10/23/1980 - City Council Regular i
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1980
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT REVIEW OF RIDGECLIFFE FOURTH AND FIFTH ADDITIONS &
REVISED PLANS FOR DUCKWOOD TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
Certain questions were brought up by members of the City Council at the meeting
on Tuesday evening concerning both of the aforementioned agenda items. I have
asked the City staff, mainly the City Planner and Director of Public Works,
to compile a fact finding that would provide certain information relative to
both applications. I have met with the Public Works Director and City Planner
today and reviewed their fact finding, which is enclosed for your review.
The City staff initially spent considerable time reviewing both the Duckwood
Trail Development as well as the various plats for the Ridgecliffe Additions
and feel the plans as presented are workable and acceptable developments.
When all developments are reviewed, there are normally several different options
available for considering developments. The City Planner has assured me that
he is always striving for consistency and, at the same time, always open for
new concepts that mightbe tried that are compatible to the maintenance and
operation of long time City services as well as hoping to provide any financial
relief to the developer which directly affects the home buyer. In both the
case of the Duckwood Trails development and the Ridgecliffe Additions, there
are certainly deviations that can be considered; and, if the City Council should
desire any changes in the plats or development plans as presented, staff will
accommodate that direction and work with the developer to make the required
changes.
City Administrato
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: CITY PLANNER RUNKLE
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1980
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON DUCKWOOD TRAILS PLANNED DEVELOPT?ANT &
THE RIDGECLIFFE DEVELOPMENT
DUCKWOOD TRAILS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
On February 27, 1979, Bar-ett Construction started the planning process for the
Duckwood Trails Planned Development. Bar-ett Construction submitted an overall
concept plan for the Duckwood Trails Planned Development which consisted of:
a. 162 Unit Apartment Complex and 162 Unit Detached Garage
b. 72 Condominium Apartment Complex
c. 58 Townhouse Units
At the February 27, 1979 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
approval with many conditions.
On March 6, 1979, the application appeared before the Eagan City Council. A
motion was made by Councilman Smith, seconded by Councilman Wachter, all in
favor, to approve the application for the preliminary plat covering the entire
parcel consisting of 33.5 acres, subject to the recommendations of the Planning
Commission. Smith also requested that, since the property was presently zoned
R-4, that an application be submitted to rezone the entire parcel R-3 prior to
the final plat. In case the Planned Development did not develop, the zoning would
then revert to an R-3 which would allow only townhouses. It was also required at
this meeting that the applicant submit all plans for building approval to the
City Council prior to construction.
The last item considered at the May 6, 1979 City Council meeting was to approve
the environmental assessment worksheet for the Duckwood Trail Planned Development.
Exhibit 1 indicates the proposed plan from the public hearing of February 27 and
March 6, 1979 for the proposed planned development.
On May 15, 1979, at a regular City Council meeting, Bar-ett Construction Company's
application for rezoning was considered by the Eagan City Council. At the May
15th meeting, a motion was made to approve the rezoning from R-4, Residential
Multiple District, to R-3, Residential Townhouse District.
On January 22, 1980, Bar-ett Construction Company submitted another application
to revise the original planned development. This revision consisted of removing
the 162 detached garage spaces and providing 162 underground parking spaces for
the 162 unit apartment complex. With this revision, the Zoning Ordinance allowed
bonus or density credits which would allow an additional 17.4 units which could
be added to the project. Since Bar-ett Construction had applied for financing
through HUD for 162 units, they could not add the additional 17.4 units to the
proposed 162 unit apartment complex. Therefore, they requested to revise the site
plan and preliminary plat to include Lot 2 which would contain an 18 unit apartment
complex. The Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval on January 22, 1980.
Staff Report Memo - Duckwood & Ridgecliffe
October 23, 1980
Page Two
The application for the revision to the Duckwood Planned Development appeared on
the Council agenda on February 19, 1980. The application would amend the planned
development as indicated above to increase density by 17.4 or 18 units. Exhibit
2 is the copy of the proposed plan change which was approved.
At the May 6, 1980 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the final plat
for Duckwood Trail. Exhibit 3 is a copy of the plat which has been recorded.
On September 10, 1980, Bar-ett Construction Company appeared at the joint meeting
of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission and City Council to review the planned
developments in existence in the City. At the September 10 meeting, Bar-ett
Construction proposed a second amendment or change to the Duckwood Trail Planned
Development. This change was to transfer the 18 unit apartment building which
was approved earlier over to the 72 unit condominium building to allow a total of
90 units for the condominium building. Lot 2, Block 1, of Duckwood Trail, would be
used for excess parking for the 90 unit condominium project. The Advisory Planning
Commission and City Council were concerned about the transfer of the 18 units.
Staff had not yet then received the proposed site plan as to how the change would
look. Therefore, the Advisory Planning Commission took no action on the proposed
change at the September 10 special meeting but suggested they would act upon it
when the applicant made a formal application to the City for the revision.
When the staff reviewed the detailed plans for the second amendment of the Duck-
wood Trail Planned Development, the 18 unit apartment complex proposed on Lot 2,
Block 1, Duckwood Trail appeared to be improperly located. The 18 unit apartment
was proposed between a 162 unit apartment and a 72 unit condominium complex and
had appeared to look more like a garage complex than an apartment complex. The
best approach to relocate the 18 unit apartment would have been to add it to the
162 unit apartment; however, the .applicant had received HUD funding for the 162
units and could not add to the apartment complex. The other alternative was to
add the 18 units to the 72 unit condominium apartments. In relocating the 18
units, it provided 'more open space between the two units, overflow parking, and
the increase of the 18 units on the 72 did not appreciably impact the project.
Therefore, the whole proposal appeared more aesthetically pleasing, providing
more open space, and only two buildings as opposed to three. Therefore, the staff
did agree that relocating the 18 units would be better than providing three
buildings, and that the changes proposed would work in the layout approved in the
original platting, causing no requirement for a replat.
On September 23, the applicant appeared before the Advisory Planning Commission
for a public hearing to revise the Duckwood Trail Planned Development in accordance
with Exhibit 3• This plan shows a transfer of the 18 unit apartment complex which
was to be located on Lot 2 to be transferred to the 72 unit condominium complex.
The Lot 2 would then be designed to handle the additional parking for the 90 unit
condominium complex. The Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed change. The request then went before the Eagan City Council on October
21 for their approval. The applicant was requesting to transfer the units as a
second amendment to the Planned Development and, in addition, revising the outlots
in the Duckwood Trail Addition into 3 blocks under the Duckwood Trail 2nd Addition
Preliminary Plat.
Staff Deport Memo - Duckwood & Ridgecliffe
October 23, 1980
Page Three
RIDGECLIFFE ADDITION
The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22, 1980, of
Ridgecliffe Addition which consisted of approximately 144 acres. The land use
breakdown on the Ridgecliffe Addition consisted of 81.15 acres single family;
159 units, 36.18 acres of quads; 216 units, 2.60 acres double or duplexes; 10
units, 16.61 acres park; 1.58 acres pond; 6.10 acres miscellaneous streets, etc.
The total was 144.22 acres. The total dwelling units: 385. In this original
Ridgecliffe, the area was divided into the standard single family lots, the
standard quadrominium units and the new concept of quads, Ridgecliffe 2nd and
3rd Additions. Ridgecliffe lst Addition is a plat of the entire area in which
parkland is dedicated and also outlots where new quads will be platted once the
foundations have occurred.
On August 26, 1980, U. S. Homes appeared at a public hearing before the Advisory
Planning Commission to discuss the revision of the original preliminary plat.
This revision consisted of replatting the original or standard quadrominium unit
into the new style units which were approved in the Ridgecliffe 2nd and 3rd
Additions. The reason U. S. Homes were requesting this revision to the prelimi-
nary plat was that all the units within the 2nd and 3rd Addition had been sold
and they wished to continue with this type of development. The revision to the
planned development consisted of eliminating the through street and platting the
private streets for the new townhouse development.
At a staff meeting held to discuss the replat of the Ridgecliffe Addition, all
department heads were present to give their comments and concerns for the new
proposal. Police and Fire had concerns regarding the private street but felt
it would not be a problem if the private streets were identified properly and
with no parking allowed on the private drives. The distance to the end of each
street is approximately 300 feet, which is not a problem for fire or police
protection. The subject also came up that in an emergency situation there could
be more than one way to get into this development because each of the private
streets would allow you to get to the front or the rear of an individual complex.
Not providing loop streets or cul-de-sacs would make the outlot, or the green
area in the rear, or the middle of the complex more desirable and useable to
the residents rather than making the developer do either of these requirements.
Therefore, it was the staff's opinion that the City experiment with private
streets in this development.
The original plat within this area consisted of 136 units of quadrominium and 7
single family units. The proposed replat consisted of 120 new style quadrominium
units and 12 duplex units for an overall net reduction of 11 dwelling units. The
Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval on August 26, 1980.
On September 16, 1980, the City Council reviewed the revised preliminary plat for
Ridgecliffe 4th and 5th Additions. Smith moved, Parranto seconded the motion to
approve the request subject to conditions. The Council also requested that U. S.
Homes rezone the Ridgecliffe 4th Addition to R-2 to conform with the proposed
use. All members of the City Council voted in approval. U. S. Homes Corporation
has made application to the City to rezone Ridgecliffe 4th Addition to R-2 which
would then conform with the proposed approved preliminary plat. The application
will be heard by the Advisory Planning Commission on October 28, 1980, to consider
the rezoning request.
Staff Report ?Nemo - Duckwood & Ridgecliffe
October 23, 1980
Page Four
Enclosed with this report are exhibits showing the phasing of the final plat.
Exhibit No. 1 is the Ridgecliffe 1st Addition, which consists of the plat of
the entire area. Exhibit 2 is an exhibit of the Ridgecliffe 2nd and 3rd Addi-
tion, which is a plat of the first new style condominium units. These units
were approved with private streets, and they were three dwelling units deep.
Exhibit 3 is Ridgecliffe 4th and 5th Addition, which is a re-plat of the standard
type condominium units which has received preliminary plat approval for the new
style condominium units.
If anyone has any question regarding the order or would like additional informa-
tion on the Ridgecliffe Addition, please feel free to contact me at City Hall.
Sincerely,
Dale C. Runkle
City Planner
DCR/jac
MEMO TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1980
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS — DUCKWOOD TRAILS ADDITION
The following considerations were reviewed by the Engineering Department during
the consideration of the Duckwood Trails Additon plat and also the subsequent
preliminary plat for Duckwood Trail Second Addition.
DUCKWOOD TRAIL ADDITION (FIRST PROPOSAL)
This first proposal provided for a 162 unit apartment complex with a 162 unit
detatched garage facility. In consideration of this plat, a concept plan was
submitted indicating future construction of a 72 unit condominium along the
west edge and several townhouse complexes on the north side of this plat.
This parcel of property contains, on—site, a natural marshy slough area which
staff felt could best be developed into an on—site sedimentation pond for the
storm sewer system. Soil borings taken by Bar—ett Construction Company also
indicated that this was the area of incompatible soils for development purposes.
They then agreed to develop this marshy area through swamp excavation into an
on—site sedimentation ponding area which was felt could be also beneficial as
an amenity to the overall development. Taking into consideration the overall
concept of phased development of the PD combined with their proposed location
of the sedimentation pond and the proposed 162 unit apartment complex, it was
determined that the proposed road location was the most feasible for this layout.
After approving the preliminary plat and the PD for this first proposal, the
developer revised his proposed major apartment complex to provide for underground
garage parking. Subsequently, this provided the opportunity for an additional
18 units on the First Addition of Duckwood Trail due to the current zoning and
density regulations. Because they had already processed their HUD financing
for the 162 unit complex, they could not add the additional 18 units to this
structure. Subsequently, their final plat proposal provided for creation of
a second lot in the Duckwood Trail plat providing for a separate 18 unit apart—
ment complex with its separate parking facility. The final location of the
sedimentation pond was then formally established and the appropriate drainage
and utility easements were incorporated in the final plat. The roadway alignment
and utility layout was still the most feasible with this second proposal. With
their final plat being approved in May of 1980 which dedicated all ponding ease—
ments and street right—of—way, Bar—ett Construction then proceeded with the
construction of the 162 unit apartment complex and the related grading required
by the City for Duckwood Trail street right-of-way. Ground was broken in August
of 1980, proceeding with this work.
Engineering Considerations Memo
October 23, 1980
Page Two
DUCKWOOD TRAIL SECOND ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
With their first phase now under construction, Bar-ett Construction Company
wanted the City to review and consider the possibility of relocating and com-
bining separate arate 18 unit apartment complex (Lot 2, Block 1 , Duckwood Trail
Plat) into the second phase of construction of the 72 unit condominium located
on the west side of the overall PD. This would create a single 90 unit condo-
minium complex adjacent to the O'Leary Lake shore line. Staff then felt that
this combination would help to eliminate a very small detached apartment complex
(in relation to 72 unit condominium and the 162 unit apartment complex) which
would then add to the openess effect of the overall development.
Staff then felt that Lot 2, Block 1, of Duckwood Trails Addition, could
effectively be used as the location for the required additional stalls that
the City demands to be installed as dictated by present City policy regarding
the condominium unit and total future parking stall needs. It was felt that
through this parking facility being located in latest proposal, it would be
the last area to be filled due to its distance to the condominium unit. Yet
we felt it would serve a useful purpose to provide this off street parking
location for those peak periods of useage by a high density development. We
took into consideration that, due to its low percentage use (being the last
parking stalls to be used) , it would generate the lowest volume of pedestrian
crossings of a public street. The consideration was also taken into account
in regards to the traffic volumes of Duckwood Trail in relationship to the anti-
cipated ingress/egress to the overall development.
This PD proposed revision and subsequent preliminary plat was processed through
the Planning Commission at the annual PD review in addition to the normal Plan-
ning Commission public hearing meeting at the end of September. It was then
forwarded on to the Council for their consideration pertaining to the transfer
and combination of an 18 unit apartment complex with the previously proposed
72 unit condominium complex. The Council may wish to consider requiring a
replatting and regrading of the previously dedicated public right-of-way in
exchange for allowing this combination and then leaving the developer with his
decision of performing that replatting process or leaving the 18 unit original
proposed complex in its previously presented location. This information was
then forwarded to the Council on October 21, after first being thoroughly re-
viewed by staff and discussed by the Planning Commission for their ultimate
consideration. The location of the roadway had previously been resolved by
official Council action with the approval of the final plat of the Duckwood
Trail Addition.
Engineering Considerations Memo
October 23, 1980
Page Three
I am convinced that there was no intentional deception planned or proposed by
the developer in this proposal. They worked closely with the staff in providing
all information requested to perform the appropriate reviews. This included
soil borings, environmental assessment worksheets, grading and drainage plans,
proposed utility connections, etc. I would be happy to discuss in further detail
any aspect of this review process with you or the Council if so desired.
Respectfull submitted,
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
isi,f °t ti
Y •-ii• k..•-s�rt _d •�- Is
iSeg _
_ • �[ «.'..._ Its ift. iv.
�yi_ r _s . !E�I .•+
_,• .'�' a _�.r��<- � _ �_�°. • _a Vis. •# s-+�_ - o
i= is=s
�• .rte iia �__�, :; n'= ` a:� �=�% t1 �:� Y~E ---_'_ • � '- �.•� �
ase 1 _ : _g �g F-EP i•t +t:_.— ^'` �: _ It:'" _# = Ll
' 9" �-T'tie !� .E� L� E)yu2 _"mss 1 L`= c�.. .r€i •- SIT-
z e
.. J iii` _ �-�fs `v - :.i,..... `�i{d=...�•_—<i _ •�' �• i - -;}.
IF r
it
_..�5^.
- .
iu.-_+� .��+�_.�-• -- •ra.�i•.--�` � - �:►� � ��� _. -c.:... � J.£ L moi_-_— [� �_ { z
LLJ
39O1a
CO a — r edoa 3x11 kNNHOP r
w '------------ - [
10-LAO : {
LL
Ouj
c
ui
,. r
W oCl
Z
1 n � ��� _• +* __ filr .`� .F'2{3 ►-� `tom _'f
A Iz-ur O
lk
3i � ..\ C �f{ : Imo.. g ►ir� �"� az.* C
!1 - + w _ \ • ; ter►
�{tt$
� s
w—
S
fifw
10
i�SIL
r
0
A V"
reel.
1po
0
OF a �ja
or
'Irk
IL 9
0
0
A
rn
IE
1 .110n
4
a JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE
ROAD
CAKE
hi-H14i
ir
iiz-
Vi!
rt r:;Iazz
jo
� _• .1= � � it � a sf i7 j =iii=� �� jrs — rz= ;""rJiss = i
o r: si ir
7'.Ir
!flit
I
NITir
•n•vr t r r ••rs
$If A amino
t f
�14 .�.;:�,,at a � wd 4 r._,,,,: ""�,.�^ ��r� .�s�i � ',a r _- a A rd 'rr•�s t 8 a a'
Ia rwlzwz�;�• �sru�ex,Y I ar+' �Yi ',Nf�, L�•,'� '� '�t't*v 2�+ s�rF~A'r F� r a � . <fi ', Y i
= g' a c,S1�' ry'+X"i� � t»`"'�. ' � a i'I �\• n �� Y c EI'1 ti !+'sY T L kt we k I '-- w -
j
'...I•rar r d� �zmrwv'.� •9 f;,_`_ �, '1.: a .C„" 3y*�o�� �+� r:d $��* x =
a °b � x� � e u � � �z z s i; ,_}~�� \�:Sk� o i f�Rp• �`I..Y^0 .A.r � , Cz •'
—a —
a 3Yr-1 r cw tJC11'JtJIA00 a• »a."SW? M �a '^ ' c !. �x
+zm
+01
6 zi~
1 I q / i' ► a 6,, m�` ���+`: j.', �}sz,fin 1 t.;f r �-"'4� '+ + Yd" c BaNr�r � ` �a.
wt '
fes:'–' zMU •� a��y vS� m a}`a � y,y. �. __wn_ ..i A- �P ld �hyq i�' � '.d..,�,
g ~��� i Jsaar i ♦{ � ».v- � ^' � .y+, t 4 /♦a r. fa4 .__c,� f, rI
Z rr.J. _`+.wsy-.,Y'pi+ _ ,i4i d aL � ♦ ¢ 1 er �! /r `'h '3 0♦ r I.,c, i.s..., r'�
u R a a� F: �'�/�+..�'..j;,� c ' ��. r�r ��"�`` x+�+. = dY cc..r,I t r�` .t,":-,�'s• r /;R " #s ��ek K,
.� a i carr,,. 4 a r'; r+►'�\ II;� r b z •....,� +{Ra ,i. �� x i �.1$acl.>:s g=;
n as. a �k my P ��♦ Y} yys .f't��a �6 � e •iziJ i ��,` �' b��z rx a ix
�• > R 1 s � Yt' �r'I 01 f., 1�.. Y� x(xQ f �= v �, z
41 � 'rte. ^\ � Ix 6S 1i'n �"? ✓Y C �4 //
i ��` �}F#p t 1:kr. Z \, p{d oz a,c i °��.i _i + t 4��_a � .�01/ f .,,.•..•r^ [
� � '��'•.'>�. 'moi�yd a ♦;',.a. rx 'aw.'. ,•r _ yR _ �' �m R. p�_ _ «. _ �
4)r�Y�i!�� • � � ,I.��r'f I€ I a^^Y �J ��(y' �0 Tq� •�""`4t a,' n�
I. + �' �Ti".� "awe ova I �Dm I 5 I t •tom ..S-� } 'e' I o� )I �. a m �
�` o P ��, s� ~'� '' �T=� � � Kee 3 � Nz�i• z �? ! I $ Iy " �+ I
,j � �� P y4 z��' I iI 14°jh m •'�� = f �� ayr°b s �o� �F;:
Zr VN
avow unoo P — 'In;,N °F q ��a/,..� � �"tl— . 8 �' a 41
r
avow
—�� Air..
x£4J O'00tl At -�
wl.u. ur ua r••r^ri/.•.� tv»w• ax.,rov a 2, a t P4
�.} I,aw:13V
NOI.LIaad 1S813 3.A3I-1030018
P
c a� :. Ion • � e I ° e h+ ..
�- Ic _ w
t _ E
-:22
E IGC Ol1i rlI
111Z 2
LE
� o
WW o of f 5 � •� \ �
-4:\f Q
Qp.lOt w„ s., NOV6'/J'l
0 or-
li• .'�!> }. \•' h Z•i % 71\C, \�.; N//'lSrl'W s�•NOw a!f
19
.'r / e• V "`-; A *� �s,
(10
1011 i
/ z
N N
�• �� '� ' t IN }fl MJl —., V �
1o11n0 .,••,d ;�, Hy
�� j {� .Arlr not J•a N.,DN • _ _ ! � o '
60
� n = N•
__ • .' �•� � ''
T I w }rN.,.. •.:,.. 1Q1NQi fn t• NK'l N•• �\
,, 8
.• g
}2
LL
rull
Ld
••2 "•M If i W
wIf f,w �ing lI-• r a
V I !�� Sa w — ��• gi AN nN at'
/ r.A Hlw •.•I, wN r}w� 1Q1inQ .M.r;
.�
s ♦� tom; — dd �,. � . '' ►. _ .. c � _ ^`
/` .� `yam �•��t d,1 +`O. - •• •� n •i,`t� +'l~� "yam
INI�
K.•`�+' \v� �si� �- ...tip .d+ ."5.,It
r O��A� A s \•.'
6�M i e {� \ �ri � N• .�
zf
O
t�
[Y QI(J,1. N /,.•" $�w^ }•. Z
00
49
+ICA .
ZMrl
s _
}" "� .„•pUTLOT ! 1 , it z
Q • N � A •r - ••• N
•t w' � f e ,J•f A IF 1
i OUTLOT.`(J
A
0 Pe
ou LOT,
Ld
bUTLO
J :a• moi• �� ,+•' � G /
I
ui
R � N ST •` a� \\
NOlJNIX31
_ to
CL
cr r , of ",
co
41
>- o ; • cl
Y
W 1•-
v
OVS1Ot
i h
J = f
~ r W • # d i i {� e s
r
�--� s z
Ate• I-� • j•� C C �
t
a .p.( � '�•- ,� ;ie:rte - 0
� i•• i
•^! i' ..cwt 4c.w..•u t `. , s
� ! } sfi:.sr.�Lifrt.s t ,-:it•i=3••-" It
c
''=' it [( � '?' 'ii? �• t' � :_ :=-i
r •iii t s ,r .,�•�'� :is tc -rt_SI �.
r ;t'i _irr t
. r ( .
i ji G l�!
ZT
Hill '
Hf
''maVENUE
y'
— _
ol
ol
\\
r• s,
� ": •• ''�f, \��'\ '•.:,. t SII'�+1 1 `, „• � � I
1 '
• , 1 •ti. :�' \�,\tib t � �
' I `� � fir , � � ; � i - � • :
r
ff f
• . _ - . , . ,' ' IMT•} _ . � . •`�-�. • "`_...`�'�•, ' • -• '.: .
1
;. �, is ��..�:.:�--.���- ,. �� •� ..�
_ � -� • - 1
to
IfQ
pac?
1 \ate ��:� 1 �^.�•�� ��� �� • �. ! •�
J���..�i� / � .moi. ,�,I� 1) Q�•t ..
ren e'.li MCAIC .
�. A oleh 7"1uaT 4S U N c C -�o Tke. 7 u NAL L� aw e PMrit cyte '
M^k.a. e-( qO v ni,�c ,Gesv�d a 14'x••V6. w c----"f:
o• d# 73ioc. - `n '
J e-.4z