Consider Sketch Plan for BK Land Development (formerly known as Villas at Northfork); Project No. 19-147

The purpose of this case is to review an application from BK Land Development (the "Applicant") for a sketch plan for the site generally known as PID 19-32-25-41-0004, south of Alpine Drive and west of Puma Street and the Riverstone (Capstone) Development Project (the "Subject Property"). The Applicant has proposed 61 villa style lots (50 foot wide, R-2 zoning) and 35 single family lots (80 foot wide lots, R-1 MUSA) for a total of 96 lots. Approximately 18.5 acres will be dedicated to the villas, while the remaining 15 acres will be dedicated to the single family lots.

Notifications of this proposal were sent via Standard US Mail to Property Owners within 700 feet of the Subject Property, as reflected by Anoka County Property Records.

Land Use (Comprehensive Plan) and Zoning

As part of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, a dual designation is proposed on this parcel. Generally speaking, the eastern half of the property is proposed to be guided as Medium Density Residential (4-7 units per acre) and the western half of the property is proposed to be guided as Low Density Residential (3-4 units per acre). 

This proposal requires a Zoning Amendment from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to R-1 Residential (MUSA) and R-2 Residential (Detached Villa), which will be handled through a separate case.

Single Family Detached (R-1 Residential: MUSA)

The Applicant has proposed that the western half of the property has traditional 80-foot wide detached single family homes. The proposed lots in this area appear to meet all of the requirements of Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential). This residential zoning allows a density at a maximum of 3 units per acre; staff has calculated the density at approximately 2.3 units per acre. Staff does not anticipate any issues with the density but has requested an official calculation.

Medium Density (R-2 Residential: Detached Villas)

The Applicant has proposed that the eastern portion of the property have detached villas with 50-foot wide lots. The proposed lots in this area appear to meet all of the requirements of Section 117-112 (R-2 Residential) which allows a density from 4 - 7 units per acre. Staff has calculated the density at approximately 4 units per acre. A detailed calculation has been requested, though Staff does not anticipate any concerns with the density.

This subdistrict of the R-2 Residential District was recently created to allow for detached medium density single-family units (detached townhomes), but not attached medium density single-family residential units (attached townhomes).

Process - Sketch Plan

Per City Code Section 117-588, the Sketch Plan is the first step of a Major Plat. This allows the Applicant to get high level feedback on the proposal and direction before moving forward with a preliminary plat.

1. Sketch Plan – Planning Commission
2. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan – Planning Commission + City Council
3. Final Plat – City Council

Staff has classified the current Application as incomplete. Minnesota Statute 15.99 establishes the 60 Day Rule requiring the City to act on an Application within 60 days of receipt. Said Statute also gives the City 15 days to consider the Application as incomplete and stop the 60 Day Clock. In this instance, Staff generally believes that the Sketch Plan conforms to appropriate Zoning Codes (pending Zoning Amendment), but needs the Applicant to better demonstrate compliance before preparing the Preliminary Plat. Staff is comfortable allowing the Sketch Plan Review to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, but acknowledging the incomplete items need a Staff Level Approval before moving forward with Preliminary Plat. 

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Recommend the Applicant move forward with preparing a preliminary plat that includes staff feedback. This project generally meets the guidance of the DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan and appears to meet the base requirements of the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District and R-2 Residential (Detached Villas) sections of City Code, respectively. The Applicant has worked with City Staff to modify the proposal to better fit with City goals and regulations. This direction would require Staff Approval of the incomplete items before preparing Preliminary Plat materials. Staff is supportive of this alternative.

Alternative 2: Recommend the Applicant not move forward with preparing a preliminary plat. This would mean that the Planning Commission is generally not supportive of the project. If choosing this option, Staff recommends providing specific findings on why the Planning Commission would not support this project. Since this project does require a Zoning Amendment, the City does have broad discretion to deny the request if desired. 

Alternative 3: Recommend major changes to the Sketch Plan and recommend the Applicant make recommended changes and return with another Sketch Plan. Staff could be supportive of this if the Planning Commission sees major items requiring attention prior to Preliminary Plat.

The Applicant is responsible for all costs related to this request. 

Based on guidance within the DRAFT 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends Alternative 1 providing the Applicant general feedback on the proposed sketch plan and provide the Applicant direction on moving forward with a preliminary plat application.

No formal action required. Provide the Applicant feedback on moving forward preparing a Preliminary Plat. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the project moving forward, now is the time to raise this concern before the Developer incurs the cost of Preliminary Plat design.