pm_040303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

He described the generalized site plan of the site, including the architectural plan and materials for the units. Porches and/or decks need to be included in the plan. The homes proposed are consistent with architecture nearby. A storm water management and landscape plan are not completed at this time. The landscape plan should include boulevard trees on Hamline Avenue. Lower level shrubs can be planted on the south within the utility easements. Berms, fence and landscaping could be included. A fence along Hamline is proposed, but it may be better to screen vehicles with berms and landscaping. Thomas Paschke explained the impact of traffic on this site, at a rate of 7-11 trips per day/per unit up to 88 total trips. The peak trips will be three to five per peak hours. Oakcrest currently has 550 ADT, could easily handle 88 additional vehicles. Hamline Avenue, 9,000 ADT, is not at capacity and can accept more vehicles. The Townhomes HVAC impacts (sound and visual) must be located in between units and/or screened. Off street parking needs (4 are proposed per unit) should include eight guest spaces throughout the site on the private street. Utilities are available to the site and have adequate capacity. No street lighting plan has yet been proposed, but that should be done with Xcel. Sidewalks should lead off Hamline Avenue. Thomas Paschke illustrated current housing value, noting that the new units value will be $350,000 or more, similar to those homes on Willow. Thomas Paschke explained the concerns and support for the project and advised that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on findings included in the project report dated March 3, 2004, the staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chair Mulder asked Thomas Paschke to explain the conditions: a. Sidewalk must be included in the Final Development Plan stage, which location depends on the supported private road access, but illustrated along Oakcrest to Hamline. b. The design of the town homes must be compatible with the general context and human scale of the neighborhood for both architecture design and building materials, including a hip roof to lower overall height (if possible) and other architectural elements to further enhance each structure and reduce the visual mass of the building. c. The Public Works Department must complete the review and approve of the grading, drainage, and utility plans proposed with the General Concept and Final Plan submittal. All plans, including the location of fire hydrants and utility services connections, require the approval of the Public Works Department. The Grass Lake Watershed must review and support storm water management for the development. d. Eight visitor parking spaces must be included in the development proposal, which spaces can be accommodated through the redesign of the private road, to include parallel parking or 90 degree parking (a portion of the pipeline easement could be used for parking.) e. Site lighting must be downcast and not shed glare at adjacent properties. f. On lots 2 and 3, 6 and 7, air conditioning (AC) units must be placed between town home units; on Lots 4 and 5, AC units must be placed on the south side of the town home; and on Lots 1 and 8, AC units must be placed on the north side of the town home. AC units located on Lots 1, 4, 5, and 8 must be screened from view and include reduced noise levels. g. The existing water well must be properly capped and all buildings, tree branches and roots, debris, and any soil contamination (subject to MnPCA requirements) must be removed from the site (not burned on the site) prior to the issuance of a building permit. h. Park dedication is required. Staff recommends for this development cash payment in lieu of land dedication. The payment amounts to $1,000 per unit or $8,000. The Park and Recreation Commission will review this before final approvals. i. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment from LR to MR conditioned upon the review and support of the Metropolitan Council. Member Bakeman requested details of the setbacks within the proposal, especially along the east side property line. She asked where the decks/patios may be placed. Chair Mulder asked for details of the PUD process from Thomas Paschke. Member Stone asked if site lighting will be reviewed by staff. (Yes, prior to building permit). A site lighting plan should be required.