3. Will there be any amenities provided for the apartment or townhouse area, such as play areas or trails?

Transcription

1 .._ - Cityof Maple Grove MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Elm Creek Estates File Dick Edwards, Community Development Director DATE: December 27,2016 SUBJECT: Community Development Staff Comments 1. Code requires a minimum of two spaces per unit for the apartment portion of the development, at least one of which shall be provided in the underground parking area. Please confirm. 2. Please consider guest parking spaces in the townhouse area. 3. Will there be any amenities provided for the apartment or townhouse area, such as play areas or trails? 4. Staffhas noticed the legal description gap. Staff recognizes the need to address this situation and realizes the applicant is aware of this. 5. Your narrative states that the apartments are proposed on the western portion of the site because the adjacent corner parcel is envisioned to develop as some form of commercial. This is not true at all. The parcel has the same guiding as the subject parcels and is not intended to be developed with anything other than residential uses. Please correct this statement. 6. There is a reference to a 40-foot setback for the rear areas of the townhomes. This may be reduced to 30 feet if desired. 7. Staff requests that consideration be made to provide joint access with the adjoining west parcel. It is anticipated that discussions will occur between City staff and the parties as discussed. Please provide responses or updated plans by Wednesday January 4,2016 Thanks.

2 ~ - Cityof _ Maple Grove MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Dick Edwards, City Planning Director Jupe Hale, PE, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 4,2017 SUBJECT: Elm Creek Estates - PUD Concept Stage Plan Engineering staff has reviewed the Concept Stage PUD Plan for Elm Creek Estates and offer the following comments for consideration. 1. TRAFFIC a) The proposed 167 dwelling units (consisting of 69 owner-occupied townhomes and 98 apartment units) will likely generate approximately 1,050 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 80 trips occurring during the a.m. peak (15 inbound and 65 outbound trips), and 100 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour (65 inbound and 35 outbound trips). Due to the fact that the proposed development will generate less than 100 trips during both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, a traffic study is not needed, since the adjacent roadways will be able to accommodate the traffic generated proposed development. b) The site is proposed to be served by four access points along Territorial Road; two for the apartment building portion of the site, and two for the townhome portion. Territorial Road is designated as a minor collector in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the existing speed limit along Territorial Road is 40 mph. Therefore, the City would like to reduce the number of access points. Applicant shall redesign the site layouts to have a shared driveway between the apartments and the townhomes, with applicable cross-access and maintenance agreements. In addition, applicant will be required to accommodate the parcel to the west with a shared access point, either in its current location with an easement to allow future connection, or by relocating the driveway west nearer the shared property line (also with a cross-access and maintenance agreement). The public Street A on the east end is adequate to ensure future access from parcels to the south and east. c) Parking appears to be adequate for the apartment portion of the proposed development (106 at-grade parking spaces and an undefined number of underground parking for the apartment building). d) Parking in the townhome portion of the site will be difficult. There are minimal number of on-street parking spots available given the narrow streets and short driveways that are closely spaced. The applicant should provide some additional guest parking spots throughout the proposed townhome portion of the site. If parking will be allowed on the narrow private streets, it should be restricted to only one side of the roadway. In addition, the City will be improving Territorial Road to its ultimate configuration in conjunction with this

3 development, and intends to provide on-street parking along the south side of Territorial Road (parking will not be accommodated and prohibited on north side). e) The site plan does not show any proposed sidewalk/trail along the north side of their property (or the south side of Territorial Road). Since this development is so close to the existing Three Rivers Regional Trail (located on the east side of Fernbrook Lane), and given the fact that Territorial Road is a rural section roadways with narrow shoulders, there will likely be a strong demand for a safe, off-street pedestrian connection to this popular pedestrian facility. As part of the ultimate build-out of Territorial Road, the City will construct an 8-foot bituminous trail within the public right-of-way. Development Stage plans should accommodate this intent in terms of trail connection and grading. Given the lack of pedestrian sources along the north side of Territorial Road, as well as direct connection into Elm Creek Park Preserve near F ernbrook Road, no pedestrian accommodations along the north side of Territorial Road are anticipated. f) Stop signs should be provided at each proposed driveway access to public streets. g) The proposed parking area near the front door of the apartment building is a dead-end parking field that will be difficult for delivery vehicles to access and/or turnaround. Are there any loading zones available for renters and/or deliveries? h) Trash enclosures for the apartment building are not shown on the plan. The applicant should identify their location on future plans and confirm that garbage/recycling trucks can access them safely and efficiently. 2. ROADWAY a) The supporting public roadway system consists of Territorial Road (minor collector) and Street A (proposed local street). The name for Street A (from the grid) is Zinnia Lane. Please see access combination/location discussion in Section 1 of this Memorandum, but otherwise the public street system is adequate. b) Applicant proposes private streets within the townhomes, which is acceptable. Storm water system serving these private streets will also thus be private. Water and sanitary sewer along the private streets, however, will be public facilities and will require easement. c) The drive aisles, parking lots and storm system within the apartment complex shall be private as well. Public easement may be required, however, to accommodate water and sanitary sewer that serves adjoining parcels. d) The City will construct Territorial Road to its ultimate configuration in conjunction with this project, which is proposed to be a 36-foot wide roadway, with one lane each direction and shoulder on the north side/parking on the south side. A curb and gutter (urban) configuration is proposed on the south side, and a rural (no curb) section on the north side to match with the rural nature of Elm Creek Park Preserve. An 8-foot bituminous trail is proposed on the south side with connection to the trail at Fernbrook Lane (and south toward the school/fields or north into the park from there). No pedestrian facilities are proposed on the north side. e} Applicant will need to perform title work on their parcels ahead of their development stage plans. Territorial Road is a former state highway, and as such the right of way was typically fee title. Current plans indicate otherwise, so clarification is needed. Ultimately, the City will require 40 feet of right of way south of the Territorial Road center line, and that dedication should be shown on the Development Stage plans.

4 3. WATER a) Primary water service is through an existing 36-inch main along Territorial Road, which is adequate to support the proposed development. However, four taps into this large line is excessive and expensive, as well as creates additional leak potential. City will allow two taps into this line (maximum), preferably at the west and east ends of the proposed development. Water main should be looped internally within the sites as well as across the property line to provide service. b) 8-inch stubs must be provided for the property to the west of the apartment, the property to the east of the townhomes, and the property south of the townhomes (this stub already shown on concept). c) Water mains within the townhome development will be publicly owned and maintained. Easement is required over all mains. Fire suppression system around apartments may be privately owned and maintained, with the exception of any mains that lead to the stub to the property to the west. Those are considered water mains and must be within public easement. 4. SANITARY SEWER a) Sanitary sewer service is proposed via connection to an existing Metropolitan Council (MCES) Interceptor near County Road 81 (south side of the property). There is currently no outside drop in place at this manhole (designated as MH 114 on 2005 record drawings), and access to MCES Interceptors is restricted. Construction of a connecting main will be difficult across the wetland (likely requiring either directional boring or wetland mitigation), and an internal drop. The manhole itself is within the wetland boundary. b) 8-inch sanitary stubs must be provided to the property to the west of the apartments and to the east of the townhomes. It is likely that the property to the south of the townhomes will connect to the MCES Interceptor at a location nearer County Road 81 and to the east. c) All sanitary sewer mains within the townhomes shall be public and will require a public easement. Sanitary sewer service within the apartment property may be private, but any main that provides service/outfall to the property to the east will be considered a public main and will require easement. d) Given items 4a - 4c above, the City suggests connection to the existing MCES manhole to the east/upstream ofmh 114. Wetland impact is reduced, and service to the parcel to the east is more easily accommodated. There is no existing connection point at this manhole (MH 115) either, but it appears to be out of the wetland, making construction easier. e) Once the preferred connection point is selected, the City will make application to MCES to allow for service connection into either MH 114 or MH STORM WATER a) Ponds as shown are conceptually acceptable. Applicant should be aware of sizing and design constraints in order to meet Elm Creek Watershed requirements. b) Territorial Road will be widened to 36-feet wide, including an additional 8'- wide trail, from Fernbrook Lane to the eastern boundary of the proposed development. This additional impervious area will also be subject to Elm Creek Watershed requirements. Applicant shall

5 determine the amount of additional impervious area, and expand their pond designs to accommodate. Any additional ponding required will result in appropriate credit toward special assessments. Ponds will be public, and all pipes leading into or out of these ponds will require easement. c) There is a crossing culvert in the low point of Territorial Road, between townhome numbers 47 and 48. A wetland is shown nearby, but no outfall is indicated for this location, and the contributing drainage area is unknown. Applicant shall investigate this storm facility and plan for accepting that flow accordingly, including outfall facility within easement. d) City is aware of an approved wetland delineation in this area. If not already considered when showing the wetland boundaries on the plans, applicant should acquire this delineation. Boundaries should be shown accurately and mitigation proposed where applicable. 6. ASSESSMENTS AND AREA CHARGES There are no current or pending assessments on the affected parcels. There are direct benefits and area charges to be assessed, as well as possible credits for right of way dedication and pond establishment. Upon approval ofpud Development Stage, the City will hire a consultant to prepare a feasibility report detailing these benefits and charges. Cc: Ken Ashfeld, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer

6 .li,i)i IKIIl Sireci ),,";1,. Sliite' tr103' Sl. Cipuc\,,\-IN ')(>_)Ol l'hoi}c: j2().2'i,~.'i '11:, h.x:.121),.!",:..)(,(i.1 January 3,2017 REVISED January 4,2017 Mr. Dick Edwards, Community Development Director CITY OF MAPLE GROVE Arbor Lakes Parkway Maple Grove, MN Re: Response to Community Development Staff Comments Concept Review Application - Elm Creek Estates SEND VIA E~MAIL Dear Mr. Edwards, Below please find our wri tten response to the Staff Review Comment Memorandum dated December 27,2016. For your convenience, each of the seven comments are enumerated below, followed by our response shown in RED. 1. Code requires a minimum of two spaces per unit for the apartment portion of the development, at least one of which shall be provided in the underground parking area, Please confirm, RESPONSE: The underground parking garage is designed to have approx.. I () 7 spaces, The surface parking will be maintained with at least 89 parking spaces to achieve a minimum total of 106 spaces, 2. Please consider guest parking spaces in the townhouse area. RESPONSE: oted. Streets are also widened to 28 feet to accommodate on-street parking on one side. 3, Will there be any amenities provided for the apartment or townhouse area, such as play areas or trails? RESPONSE: Complete amenity package will be addressed as plans are further developed. 4. Staff has noticed the legal description gap, Staff recognizes the need to address this situation and realizes the applicant is aware of this. RESPONSE: Applicant is aware of title defect in legal description, creating all "overlap" of lot lines. It is believed this can be remedied through the platting process,

7 5, Your narrative states that the apartments are proposed on the western portion of the site because the adjacent comer parcel is envisioned to develop as some form of commercial. This is not true at all. The parcel has the same guiding as the subject parcels and is not intended to be developed with anything other than residential uses, Please correct this statement. RESPONSE: Applicant stands corrected on the guide plan tor parcel west of the proposed apartment site, It is recognized that the guided use for the property west of the proposed apartments is Medium Density Residential 4 to 10 units per acres, not commercial. 6. There is a reference to a 40-foot setback for the rear areas of the townhornes. This may be reduced to 30 feet if desired. RESPONSE: Noted. Future plan revisions will observe a 30 foot rear area setback for the townhomes. 7. Staff requests that consideration be made to provide joint access with the adjoining west parcel. It is anticipated that discussions will occur between City staff and the parties as discussed. RESPONSE: Meeting is set for January 5, 2017 with the concerned parties to discuss possibility of joint access. RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMENTS -- per from John Hagen dated December 23, 2016: Trip Generation - it is noted that a traffic study is not needed in connection with the proposed development. Access Comments _. it is noted that the proposed four (4) access points are acceptable, however applicant will explore a possible shared/joint access point with the adjacent parcel to the west (Fischer property),. Parking Comments - Applicant will revisit the off-street parking design to accommodate deliveries, on-street and guest parking for both the apartment and townhome portions of the site. Pedestrian Accommodations - Applicant will explore opportunities to include a pedestrian trail on the 11011h side of the property with the goal of connecting with the existing Regional Trail. Other Miscellaneous Comments - I) Revised plans will include stop signs at each drive way access. 2) Off-street parking for the apartment portion will be reviewed for loading, deliveries and traffic circulation. 3) Trash and recycling areas are included within the interior of the apartment building, No outside trash enclosure will be used for the apartment site.

8 Please feel free to let us know if any additional questions or concerns. We look forward to bringing our Concept Plan before the Planning Commission on Monday, January 9th, '(;'ev~~men~ RogerVi~~ Sr. Vice President C: Scott O'Brien, Trident Development, LLC Todd Cushman, Trinity Development, LLC

9

10