Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2A, Pulte Group Development Concept PUD Review Discussion EN HILLS Request for Council Review 2A Prepared By: Meagan Beekman, City Planner Work Session Date: January 31,2011 Pulte Group Development Concept PUD Review Discussion Discussion Topic: Pulte Group Development Concept PUD Review Discussion Supporting Documents: 1. Memorandum dated January 31, 2011, from Meagan Beekman 2. Application and. Concept Design Packet __A ]�EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 31, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case#: 11-004 Pulte Group Development Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review — Requested Action Pulte Group and Alliant Engineering are requesting a concept PUD review of a development proposal at 4500 Snelling Avenue N. The applicants have submitted two development options and are requesting feedback on the proposed options and direction on which option is preferred by the Council. Concept PUD Review Process The concept review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments, questions, concerns, and suggestions regarding the proposed development options. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and applicant(Section. 1320.14 Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a work session. A formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Pulte Grou 's Concept Proposal The applicant has recently purchased 25.4 acres of undeveloped land on the southeast corner of Highway 96 and Snelling Avenue N. The property is zoned R-1, single-family residential, and is guided for Low Density Residential in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property was formerly owned by the Reiling Estate. It is an irregularly shaped parcel with existing wetlands and significant shifts in topography. In addition, the lot is heavily wooded. While many trees would be considered undesirable in terms of species and quality there does exist a few stands of City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session for January 31, 2011 Page 1 of 4 good quality significant trees. Any development of this property that included a subdivision of land would trigger a park dedication requirement. Through early discussions with the developer, it became clear that there is a conflict between the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan in regards to the required density of R-1 property in the City. The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the future land use of the property as Low Density Residential, which is defined as residential property developed at three to five units _ per net acre. In contrast, the City's Zoning Code caps the allowed density in the R-1 District at three units per net acre. Furthermore,the Code requires a minimum of 14,000 square feet per R- 1 lot, which does not allow for a density of three units per net acre. If the applicant develops the property in accordance with the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, they would need a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow less than three units per acre. In contrast, if the property were developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan requirements, flexibility from the City's Zoning Code would be necessary. In the case of the — latter, the applicant would most likely apply for a Master and Final PUD so that the City might - grant the necessary flexibilities from the Code without the need for variances. Discussion The applicant has submitted two development options for the Council's review. Both show the same roadway system with connections to Snelling Avenue N, Keithson Drive, and Arden View Drive. The existing wetlands would be preserved, though the setbacks to the wetlands differ on each plan. In both plans, many of the existing trees on the property would be removed; however, the tree preservation ordinance would require a great deal of tree replacement. Both development concepts would require park dedication, which is ten percent of the land, land value, or some combination thereof. Concept 1 is a development option that includes 46 lots and meets the requirements of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan by developing the parcel at three units per net acre. However, this development option would require adjustments to the City's minimum lot size, lot width, and setbacks. Because this option would be reviewed through Master and Final PUD process, the City would have much greater flexibility to negotiate on certain aspects of the development, such as wetland setbacks and tree preservation. Concept 2 is a development option with 39 lots that meets all of the requirements of the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, but would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. With this option, the developer would apply for a preliminary and final plat. This development option, because it would not require a PUD, may allow the developer to proceed within existing City's requirements. Because the City's Zoning Code does not currently require setbacks from wetlands, this development option limits the City's ability to negotiate on this point. In addition, it would be more difficult for the City to have a hand in preserving desirable stands of trees, as long as the application met the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session for January 31, 2011 Page 2 of 4 The applicant is requesting feedback regarding the two development concepts, and clear direction on which concept plan the Council prefers. Based on this feedback they will prepare a formal application to the City. With either option, a review from the Planning Commission, a Public Hearing, and approval from the City Council would be required. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process When there is a conflict between a city's comprehensive plan and a zoning code,the city is required to amend the zoning code to comply with the comprehensive plan, unless the city approves an amendment to the comprehensive plan. All comprehensive plan amendments must also be approved by the Metropolitan Council. Staff has been in communication with the City's Sector Representative at the Metropolitan Council regarding this property. The Sector Representative has indicated that the Metropolitan Council could be supportive of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would allow the City to reduce the minimum density required on property guided for Low Density Residential given the higher density that is anticipated on the TCAAP property. — The Metropolitan Council defines net density as follows: "The number of dwelling units per acre of land when the acreage involved includes only the land devoted to residential uses and excludes such areas arterial streets right of ways, wetlands, and water features, and other publicly dedicated improvements such as parks. Net density is expressed as dwelling units per net acre." This definition means that local roadways and storm water ponds cannot be excluded from the calculation of net density, which results in net density being greater than gross density. If the City Council directs Staff to proceed with the lower density development option and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a new land use designation would be created for Very Low Density Residential that would allow a net density of 1.5 to three units per acre. This new land use category would be applied to this former Reiling Estate property. In the future other vacant land could be reguided to Very Low Density Residential as appropriate if needed. Preliminary Review Timeline Based on comments from the City Council, Staff plans to bring the concept review to the Planning Commission at their February 9 meeting. In addition, a community meeting has been scheduled by the applicant for the evening of February 8 in the Marsden Conference room at the Ramsey County Public Works Facility. In addition to all residents within 500 feet of the subject property,the developer also intends to invite the City Council and Planning Commission. If the applicants decide to move forward with a formal review application, they have indicated that they would like to submit a completed application in time for the March 9, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission would hold a public hearing where they could City ofArden Hills City Council Work Session for January 31, 2011 Page 3 of 4 recommend approval, recommend denial, or table the application to another meeting. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation at their March 9 meeting, it would likely come to the City Council on March 28, 2011. A concept review does not automatically start the review process for a formal application. The _- timeline is subject to change. Attachments Application and Concept Design Packet City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session for January 31, 2011 Page 4 of 4 For Office Use Only �ENHILLS Planning Case No. 11-00 Submittal Date l 0 1 1245 West Highway 96 Application Completed Date f� — Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Accepted by Telephone (651) 792-7800 Receipt Number Fax (651) 634-5137 Council Decision www.ei.arden-hills.mn.us Council Decision Date 2011 LAND USE APPLICATION _Applicant Information Applicant: IV [i 1 Address: -...Telephone No.: 0 ther: Fax No.: — — Email Address: { ! Property Inf ma ohG-/�V�� �� ��� �v( � ` Co '�vl Pro ert Owner: �. Owner Address: JQ Owner Telephone No. Other: Address of Property Propeqy Involved: Legal Description: -7 Property ID No.: Z Z d Z Type of Use: 22 Zone: Property Acrea e: 257J T e of Re uesir Comprehensive Plan Amendment($600+$1,000 ❑ Site Plan Review($250+$600 escrow) escrow) ❑ Conditional/interim Use Permit or Amendment ❑ Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way($400+ ($300 +$600 escrow) $600 escrow) ❑ Preliminary Plat($600+$25 per lot+$1,500 escrow) ❑ Variance(Zoning Code) ($300+$600 escrow) ❑ Final Plat($400+$25 per lot) ❑ Appeal of Administrative Decision ($100) ❑ Apportionment of Assessments ($30) ❑ ezoning ($600 +$1,000 escrow) oncept Planned Unit Development($300) ❑ Land Use Requests—Not Already Specified ($200) /❑ Master Planned Unit Development($600+$2,000 escrow) ❑ Final Planned Unit Development($200.00 +$600 escrow) ❑ Planned Unit Development Amendment($350+$2,000 escrow) ❑ Zoning or City Code Amendment($600 +$1,000 escrow) ❑ Minor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation) ($450+$1,000 escrow) Revised: 12-06-10 Page 1 of 3 Descripjion of Request(12lease also include a 1yQed, detailed letter exglaining th@_pro'ject AA4�� 6�� Pl��_ A4r *Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. *The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. *All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application proness, naqu|namanto, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, o certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission end/or City Council may still require acertified survey. A checklist for other required information is also available. | Complete/incomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time uummanuma and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Pament of Fees The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before n land use application can be deemed comp|ete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the Qty. If additional fees are required bo cover costs incurred bythe City, the City Planner has the right tn require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead cosbs, fees paid to consultants and other pnofonm|onm|m, and the cost of p,inUng, nnoiUng, and supplies. The City may withhold final action on o [and use app|ioatinn, withhold building pennito, and/or rescind prior action until all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that on escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs mmaooimtod with the proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation ofon approved plan. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any app|iomtinn, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Revised: 12'06'10 Page 2of3 � Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the —_ Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2011 SCHEDULE (*subject to change) TENTATIVE TENTATIVE PLANNING CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION COMMISSION MEETING DEADLINE MEETING DATE* DATE* DATE* (Generally held on the (Generally held on the — first Wednesday after the first last Monday at 7:00 p.m.) - Monday at 6:30 .m. 1Decemher 6 2010 Janua 5 January24 January 3 February 9 February 28 Februa 7 March 9 fUfareh 28 March 7 Aril 6 Aril 25 A ril 4 Ma 4 Ma 31 May 2 June 8 June 27 June 6 Jul 6 Jul 25;' July 5 August 3 Au ust 29 Au ust 1= Se"tember'7 September 26 September 6 October 5 October 24 October 3 November.. November 28 November 7 December 7 December 26 Decie nber,'5 Jariva' 4 (2012) Janua ;'30"2012 Acknowledgement and Signature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Property Owner Signature(Required) Date Applicant Signature(if different t n the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at(651)792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website:hgg:1Avww.6 arden-hills.mn.us Revised: 12-06-10 Page 3 of 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW1/4 of NW 114) of Section 22, Township 30, Range 23, except the following parcels: Parcel 1: The South 100 feet of the West 435.06 feet thereof; Parcel 2: The East 450 feet of the West 715 feet of the North 342 feet thereof; Parcel 3: The North 150 feet of the South 550 feet of the West 290 feet thereof, Parcel 4: The East 130 feet of the West 895 feet of the North 342 feet thereof, _ Parcel 5: That part thereof platted as Keithson Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) ............ .... . _ . . . ... ....... ..... .... .. ... . . ......... ....... n Enf . g, gInc . . . .. .. January ll,2411 Ms.Meagan Beekman . Arden Hills City Planner 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills,MN 55112 Rei Reiling Estate—:Co ueept:Planls Submittal Dear Meagan, Qri behalf'of Pulte Hoxnes,Alliant Engineering;]rrc. is providing the City of Arden:l Tills....with:Concept Plan submittal for.the lie ling Estate property. The applicant is:currently providing a 2030 Comprehensive Concept Plan of 46:lots d;a Zoning Ordinance Concept Plan of 39 lots. .Pulte Homes is requesting.prelirn,iaary input from ebu unity representatives.at this time:and in advance of a formal application for:development of the site, _ , Existing Conditions The site grass acreage amounts to approximately 25 4.acres o It is located at:ttie southeast quadrant of Snelling Avenue-and Highway.90. The property is.irregular in shape:and bound.by Tlighvvajr 95 an...cl four single family homes to the north,single and rauhi4arb ly homes to the east,Arden.View Drive and a single farr jly home to.the.south and Snelling Avenue to the west. A single.family lot of approximately 0.85 acres exists on Snelling Avenue to the west and is encompassed:by the:Reding Estate property: The site is currently undeveloped and partially wooded with both de.ciduoi s and coniferous:species Deciduous species.or volunteer growths of Cottonwood;Box,Elder,Elan,Poplar and Ash are generally located in the central and western,portions of the site which are lower.in elevation. Coniferous species such as Red Pure; White Pihe,and Norway Spriice are:generally located in the areas surrounding the Keithsan Addition to the east,which is higher m elevation. A:.dense stand of'Junipers currently exists an . A sloped area south of Keithson Drive and between two larger;wetland;areas.: In addition,a numbe.r:of larger Black Willow and Cottonwood species also exist:in close proxiinity to';the larger wetland areas near the soot]ein half of the site. Topography of the sate varies in elevation from 980 near the northeast to 930 near the:soutliwest. A majority of the site drains southwesterly in consideration of the topography and towards.an 0.utlet pipe beneath Snelling Avenue..Four wetland areas and a portion of an adjacent pond are currently located on site. The wetland:areas vary considerably in size and classification. The three wetland areas to the south appear to be interconnected via a n niber of westerly draining ditches:and swales. " Refer to the existing.Conditions drawings which depicts:the environmental features referenced above, 2050 Comprehensive P.lab- Concept.l The project.site has a 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use:designation of Low Density Residential(LDR) which:requires a density range.ofthree(3)to five(5)units per acre. Therefore;a rninimuin density of three(3)units per acre is required and is to be based on the buildable acreage or excludnig.non-buildable areas. Z33 park Avenue South,,Suite.300,Minneapolis Minnesota 55415-1.108 Phone 612.7S8.3080:FRx 612.758:3099 ...... ..... \ r „�. Ms,Meagan Beekman . ... 7anuary 10,:201 t Page 2 of.3 The applicants Concept Flan for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,& poses for the _ development of 46 single family lots via a Planned Unit Development:(PUD) The.plan proposes:for a number of wetland buffer aid tree preservation areas,'.which maybe considered as rioii-buildable acreage. The plan and unit count is consistent with the. Comprehensive Plan as it results in a,ininimurn densi of 3::O:Units.per acre, The following is;. brief summary of a number:of niniinum standacd.s currently proposed in consideration of the'Comprehensive Plan, Lot Width 75' Lot Depth I30' .. Lot Acreage 9,750E ... Setbacks: . front yard 3.0' Side yard 10'& 15' . Rear yard 30' Wetland:&.20' Buff 4.1 0 acres Tree Preservation 3.20 acres Internal R.O.W 3.12 acres Refer to the 2030:Comprehensive Plait Concept Plan subritittal drawing feria lot layout and iteins referenced above. Zoning Ordinance Plan-Concept Z The project site has a Zoning Ordinance designation of Single.Family Residential(R-1), which is unable to provide for the required.density of the Comprehensive Plan. The current zoning requires a minimum single family lot area of 14,000 square feet,which generally results in a density of 2.0 units per acre. Therefore;the,Zoning Ordinance and : Comprehensive Plan are in conflict. The applicants Zoning Ordinance.Plan proposes for the:deve.l0Pmeftt of 3l single family l©1s in accordance with the minimum standards of the'Zoning Ordinance. Tle plan and unit count will provide for an approximate density of 1:9 units per acre. The following is.a brief summary of a number of mininiurn standards currently proposed, which complies with the Zoning'Ordinance: Lot Width 95 .... Lat.Depth,.. 13p' Lot Acreage 14,000 SF Setbacks: Front yard 40' . . ... Side yard . 10' &:25' Rear yard : 30' Wetlands 2.96 acres Internal R.O. ! 3;07 acres Refer to the Zoning Ordinance.Plan—Concept Flan submittal drawing,for a lot layout. and items referenced above. . .. Ms.Meagan Beekman January 10,2GI1 Page.3 of 3I: Conclusaon ... Palle,Bomes and Alliant Engineering,lne.respectfully request that the City Council provide preliminary input regarding developrent of the site and a preterred development plan. Once received, it 18 art# ided that:applwation for a PUD pr Preliminary Plat will be mach shortly thereafterand.in consideratiottf the uiformation provided :Wie are hopeful :. that this preliminary process allows fora development that zecognizes the Cities Goals ..... and Otijectivesfor this area. Please call me at'612-78-30$2 should you have any questions or comments. Thanks Sincerely, Alliant Engineering,Inc. Clark Wicklund;PE . . .... .. . . . Vice President. ... Cs Ian Petemo&Pulte Pile rl f. F w w x ti - M y " ....... hti titivi vi of vi .... ti o ti • � o O �Q 6 Cp ❑W ".4�6Q�66 '� � EOM Y'�, ¢ W+^Y � a o wzz❑ °,� viWvivivivi q A4 3 7N�.�� � F ❑aaa aaa wwwwwwww�a ❑qq❑q� '� x'x z �'�^"� A p � a,' aFF F�FF1.., wWWW �WywWW r�W,�F zZzzF W p Fa C7p w� N U w wwOwO c4 rz .c4rxc4 0000 7 W � ��'33a 3F HF FFFFFFO P0 F.a4w Vl c7 ¢ z `wz A Q a� qa z `� o I ICI Q' E� 0.0 Z en - ow -; r c I .0`allod _ --- - 7 L4ar — - PE -- V r \ \� III III III I II V � az o�Ro 'N 3Atl`JNI'I'13NS — z I zoo wdgz:£- uoz 'ol Uor fimaa aloe idaoloo\p—do,d\ss000t\ooz\:x :awo,b�IMo�o na, �� �x�R i r se✓' +ms Y^ k/¢`µme.,k �� � rvx e n x r i u d, > ^ W � ^ e T � 3J . M1 .� pp JA 9 sit ' 4+ IS 5 I„T " . ■ n / x 4� , g' Y F W Z 6 6 a Q Q a cw/J Vwl U y/l:NNy y ylw/ly� � '�]` N — W ti 4 S �� �a u^ 0.4 y� W M I I Fy I I A a I I �y QI 0 [�1 I m ❑ N u I I. I I ❑ - -_-- ❑ __ I .O.MId M n I I li I s� awF_. al 'N 3Atl°JNII'13N5 T _ a E N '1 III II I�I�IQ��i�/ f1111111f�M��56 wdgo:Z—tLOZ `ol Lor 6,p-2 ydao.o0\pasodo,d\SS0001\OIOZ\:X :awou 6,i-0 � •� .,�-� R, �` .,� �. "'+ 5 tx`'.,v, i k� .� � rYw.� ,ram, /,�e .a fir, Mn . FI a ►� ,4c _ .,. dirt. ."•. r r, } r+, tr - �r ry i • r nt 9* 1 v i 71 t > 3 x a u ..1 ' .�S Md I I F-12"r • m ate' a, i v- �r ' ! i y r � r j •uS , fS ji�iix fi } �s a g r r •; e >. P • a ,• { d i , All Af r ' w ,j /V f � � m p � t nw :. � « ;'"..•,�e zap. � at _ �. , f ` i ,