Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.04.17The Excelsior Group Adelaide Landing Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Wetland Replacement Plan, Preliminary Plat, and PUD Monday, April 17, 2017 City Council Meeting Tonight we are holding a public hearing on a request for a minor subdivision and CUP 1 Highway 61 170th Street CSAH 8 Henna Ave Site 130th Street Goodview Ave Keystone Ave Homestead Ave 137th Street The property is located north of Frenchman RD (County Road 8) and west of Everton Ave. N. 2 City Owned Outlot The property to the north is zoned Low Density Multiple Family Residential (R-4) and occupied by the Pineview Meadows townhome development. The properties to the east, south, and west are zoned Single Family Detached Residential (R-3) and occupied by the Country Ponds, Beaver Ponds, and Birch Tree Ponds residential developments. The properties to the west, across Highway 61, are zoning General Industrial (I-3) and are occupied by industrial uses. There are also a few vacant parcels to the east that are also zoned Single Family Detached Residential (R-3). 3 Description of Request Approval of a preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) The property totals 216 acres, 146 buildable acres, comprising of 6 parcels. Use of the City owned outlot is proposed, but not include in acreage or density calculations The preliminary plat includes 319 single family units and 10 outlots. Tonight the City Council will also take action on the EAW and wetland replacement plan. 4 Show locations of streets. Blue is ponds. The light green is wetlands The darker green is upland, as shown in the park areas and trial locations. Most of the outlots will be owned by the City, except the homes in the street loops. I will go over more specifics of the development through my presentation. 5 Background A sketch plan was presented to the Commission and City Council. They commented on the following: Comfortable with the use of the City-owned outlot Reconstruction of 130th Street Provide landscape buffers Desire to preserve trees Appreciated the proposal for water reuse Concerns over the long road connecting the north and south ends of the development Concerns over the 45 ft. wide lots Liked the trail system and park location Questions about park improvement phasing 6 Background, Cont. Resident Comments and Concerns: Proposed density of the project Proposed lot sizes Traffic Location of proposed stormwater ponds They wanted to ensure that the Commissions and City Council kept the neighboring properties in mind during the approval process. 7 Environmental Review An EAW is required for any residential project over 250 units. The developer has prepared an EAW for the development. An EAW analyzes the effect the development has on the environment in regards to land use, geology, water resources, wildlife, air, noise, and transportation. 30-day comment period ended March 29th The applicant is proposing 319 new homes on this property. The minimum threshold for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) per MN State Statute is 250 units, therefore, an EAW is required. The developer has been working with City staff to prepare an EAW for the development. An EAW is a document that analyzes, at a preliminary level, the effects a development has on the environment in regards to land use, geology, water resources, wildlife, air, noise, and transportation. If there are significant impacts, mitigation measures should be made. The EAW is regulated by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) with the City acting as the Responsible Governing Unit (RGU) responsible for the preparation of the EAW and determining if an EIS is necessary. There is a 30-day comment period where the EAW is sent to several local, state and federal agencies and notice is sent to the surrounding properties. The comment period ended March 29th and tonight the Council would consider the comments from the agencies, as will as comments from the public, and determine if an EIS is necessary. No formal approval of the plan can occur until the EAW process is complete. And staff would anticipate the developer to make changes to the plan to address the comments generated from the EAW process. 8 Environmental Review, Cont. There were specific items identified in the EAW: Floodplain and wetland impacts were anticipated Mitigation measures are in place and are required to meet RCWD rules Stormwater management on-site will handled through drainage ponds and stormwater treatment. Water re-use Adequate sewer and water is available to the site. Traffic mitigation Short term – signal timing and geometric improvements Long term – Highway 61 improvements and turn lanes Floodplain boundaries can be revised 1.3 acres, out of the 57 acres total of wetlands are proposed to be impacts The stormwater management plan is also required to meet the RCWD Rules. Traffic – as approved by MnDOT There were other items were addressed Wildlife, connected wetlands and openspace for habitat Archeological resourced, which there were none The development would not generate noise exceededing the state noise standard If it was determined if that an EIS was not necessary the applicant can more forward with permitting and platting the land. 9 Environmental Review, Cont. Some agencies have commented on specific items that should be considered when the property develops. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the EAW at its March 23, 2017, meeting. Staff has prepared formal responses to all of the comments received throughout the process. The EAW has identified areas where potential environmental effect exists and has incorporated the appropriate mitigation measures into the project plan. Staff analyzed the EAW and project plan as it relates to State Rules and finds the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts, and therefore staff does not recommend an environmental impact statement (EIS). 10 Wetland Replacement Plan Approximate 57 acres of wetland 1.32 acres of wetland proposed to be impacted for road construction Purchasing wetland bank credits The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) reviewed the application and found that it meets all requirements for avoiding, minimizing, and replacing wetland impacts 11 Planned Unit Development (PUD) The use of the PUD zoning allows: Zoning ordinance flexibility to create a master planned development. Enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of zoning district standards. Greater variety of land uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. The PUD is tied to a specific general plan 12 PUD, Cont. The applicant is asking for various of lot sizes to allow for a variety of housing products. Flexibility for reduced lot width and setbacks. The Council has seen these lot sizes in developments such as, Victor gardens, Fable Hill, and Clearwater Cove. The maximum development density for a PUD in the R-3 zoning district is 4 units per 1 acre. The applicant is proposing a residential net density of 2.2 units per 1 acre, which fits the requirements of a PUD. Although the applicant is requesting flexibility on lot sizes and setbacks, the density meets the ordinance standards. 13 In exchange for this flexibility, the developer is: Designing a more sensitive proposal, with less density, than would have been the case with the use of the standard R-3 zoning district. Providing a public park within the development, with improvements that exceed City standards. Providing a public trail to connect to existing trails in the adjacent developments. Preserving and enhancing natural features with the trail system that meanders through the development. Providing a landscaping plan that exceeds City standards. Preserving existing significant trees on the property. Creating a stormwater reuse irrigation project within the development. Incorporating architectural design guidelines for the homes in the development 14 A homeowners association (HOA) is proposed for the development. There are three housing styles (single family detached homes, smaller single family detached homes, Villa homes) that are proposed within the development that would have their own homeowners association. All of the homes would be part of a Master HOA which will be established for the development to own/operate/maintain community areas, landscaping, and the water re-use system. The HOA would also establish an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to review and approve the home designs per architectural design guidelines. This entire area will be owned by the City and used as a public park, with improvements and trails. The applicant is showing sidewalks along one side of each street within the development. The plan shows a trail systems that will connect to the existing trail in Beaver Ponds, extends through the development bordering the proposed park, and will provide pedestrian access to 140th Street (CSAH 8). The applicant is showing a trail system that connects the residential areas to the park, as well as, to the adjacent neighborhoods and other nearby parks. The trail system will provide a recreational experience that takes advantage of the view sheds of the natural areas. Stormwater will be managed through ponds and Stormwater Reuse The development is proposed to be completed in 5 phases. Generally from the south to the north. The grading will happen in two phases. Generally all of the property to south will be graded with the first phase and the remaining property to the north will be graded with the second phase. 15 Streets and Access The applicant is proposing 3 access locations along 130th Street. And connections to 137th Street to the west, Flay Avenue to the north, and 135th Street to the east. Highway 61 and 130th Street is a signalized intersection and was designed assuming the development of the property. Long range plans for Highway 61 are to expand it to a 4 lane highway with a median. The applicant is showing a road connecting the north and south areas of the development. The applicant has done a good job addressing the concerns that the Council and Commission had regarding the previous plan showing a long road connecting the north and south portions of the development. 16 130th Street Improvements Currently a two-lane, rural section roadway Upgrade to a two-lane, urban section roadway Design Roundabout considered at Flay Avenue 8 foot wide bituminous trail on the north side Cost Share/Timing 130th is shown as a future improvement in the CIP Staff is discussing with the applicant the appropriate cost share and timing of the improvements. The developer cost responsibilities will be identified and included in the development agreement for the first phase of the project. As the proposed development moves forward, nearly all of the roadway segment between Highway 61 and Goodview Avenue will be developed on the north and south sides. 130th Street is currently a two-lane, rural section roadway. Staff recommended, and the City Council and Commissions agreed, during the sketch plan that the upgrade of 130th Street to an urban-section road between Highway 61 and Goodview Avenue should be completed with the development as outlined in the City’s long-range plans.   Staff has been working with the applicant on a number of items regarding the improvement/reconstruction of 130th Street. The design of the road is being discussed and the addition of a roundabout at Flay Avenue and 130th Street is being considered. The design will include an 8 foot bituminous trial on the north side. Staff is discussing with the applicant the appropriate cost share and timing of the improvements. Staff is anticipating a there be a City cost share in the project. 130th Street is shown on the road CIP as a future improvement. The developer cost responsibilities will be identified and included in the development agreement for the first phase of the project. The results of the EAW indicate the development can be accommodated, provided a number of improvements to 130th Street are completed. The existing signal timing at TH 61 and 130th Street will also require monitoring, with potential changes made by MnDOT. We have not come up with a cost share formula to recommend to the City Council, but the developers frontage along 130th Street is roughly ½. ** the developer of Beaver Pond contributed to 130th when they developed. 17 Park Dedication 7.8 acres of park land sports field area active park area with playground, multi-sport court, and park shelter 1.5 miles of trails and boardwalks in a passive park area 18 Park Dedication Above and beyond their required park dedication, the developer is: Grading and landscaping a public park within the neighborhood. Providing a public trail to connect to existing trails in the adjacent developments. Preserving and enhancing natural features with an off-road trail system that meanders through the development. Preserving existing significant trees on the property. There are park improvements identified that they City is would have the option to install at some time. Irrigation Parking lots Shelter Sports Court Play Equipment Etc. For the overall development, they are planning 5 phases. Phasing Plan Phase 1: city city-owned outlot and areas south of power lines (soccer field) Phase 2: areas north of power lines (north park, trails, etc) 19 3-22-17 Parks Commission Meeting Favorable of the park plan, off road trail system, and phasing plan. Comfortable with the use of the City owned outlot. Questioned if the amount of park dedication, paid by fee, would cover the cost of the improvements. Wanted to continue to work with the applicant on the timing of the park improvements that the City would be responsible for. Additional meetings will likely be held. Recommended approval of the park dedication proposal. 20 3-23-17 Planning Commission Meeting 8 residents spoke during the public hearing Questions/Concerns Number of lots created Connections to the park Traffic Buffers/preservation of trees Wildlife Drainage/flooding -Staff stated that the density of the development is less that was is allowed in the R-3 Zoning District. -The developer stated that they would add a sidewalk along 137th Street to connect to the neighborhood to the west and will work with staff on additional connections to the park from the adjacent neighborhood. -One resident asked for a tree line between her house, in the County Ponds neighborhood to the west, be preserved to create a buffer from the proposed pond and homes. -There were a few residents concerned about the wildlife being lost when the development is constructed. The EAW prepared for the development proposes mitigation measures for the wildlife during construction and did not anticipate significant loss in wildlife. -There were also a few residents concern about the drainage and flooding of their property because of the development. City Engineer, Mark Erichson, stated that the drainage will remain on the development property and is required to meet all stormwater management regulations determined by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). 21 3-23-17 Planning Commission Meeting Generally liked the plan and was pleased with the development layout, mix of housing products, park features, and the use of stormwater reuse for irrigation. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests, subject to the conditions on the resolutions, and the addition of two conditions: The developer shall work with staff on trail a connection to the County Ponds neighborhood to the west. The developer shall work with staff regarding moving the pond back from the rear lot lines of the County Ponds neighborhood to the west and review the trees in the area. The vote was 5 approvals and 1 abstention. The abstention resulted from a concern on the traffic along Highway 61. The Planning Commission requested to have a discussion with staff regarding the future of Highway 61. Staff has been working with the developer on the buffer and the trail connection. 22 The developer agreed to add a sidewalk along 137th Street. The developer agreed to work with staff on additional connections to the park. Existing area shown on the plans between the ponds on the rear lot lines is 15 feet. The developer is proposing to slightly increase the area from 15 feet to 20 feet from the rear lot lines of Country Ponds. Staff visited the property and most of the area is covered in brush and did not find significant trees. The EAW did not note any protected areas. 23 Conclusion Staff analyzed the EAW and project plan as it relates to State Rules and finds the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. The TEP reviewed the wetland replacement plan at it meets all WCA requirements. Staff believes that the layout of the proposed Adelaide Landing PUD general plan exceeds the City’s standards for residential developments. The rezoning/PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use and density. It is in staff’s opinion that the Adelaide Landing PUD general plan has offered a creative and efficient method to planning the site, all which meets the intent of the PUD ordinance. 24 Recommendation Proposed Motions: Staff recommends the City Council move to approve the findings of fact and conclusions for the EAW and adopt the resolution approving the issuance of a negative declaration for the need of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Staff recommends the City Council move to approve the wetland replacement plan. Staff recommends the City Council move to table the preliminary plat and PUD application until May 1, 2017, as requested by the applicant. Staff welcomes any Council discussion and feedback to the applicant and staff on the preliminary plat and PUD applications 25 26 PUD, Cont. Lot Size *Requested PUD flexibility highlighted in grey The applicant is asking for a variety of lot sizes for various housing products. Min lot size of 5,850 sqf, where 10,400 is allowed by ordinance. Min lot width of 45 ft, where 80 feet is allowed by ordinance. The Planning Commission has seen these lot sizes in developments such as, Victor gardens, Fable Hill and Clearwater Cove. 27 PUD, Cont. Setbacks *Requested PUD flexibility highlighted in grey 28 29 Existing area shown on the plans between the ponds on the rear lot lines is 15 feet. The developer is proposing to slightly increase the area from 15 feet to 20 feet from the rear lot lines of Country Ponds. Staff visited the property and most of the area is covered in brush and did not find significant trees. The EAW did not note any protected areas. The developer agreed to add a sidewalk along 137th Street. The developer agreed to work with staff on additional connections to the park. 30 31 32 33