STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 30, Copper Creek of Nottingham 13 th Addition PUD Development Stage Plan and Final Plat

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 30, Copper Creek of Nottingham 13 th Addition PUD Development Stage Plan and Final Plat"

Lucinda Briggs
5 years ago
Views:

1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Copper Creek of Nottingham 13 th Addition PUD Development Stage Plan and Final Plat Applicant: Owner: Requested Action: Location: Zoning: Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: Copper Creek Real Estate Group, Inc. Gregory Schweich Commerce Ave. NE, Suite 500 Prior Lake MN Phillip D. O Brien, PR rd PL N Maple Grove MN PUD Development Stage Plan and Final Plat for the purpose of developing the property into 9 single family residential lots rd Pl Planned Unit Development North: PUD, Planned Unit Development East: PUD, Planned Unit Development South: R-A, Single Family Agricultural West: PUD, Planned Unit Development Application Received: February 1, Day Review Deadline: April 2, 2018 Additional 60 Day Review Deadline: June 1, 2018 STAFF COMMENTS: General: The applicant is requesting PUD Development Stage plan approval for a 9 lot subdivision located at rd Pl N, surrounded by the Nottingham neighborhood. The site is approximately 4 acres in size with a corresponding density of 2.25 units per acre, consistent with the Low-Medium Density Residential guiding of units per acre. Access is proposed via a cul-de-sac off of Xene Lane N. A sidewalk is provided on one side of this street as was done in the rest of the Nottingham neighborhood. In general the proposal is almost identical to the ghost plat that was created for this site when the Nottingham neighborhood was developed.

2 Page 2 T-Zone: The proposal is in two Tree Preservation Overlay Districts (T-zones), one on east side of the development and one on the west side of the development. The site was part of the original Nottingham development that had a tree removal and preservation plan approved in That tree removal and preservation plan was based on acreage of removal and preservation (not based on caliper inches.) The trees on what is now Outlot G were originally proposed to be removed for road construction. The trees on the O Brien property shown in Tree Zone 34 were generally proposed to be retained but there was an area proposed to be removed (to allow a home pad on what is now Outlot F. (See attached map Original 1997 Tree Removal) The Removal/Replacement plan was updated in 2006 with the Nottingham 11th Addition. This again showed some of the trees in Tree Zone 34 on the O Brien property being retained. There were some trees in T-zone 34 that were originally proposed to be removed adjacent to Outlot F (in 1997) but were proposed as saved (in 2006) but no credit was given for these trees. The trees on Outlot B were saved from removal as the road shifted to the west. This area of preservation was also not added into the new preservation calculations. (See attached map Nottingham 11th Tree Removal) An additional challenge is that the original 1997 Nottingham Tree Preservation & Removal plan looked at areas of preservation and removal vs. caliper inches of removal and preservation. The color coded Tree Preservation Plan illustrates how the current plan is impacted by the original removal plan. A further challenge is that not all of the property was included in the original Nottingham analysis. Essentially staff sees two different areas of analysis, the areas previously accounted for with the 1997 Nottingham plan and the areas not accounted for in the 1997 plan. Staff offers the following analysis: Area Analysis of Portions in the 1997 Plan: 3,599 s.f. preserved that was originally proposed to be removed in ,090 s.f. removed that was originally proposed to be preserved in Caliper Inch Analysis of Portions in the 1997 Plan: 125 inches saved that were proposed to be removed in inches removed that were proposed to be saved in T-Zone 34 Tree that were not in 1997 Plan: 180 total inches 116 inches removed 64% removal

3 Page 3 The current plan does remove trees that were originally proposed to be saved, however it also saves trees that were originally proposed to be removed. Looking at the area saved vs. removed, the applicant is showing 509 s.f. more area saved. Looking at caliper inches, the applicant is showing 18 less caliper inches saved. If we just look at the caliper inches, this will require 36 inches of replacement for the area that had previously been accounted for in 1997 & If we look at the area, they would not be required to replace any tree loss as there is more area saved compared with the previous approvals. Since we now have more refined information that has actual caliper inch counts, staff feels we should use the caliper inches and thus are recommending that replacement occur. With regard to the area of T-Zone 34 that had not been accounted for previously, they are proposing removal over the 51% threshold. This results in 48 inches of replacement for this portion of the T-zone. Combined, the current proposal requires 84 inches of replacement, or approximately 34 trees (at 2.5 per tree.) We note that the applicant will need to comply with all aspects of the T-zone requirements before any construction begins on the site including: 1. Showing details on tree protection fencing. 2. Construction staging areas for parking and material storage including concrete washout areas 3. Signs provided by the city shall be installed per sec A detail shall be added to the plan set such as the Woodland Preservation Technique detail that was included with the original Nottingham proposal. 5. The tree protection fence and signs identifying the T-zone are required before any grading work is done on the property and are subject to Community Development Staff inspection and approval before grading may commence. Staff notes that the primary reason there is tree removal is to comply with stormwater management protections. When the property was first ghost platted, the stormwater management guidelines were different than they are today. At this point staff does not have a tree replacement plan from the applicant and this is addressed in the conditions of approval. It wasn t determined until very recently that there might be tree replacement required, which is why we do not have a replacement plan at this time. The applicant is working to provide a tree replacement plan before the April 30 th meeting.

4 Page 4 Stormwater Management: The applicant is showing a stormwater management ponds on the east side of the development as well as on the west side of the development. In addition to the ponding areas, the applicant is showing a filtration swale leading to the stormwater ponds. Staff has expressed concern about this filtration swale, in particular with regard to Lot 9 and the applicant is working to further refine the stormwater management plan with a different solution that will not require the filtration swale. The applicant will also be reaching out to the adjacent Nottingham Homeowners Association to potentially regrade a portion of the pool lot that is adjacent to this development in order to increase the size of the stormwater pond and move it further away from the proposed homes. Any such proposal would need approval from the homeowners association. If the stormwater management were to use some of the adjacent land, it may allow the pond on the east side of the site to be reduced which would further reduce the tree removal impacts. Staff has suggested that a 20-foot front yard setback could be utilized to provide more room behind the homes for stormwater management and also to potentially reduce tree impacts. This has been done in other T-zone areas and would be appropriate for this site. While we are still working with the applicant on the stormwater management system, we do not anticipate any changes that would drastically affect the overall plan and so are comfortable with moving forward at this time with the conditions in the recommended motion. Timing: The challenges of finding a suitable stormwater management system have delayed hearings on this project and we are now at the point of needing to forward on to the city council a recommendation at the April 30 th Planning Commission meeting so the City Council can take action before the June 1, 2018 deadline. Summary: The proposed property lines are almost identical to what was initially contemplated for this site many years ago when the Nottingham neighborhood was being developed. Since that time new stormwater management requirements have gone into effect that have made developing the site in the manner originally contemplated more difficult. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant on meeting the stormwater management requirements and this is reflected in condition #2 below. We note that the final front yard setback may be reduced if this is necessary to best meet the stormwater management requirements.

5 Page 5 With regard to the Tree Replacement Plan, this is simply a matter of the applicant providing an updated landscape plan with the appropriate inches of trees and this will be required before the final plat would be released. As noted above, there may be stormwater management solutions that actually reduce the tree removal proposed and so the current removal and replacement numbers can be looked at as a worse-case scenario. We do not see any scenarios in which tree removal would be increased. Because of this, staff is comfortable with moving forward with the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to draft a Resolution approving the PUD Development Stage Plan and Final Plat for ; Subject to: 1. The applicant addressing to the satisfaction of the City any remaining applicable comments contained in the memorandums from: a. The City Planner Dated b. The Superintendent of Parks and Planning dated c. The Arbor Committee Staff Liaison dated d. The Water Resources Engineering dated The applicant shall provide stormwater management system subject to watershed district and city approval before the release of the Final Plat. 3. The applicant shall provide a tree replacement plan subject to city approval before release of the Final Plat. The applicant shall acknowledge that Park Dedication requirements are based on staff review and recommendation to the Park and Recreation Board and their subsequent Board Action. Board meetings are held on the third Thursday of each month. Authored by: Peter Vickerman Attachments: Attachment A Narrative Attachment B Location Map Attachment C Development Stage Plan Map Set Attachment D T-Zone Plans Attachment E Final Plat Attachment F Memorandums Attachment G Example elevations

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 6A AGENDA ITEM

DATE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 6A AGENDA ITEM ORIGINATING DEPT. AGENDA ITEM CITY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL Community Development PUD Concept & Development Stage Plan Preliminary Plat & Final Plat PREVIOUS