this report, including the preliminary plat documents, detailed plans, and review comments. Please bring these materials from the last meeting; if you no longer have these documents please contact Staff and we will provide new copies for you. REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Based on previous Staff report and analysis and the attached response to issues, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with several conditions intended to address the outstanding issues and to further clarify the City's expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The revised conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: I) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following: a) the applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney; b) the applicant shall pay all fees associated with the preliminary plat; c) the applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat and plans meeting all conditions of approval. All of the above PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a — ACTION ITEM conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an application for final plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on the site. 2) The applicant shall dedicate a minimum of 30 feet of land around the "Exception" parcel in the northwest portion of the Savona subdivision to allow for the construction of an eight -foot bituminous trail to the western edge of the subdivision and to allow for sufficient room for drainage and utilities adjacent to "Street A ". 3) The applicant shall provide for a minimum green beltibuffer of 100 feet around all of the adjacent Stonegate subdivision, and must revise the preliminary plat in the vicinity of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 10 to properly account for this buffer. The eight -foot bituminous trail located within Outlet A shall be moved off of the property line of the adjacent Stonegate subdivision and shall be designed to continue into the property to the north and to provide a connection to "Street A ". 4)5) The trail within the green belt/buffer area must be located within the southern one- third or eastern one -third of the buffer and as close as possible to the lots within the Savona subdivision. -5)6) The sidewalk along "Street A" must continue along this street until its termination point at the northern boundary of the subdivision. 6)lhThe applicant shall work with the City and Washington County to identify and reserve sufficient space for a future trail corridor along the western right -of -way line of Keats Avenue. 74it.The landscape plan shall be updated to include tree protection fencing in all areas where grading will be near trees intended for preservation. 842L_The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by an independent forester or landscape architect in advance of the approval of a final plat and final construction plans. 4)101 Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the public street providing access to the multi - family housing portion of the subdivision. 11)The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements within the Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) right -of -way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated July 3, 2013. The required improvements shall include, but not be limited to: construction of a new median crossing, closure and restoration of the existing median crossing in this area, continuation of the planned ten -foot bituminous trail through the median, turn lanes, and other improvements as required by the County. 1-0412) The applicant shall observe all other County requirements as specified in the Washington County review letter dated July 3, 2013. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a — ACTION ITEM 4I41_The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed districts prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 4- 24j4L—The applicant shall submit revised preliminary plans that incorporate the changes made to the western portion of the preliminary plat, and specifically, the rearrangement of lots around the "Exception" parcel. 4- 3415L—The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat. 44) 1�The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City's Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording. 1- 5jIZL_Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision. 44418L—The applicant shall provide for an active recreation area (either public or private) within the multi - family portion of the subdivision. This area shall be sufficient for a small play structure or other similar improvement subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 17) The applieant shall 1A,Rrk ;vith the City Engineer to realign "Street A" and "Stfeet E" as one eontinuous through stfeet with a design that aeeemmadales the anticipated traW4e VOIUMe. The sire.,« ..r.,...la we ,.,... «:..,.,..... 1..,. «e..,..:... ,..._.,n;.,e... «,......:.:,.,. «„ .r..fr.,.speeds. 49)19)_No more than half of the residential units depicted on the preliminary plat (155) may be approved as part of a final plat until a second access is provided to the subdivision, either via a connection to Hudson Boulevard to the south or Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to the west. 4-9)2Q)_A,ny -A future realignment of 51h Street along the western border of the plat may be considered by the City Council as part of the final plat submission for this are provided the realignment does not result in any significant modifications to the preliminary plat. must-be approved by the Gity as an amendfnent to the preliminaFy plat. 29)2j_The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 2 -1-)22 _The preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be revised to address the comments from the City Engineer in his review letter dated July 9, 2013 regarding the size of specific ponds in relation to the drainage areas that are served by these ponds. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a— ACTION ITEM El 22421)_The preliminary plans must be revised to incorporate all proposed improvements within the 5`' Street right -of -way. All improvements as requested by the City shall be included in these plans and the design shall be consistent with City specifications and with the concept plan prepared for the City by Damon Farber and Associates. 23)24L_All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated July 9, 2013 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat. Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The applicant must provide the city a letter of approval to perform the proposed work in the BP Pipeline easement. Work includes installation of storm sewer pipe, grading activities, and relocation of the High Pressure Gas line, if necessary. b. The applicant must provide the city a letter of approval to perform the proposed work in the Electrical Transmission easement areas. Work includes installation of storm sewer pipe, grading activities, and stone water ponding. '^,'2�T�... «...�:...: «n.... «�M .. «.: « «off:...: «n... «�n«n n�.nn .«�.r i.e n rea • « h�u ��TTJJ erderingThe City will not accept an application for final plat approval until -of-the 429 public improvement project for Section 34 has been ordered by the City Council. If the City Council does not order this project, the applicant must revise the preliminary plans to provide adequate utilities to serve the subdivision. Any such plan revisions will be subject to review and approval by the City Council. 23}2j�)_The applicant shall secure any necessary permits for the multi - family area, including but not limited to a conditional use permit to allow for single family detached residences that do not have frontage on a public street, at the time a final plat is submitted for this area. 26}}21 The applicant is encouraged to preserve or re -use as many trees as possible that are currently located on the former golf facility property and to incorporate these trees as part of the landscape plan for the Savona subdivision. 22j23)_The applicant shall work with the Planning Director to name all streets in the subdivision prior to submission of a final plat. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Savona preliminary plat: • That the Savona preliminary plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. • That the Savona preliminary plat complies with the City's Urban Low Density Residential and Urban Medium Density Residential zoning districts. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a — ACTION ITEM That the Savona preliminary plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City's landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances. • That the Savona preliminary plat complies with the City's subdivision ordinance. • That the Savona preliminary plat is consistent with the City's engineering standards with one exception as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated July 9, 2013. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Savona preliminary plat with the 28 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: "Move to recommend approval of the Savona preliminary plat with the 28 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff' ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Response to Meeting Comments 2. Statement from Dale Properties 3. Concept Sketches for Park Area (prepared by applicant) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction.... Report by Staff Planning Staff Planning Staff - Park Commission Discussion .............. ............................... Park Commission Chair - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission. - Action by the Commission........ Chair & Commission Members Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a — ACTION ITEM Response Matrix Savona Preliminary Plat Pubic Hearing Questions Lake Elmo Planning Department — 7129113 The following issues and comments were raised during the public hearing and subsequent Planning Commission discussion concerning the Savona preliminary plat. Staff has identified the significant comments that were stated at the meeting and offers the following responses: Issue /Comment Staff Response Density of the proposed The City's initial work to determine appropriate densities within development the future sewer service areas (both for 1 -94 and the Village) used the gross acreages of current parcels to determine the overall number of REC units that was planned for development area. This allowed the City to prepare a plan that demonstrated compliance with the minimum REC unit thresholds that are established in the MOU between the City and Met Council without needing to study the development potential of each and every potential development site. Please note that these numbers therefore do not take into account how much area within each parcel could or could not be developed due to issues unique to each site (wetlands, open water, steep slopes, poor soils, heavily forested areas streets, trails, etc.). For purposes of determining an allowed density for the Comprehensive Plan, the City decided to use a net density calculation, which removes the areas devoted to streets, parks, wetlands, open space, and other similar activities outside of the actual areas that are developed. This results in a somewhat higher density calculation than would otherwise be achieved using gross acreages because you have less land in which to accommodate the same number of units. The benefit of using this system is that a developer only receives "credit" for land that can be developed, and put more bluntly, they do not receive any rights to develop land that otherwise cannot be developed. Focusing on the Savona development, the City's rough density calculations using 2.5 units per acre as the lowest permitted density projected that there would be 230 units built on the area guided for low density development on this property. The applicant is proposing to plat 188 residential lots, which is below the gross density amount. When translated to a net density calculation the density number increases to closer to three units per acre, but this is primarily due to the large amounts of road right -of -way, open space, and storm water management areas that have been planned as part of the development. Most importantly, the 3 units per acres is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the urban low density residential planning areas, which are guided for 2.5 to 4 units per acre net density. Use of density ranges in the In order to plan for growth within sewered development areas, Comprehensive Plan the City has chosen to differentiate between different residential land uses using a range of density values (expressed in units allowed per acre). It is a universally accepted practice in the planning field to deal with residential land uses in this manner since no two sites or development projects are going to be able to meet a specific density or unit count exactly. The ranges are intended to set a boundary between different types of residential uses while still providing enough detail to facilitate planning for transportation, utilities, parks, and other components of a comprehensive plan. In Lake Elmo's case, the Comprehensive Plan identifies residential development below 4 units an acre as low density, between 4.5 and 7.5 units per acre as medium density, and anything above 7.5 units per acre as high density. In the past, the City has only needed to establish a maximum density count for development in rural areas because there was no other land use category that allowed residential development. In order to achieve the REC unit counts as required under the MOU with the Met Council, the City must allow for densities that exceed those classified as low density residential. The City of Lake Elmo was successful in negotiating a modest reduction to the densities that would have otherwise been required by the Met Council prior to submitting the land use plan that was ultimately approved by the Met Council. The Met Council's policies require that Cities connecting to the regional sanitary sewer system adopt residential densities with a minimum of 3.5 units per acre. The City of Lake Elmo received approval for densities down to 2.5 units per acre at the low and of the range. More park space may be needed to The Planning Department will be presenting a map showing the serve the proposed development City's existing parks in the areas surrounding the Savona subdivision at the meeting. Staff has recommended that the City accept the park land dedications that have been included on the preliminary plat with the understanding that: 1) the City has 17 existing parks in addition to the regional park reserve that current provide recreation space for residents, 2) these parks all have maintenance and operational needs that must be met, 3) additional parks will be dedicated to the City as future projects are brought forward, and 4) construction of the planned trail improvements will provide a more significant benefit to the residents of the area than additional park space. The applicant will also be presenting a conceptual layout of the larger park area within Savona for consideration by the Planning Commission in order to better illustrate how this area could be used for park and recreation purposes. Park commission response Shane Weiss, who is the chair of the Lake Elmo Park Commission, has been asked to attend the Planning Commission meeting on July 291h to discuss the Park Commission's review of the Savona Plat and to review related park issues with the Planning Commission. Location of trails and pathways Staff has revised one of the conditions of approval to require that the trails be located closer to the Savona lots and further away from the adjacent properties. Park design The design for any park areas will need to be addressed by the City in the future. The Park Commission is presently working on a resident survey to determine the types of facilities and amenities that the City's residents would like to see in park areas. This work will be used to help guide future decisions concerning park improvement projects. Lennar was asked to prepare a conceptual layout of the larger park area within Savona using some of its existing developments as an example. These concepts are attached for consideration by the Planning Commission. Use of park fees in lieu of land The City's Park Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive dedication Plan, calls for a series of neighborhood parks along the 1 -94 corridor and a larger community park /sports complex that would be built in the Village planning area. Since land dedication requirements alone would not be enough to acquire the needed land for a community park, any fees in lieu of land dedication will ultimately help pay for this community -wide amenity. The City's Park Plan also plans for a fairly extensive trail system, which could be constructed using funds from the park fund. On- street parking The City has developed a standard for new streets that has been reviewed by Staff, including the City Engineer, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Planning Department. The streets proposed by the applicant are consistent with this standard, which has been designed to allow for parking on street while still allowing sufficient maneuvering room for cars and trucks on the street. All of the proposed streets are very low volume residential streets and will not see a large amount of traffic other than the trips generated by the residents within the neighborhood. In general, Staff does not anticipate that there will be significant demand for on- street parking within the Savona subdivision. In cases where a very heavy demand might be expected, a wider road width might be warranted. As with most development issues, there is always going to be a EI compromise between various design elements for a site. In this case, the proposed street width of 28 feet is a reasonable compromise that will keep the street somewhat narrow (which will help reduce speeds and calm traffic), while still allowing on- street parking in a manner that will not interfere with the ability to access the homes in this subdivision. Play areas and the use of streets by The Savona subdivision includes sidewalks and /or trails children throughout the development to help safely move pedestrians from one point to another. The proposed parks within Outlot F and Outlot K are intended to provide space for children to play. The use of the driving lanes within streets by pedestrians is generally discouraged for safety reasons, although the "complete streets" movement encourages streets to be designed for all users of a transportation system. By including sidewalks and trails and keeping the width of the roadways at a reasonable amount, the applicant has recognized that the streets will be moving more than just cars and trucks. Developer performance The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the City that guarantees the completion of all required improvements, including streets, trails, sidewalks, utilities, and landscaping. This agreement will be included as part of any application for final plat. The City has adopted a revised developer's agreement that is intended to avoid some of the non- compliance issues that have been observed in some previous subdivisions. Street "A" and "E" realignment At the direction of the Planning Commission, Staff has removed Condition #17, which would have required the applicant to realign two of the streets within the subdivision. Landscape plan review for One of the conditions of approval requires that the landscape appropriate trees plan be reviewed by a professional forester or landscape architect. One of the reasons for this review will be to ensure that the proper trees are being selected for the plan. Single family and townhouse design The City has decided not to require design review for single family homes, which compromise the majority of the Savona Plat. As currently drafted, the multi - family area will be subject to the City's design standards. This review will be conducted at the time of final plat review. Financial impacts of proposed The developer will be required to construct all improvements development within the subdivision that are required to serve the Savona Subdivision, including sewer, water, roads, and other required infrastructure. The applicant has also agree to participate in a regional assessment project that will assess all property owners in this area for the trunk sewer and water main extensions necessary to provide these service to the Savona site and all surrounding properties. Pedestrian crossings The proposed construction plans will include appropriate pedestrian crosswalks where sidewalks and trails cross 5t" Street EI and Keats Avenue. Townhouse outlots The applicant has indicated that the townhouses will be developed as a common interest community. This means that a homeowner's association would own all of the common property around the site structures. All structures will need to comply with the City's zoning regulations for yard setbacks, access, impervious coverage limits, and other requirements whether or not each home is platted on separate lot. Written comments Staff is anticipating that the developer of the property to the west of Savona (Amaris Homes) will be submitting comments opposed to the alignment of 51h Street as depicted on the preliminary plat. In particular, this developer would like to see the road moved further to the south order to provide a more optimal alignment through the property currently owned by the Louis Damiani Trust. At this point in time, the property owner (Dale Properties) has not come to any agreement with Lennar or the developer to the west concerning a realignment of the roadway. Dale properties has sent the City an email (attached) stating their willingness to continue discussions with both parties to make the requested adjustment before the final plat is recorded. As originally drafted, one of the conditions of approval noted that a realignment of 51h Street must be approved as an amendment to the final plat. Staff has suggested revising this condition to specify that the realignment may be completed prior to submission of a final plat for this area in order to provide the three impacted parties with additional time to negotiate on this matter. Revision to conditions of approval Based on discussion from the previous Planning Commission meeting, Staff has made revision to the recommended conditions of approval. In order to facilitate the Commission's review, the proposed changes are noted in the document. Kyle Klatt From: Alan Dale [adale @daletileco.coml Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:14 PM To: Kyle Klatt; Nick Johnson; Dean Zuleger Cc: steve.ach @lennar.com Subject: RE: Sonoma per plat - 5th Street Kyle, We support Lennar in their desire to keep 5th Street as located on the Lennar Preliminary Plat. I have exchanged emails with the Amaris Group about moving 5`h Street to the South. This move would relocate about 2 acres of valuable high density land to the Lennar parcel north of 5`h Street. This additional acreage is of marginal value to Lennar and not necessary for Lennar. I have asked Amaris to reimburse us for this lost 2 acres if the road is moved south. My understanding from Amaris's last email is that they were not willing to pay for this acreage. We remain open to discussions with Amaris and Lennar and if something can be worked out we can make the correction before the final plat is recorded. Our interest is to be reasonably compensated for the lost acreage. Thanks, Alan Dale Stonehenge USA 6007 Culligan Way Minnetonka, MN 55345 O: 952.288.2201 C: 612.718.3793 ada lera)stonehenoe- usa.com www.stonehenge-usa.com STONEHENGE USA From: Steven Ach [mailto:Steve.Ach(d) Len nar.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:07 PM To: Kyle Klatt Cc: Alan Dale; Joe Jablonski Subject: Sonoma per plat - 5th Street Kyle it sounds like Alan Dale needs to work out some details with the buyers of the Montgomery property before he agrees to moving 5th Street to the south. Given the short amount of time we have before the Planning Commission meeting I think for your review of our preliminary plat lets assume 5th Street will not be moving. Lennar wants to proceed with the plat as submitted. If you want to discuss please call me Thanks Sent from my iPad Steve Ach Land Acquisition Manager Lennar CONCEPT SKETCH PLAN L _ 110, ' fx J 07- 26 -2013 SAVONA 20121161 LAKE ELMO, MN Westwood CONCEPT SKETCH PLAN IN X \ / \ IN IN J 50' Q 07-26-2013 VONA 201 20121161161 LAKE ELMO, MN Westwood