Loading...
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