HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.11.06 (2) Creekside Heights Sketch Plan The Lincoln Group
Monday, November 6, 2017
1
Site
Highway 61
170th Street
CSAH 8
Henna Ave
165th Street
2
Description of Request
Sketch Plan Review
132-acre site
251 housing units
Density
Gross: 1.9 units per acre
Net: 3 units per acre
3
The subject property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary. The property is currently zoned Single Family Detached Residential (R-3) and Future Urban
Service (FUS) with a portion of the property along Highway 61 zoned General Business (C-2). Most of the property is guided as Low Density Residential (LD) with a small portion along
Highway 61 guided as Commercial (COM).
The property is currently vacant and does contain some challenges regarding wetlands, an existing drainage ditch and high ground water. The applicant
would like to get feedback from the City Council on the project in regards to the general layout, road circulation, park dedication, phasing, and access.
4
Background
Previous Sketch Plans
“Del Webb” and “Oneka Shores”
These projects were significantly larger and included additional property.
Discussions:
Access to Highway 61 with the development
and determining the proper intersection design.
Commercial property along Highway 61
preservation of the natural resources, including the stand of trees on the southern portion of the
project.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
During the previous sketch plan review processes, the City discussed the importance of access to Highway 61 with the development and determining the proper intersection design. There
were portions of commercial property within the sketch plan and the City encouraged the applicant to incorporate and plan the commercial property into the project. The City also encouraged
the preservation of the natural resources, including the stand of trees on the southern portion of the project.
Due to the size of the project, the previous applicant was required
to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development on this site. Since this plan is similar, but much smaller, a new EAW will not be required. However,
as this project progresses, staff will need to ensure that the assumptions of the EAW are still valid.
5
Sketch Plan
Townhomes
Villa Homes
Single Family
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the five parcels for a residential development.
Staff will be working with the applicant on how to best plan the remaining outlots as far as
use and ownership. The applicant will be requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Creekside Heights development. The plan shows 251 proposed residential lots, stormwater ponding
areas, openspace, sidewalk and trail connections, and road connections. Although it is not shown on the plans, the applicant has indicted that there would be a dock constructed to extend
into Oneka Lake for public use. The developer has indicated that an HOA will be established for the development to maintain community areas and landscaping. Lincoln Group is planning
to develop five parcels of land, which are owned by various property owners.
The sketch plan shows three housing product types: single family homes, maintenance provided villas, and
maintenance provided townhomes. The townhomes are shown to the northwest of the site. Staff does have concerns on the buffer between the townhomes and the industrial uses to the west.
Although the landscape plan shows a landscape buffer, staff recommends the applicant review the townhome lot layout to provide further separation from the industrial uses. The villa
product is shown along Oneka Lake and on the west side of the project. There is not a good transition from the villa product and single family homes. Staff recommends the applicant consider
clustering the villa products to a section of the project and provide appropriate transitions between the product types.
Wetlands 25 acres. Some impact with development.
Ditch/ponding
Floodplain.
Some impact with development.
6
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Lots widths
Required: 80 foot
Proposed:
Setbacks
Required: Front 30 feet, Side 10 feet, Rear 30 feet
Proposed: Single Family and Villa Homes
Shoreland Overlay District of Oneka
Lake
The Lincoln Group will be requesting an approval of a PUD for the Creekside Heights development. PUD’s offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of zoning district
standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of 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.
It’s unclear from the sketch plan and information provided by the applicant how the setbacks would be applied to the townhomes.
Further, it is hard to determine the setbacks because the townhomes are usually surrounded by common open space. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the setbacks for the
townhomes. However, staff does recommend at least 30 feet between multi-level townhome buildings. This is consistent with other townhome projects in Hugo.
The shoreland district comes
in effect for all homes located within 1000 feet of the ordinary high-water (OHW) level of Oneka Lake. Oneka Lake is classified as a natural environment lake. The proposed lots do not
meet the requirements, but flexibility may be allowed with a PUD. The DNR PUD standards also apply to this development and the applicant will be required to demonstrate they have satisfied
the requirements. It should be noted that all of the lots shown on the sketch plan are non-riparian lots as the applicant has retained public open space and a trail adjacent to the lake.
7
PUD, Cont.
Detailed review of any flexibility would be required as part of the PUD General Plan review.
In exchange for the proposed PUD, the sketch plan offers a proposed trail along the road
and a connection that will link to the existing trail in the Oneka Ponds development. The project will offer additional sidewalk connections within the development, as well. The plan
shows open space along Oneka Lake with multi-use trails and a dock extending into Oneka Lake. The applicant has indicted that the trails and dock would be public.
Although the applicant
has done a good job incorporating public uses within the development, more detail on how the applicant exceeds City standards and meets the requirements of a PUD will be required with
the Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan.
More details on how they would meet the PUD standards will be needed.
8
Phasing
Highway 61
Goodview Tr
Goodview Ave
It’s unclear how many phases there will be with the development, however the applicant is proposing what would be completed in the first phase. Phase one includes 44 townhome lots on
the northern portion of the site with a connection to Highway 61. Phase one also includes 71 residential lots on the southern portion of the site with a connection to Goodview Trail.
The southern portion of phase one would not have a connection to Highway 61. Because the proposed phasing includes a substantial portion of the site being developed with the majority
of phase one traffic traveling south on Goodview Avenue and Goodview Trail, it is in staff’s opinion that all lots in phase one should include a connection and access out to Highway
61.
It is also unclear how the developer intends to provide utilities to the townhomes, since the sewer will be extended from the south. There are not planned utilities with the 159th
St, east of TH 61. The developer will be required to install a watermain connection across 159th Street to the west with the project.
9
Woodlands
There is a large stand of pine trees along the southern boundary of the sketch plan, adjacent to the Oneka Ponds development. A portion of the trees appear to be shown on the plan. However,
it is unclear how or what amount that will be removed or preserved.
The applicant will be required to submit a tree inventory and a tree preservation plan with the Preliminary Plat
and PUD General Plan. In exchange for PUD flexibility, the City should expect this development to preserve a significant portion of the trees on the site, particularly along the southern
boundary.
10
Streets and Access
The applicant is showing access into the property from Highway 61, Goodview Tr, and Goodview Ave.
Highway 61 is proposed to be expanded to a four-lane roadway. The intersection at 159th
Street is proposed to be a full intersection with no median.
The applicant has completed a traffic study that concluded that a traffic control improvement may be needed at TH 61 and
159th, at full development build out.
As the development proceeds improvements to the intersection will be required based on anticipated traffic.
Turn lanes on TH 61
Or intersection
improvements (is signal or roundabout)
This would be based on MnDOT and Washington County review and approval.
Staff has been working with MnDOT what improvements would be needed for
the intersection.
The sketch plan shows a roundabout for the improvement and staff agrees this is the best option.
Staff or MnDOT has not reviewed the design for the roundabout as
proposed by the applicant.
Commercial Properties along TH 61
Goodview – lots abuting – screening
Road connections at the north.
Ditch crossing
11
Stormwater Management
There is a private ditch that runs through the site. Groundwater within the site is relatively high, which will require additional analysis to be completed before finalizing the grading
plan and low-floor elevations.
Ponding for water quality and rate control will be required on site and must be compliant with City standards. In addition, staff has discussed with
the applicant the option of using stormwater for irrigation of landscapes and yards. The applicant has indicated that they did not incorporate water re-use into the project. Staff encouraged
the applicant to incorporate water re-use into the project, using stormwater for irrigation, especially the areas with common space and shared maintenance.
12
Parks and Trails
The development will include approximately 38 acres of open space, but it’s unclear how much usable open space is provided. The applicant intends to dedicate a portion of the open space
along Oneka Lake to the City as public parkland. Staff recommends all of the open space along Oneka Lake be dedicated as public open space. The open space will function as an extension
of the public park to the south of the site and provide a green corridor along Oneka Lake.
The ordinance requires 10 percent of the net land to be dedicated as public park or cash-in-lieu
of land. The Parks Commission will need to review and comment on the desirability of the proposed park dedication.
The applicant is proposing approximately 1.5 miles of trails within
the development. Sidewalks will also be required within the development, per City Code, for all streets with lots less than 80 feet wide. This means that nearly all of the streets within
the development would have sidewalks. The sketch plan is showing a trail to be constructed along Goodview Avenue, connecting to the existing trail in the Oneka Ponds development to the
south. The trail is then shown to connect to the Hardwood Creek Trail along Highway 61. The sketch plan also shows a trail along Oneka Lake that would provide a connection to the public
park to the south. The trail is shown to extend from both main entrances into the development, from Highway 61 and Goodview Avenue, to the lake front trail. The applicant has indicated
a dock would be constructed on Oneka Lake and a connection would be made to the lakefront trail. The sketch plan is showing a trail running between two lots to connect to the lakefront
trail. Staff likes this idea, however, would recommend that the areas be further planned to create a visual opening to the lake. This may mean widening the space and planning the area.
13
Parks Commission Comments
Liked the amount of trails and sidewalks
Generally supportive of the fish pier/dock
Questioned the parking
Encouraged added amenities (shelter, tables)
Location should be closer to
Oneka Lake Park
Concerns about tree preservation
Questioned how the trees would be preserved
Concerned about access to the townhomes from the rest of the neighborhood.
Interested in
accepting the trail area for park dedication and the remaining would be paid in fee.
Parks Commission Meeting Nov. 18th
The Commission was generally supportive of a fishing pier/dock but would like consideration of how it could be accessed and used by the public.
This includes looking at off-street and on-street parking and trying to find adjacent upland to add amenities like a picnic shelter, table, etc. It is envisioned that people may want
to drive to the access and put in a kayak or other watercraft. One idea was to locate the fishing pier/dock at the south end of the property so that it could possibly be accessed off
of the Oneka Lake Park property.
After being asked about maintenance, the developer indicated that it is likely the HOA would maintain the trails.
When asked about preserving
the trees at the south end of the property, the developer indicated that there will be trees lost to make the necessary roadway connections. It was also said that the southern cul-de-sac
may need to be shortened to preserve additional trees.
Another comment by the Commission was to provide an additional pedestrian access to the cluster of townhouses. It was noted
that the townhouse cluster is quite separate from the rest of the neighborhood. If the market of the townhouses would be families, one Commissioner asked for consideration of a Tot
Lot because it is so removed from the other parts of the neighborhood and accessing the park.
The Commission was generally very supportive of all of the trails in the development,
stating they provide great loops and the necessary access to other trails/existing park. It was mentioned that a trail connection to the properties to the north is important in case
of possible future development. It was also mentioned that the roundabout or Highway 61 crossing is evaluated to make the pedestrian crossing to the Hardwood Creek Trail and 159th Street
trail safe.
The Commission was generally supportive of the park dedication proposal. They seemed interested in accepting the trail area and any other buildable, useable and attached
parcels. This would be a minimal amount of land and the remainder would be a fee.
14
Landscaping
The applicant has provided a landscape plan. The plan generally exceeds the ordinance standards. In exchange for PUD flexibility, the City could expect a landscape plan that goes beyond
the minimum requirements to provide street trees, entrance streetscaping, plantings around a monument sign, plantings in openspace, etc.
15
Planning Commission Comments
Concerns on 159th Street and Highway 61 intersection.
Strongly encouraged stormwater reuse for irrigation.
Concerns on the location of the townhomes and encouraged the applicant to revise
the layout.
Buffer from industrial uses.
Encouraged the applicant to preserve a large portion of the trees.
They recognized the difficulties in development of the site.
They commented
that the applicant should work on the bulleted items outlined by staff during the review process.
It was noted that it may mean a new evaluation of the development layout.
The encouraged
the applicant to come back with a new concept plan to review.
The Commission agreed that the intersection of 159th Street and Highway 61 is important to the development and the design needs to take into consideration the access to the properties
north and south of the intersection. They stated that they had concerns with traffic flow, since Phase 1 did not have an outlet to Highway 61. The Commission encouraged that the phasing
plan be revised to allow access out to Highway 61 with all of Phase 1. They generally liked the roundabout as an option for traffic control, but questioned the design that was presented
in the sketch plan.
The Commission strongly encouraged stormwater re-use for irrigation incorporated into the development. The developer agreed.
The Commission was concerned with
the townhomes being too close to the industrial uses along Highway 61, without an adequate buffer. It was encouraged that the applicant work on revising the lot layout to further buffer
the townhomes from the industrial uses.
The Commission expressed concerns with the tree removal on the south end of the site and wanted to see more detail on what would be preserved
and removed. They encouraged the applicant preserve a large portion of the trees.
The Commission recognized the difficulties with developing the property and was generally comfortable
with a PUD request for the development. However, they commented that the applicant should work with staff on the bulleted items outlined by staff in the review process. It was noted
this may mean a new evaluation of the development layout. They encouraged the applicant to work on the items, make revisions, and return to the Planning Commission with a new sketch
plan.
16
Conclusion
The applicant has done a good job providing a mix of housing products, openspace, and trail connections.
However, There are several items that the applicant would need to work on in
order to meet the intent or the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the PUD ordinance.
17
Recommendation
Clustering of the Villa Home product and/or providing adequate transitions between product types.
Provide a more significant buffer for the townhomes to be separate from the industrial
uses to the west.
The phasing should be revised to include the connection and development outlet to Highway 61. Evaluation of the phasing of the full built out should be provided.
Stormwater
Re-Use for irrigation.
The applicant should continue to work with staff on the road alignments, more specifically on the northwest portion of the site.
Planning of the commercial properties
along Highway 61, adjacent to the main entrance to the development.
The trail corridor that meanders through two residential lots should be widened to provide a view of the lake to
create an entrance to the lakefront trail.
Provide a tree inventory and plan for what trees will be preserved and removed. Specifically on the south boundary.
Full description of
the park land dedication request.
18
Recommendation, Cont.
Staff recommends the City Council review and discuss the sketch plan and provide the applicant with informal comments.
19
20
21