Consider Multiple Actions Related to Trott Brook North Project (Project No. 20-103); Case of The Excelsior Group

• Introduce Ordinance #20-07 Approving Zoning Amendment from R-1 Residential (MUSA) District to R-1 Residential (Detached Villa) District and R-2 Residential (Detached Villa) District
• Review Sketch Plan
• Adopt Resolution #20-075 Approving Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Previous Lot Split

The purpose of this case is to review an application from The Excelsior Group (the "Applicant") for a rezoning and sketch plan application for a 343 lot residential subdivision that includes multiple parcels generally located west of Nowthen Blvd, east of Variolite Street, south of 175th Avenue and north of Trott Brook (the "Subject Property).  The Applicant is looking for feedback on:

1. Sketch Plan: The Sketch Plan application allows the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff to identify high level red flags with the proposal, outline next steps, and garner feedback from the community. Staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission on the proposed sketch plan (attached), which includes 55-, 65-, and 75- foot wide lots.
2. Zoning Amendment: The Applicant has applied for the zoning amendment at this time to get feedback from residents, Staff, Planning Commission and City Council prior to investment in a preliminary plat. Staff is supportive of this approach (discussing rezoning prior to preliminary plat) and has also started seeking feedback from community members since the proposed sketch plan would be a change from what is currently allowed onsite.

The other purpose of this case is to review and approve a resolution releasing the property generally known as 7040 173rd Ave NW (the "Subject Property") from a pre-existing development contract. The Subject Property is currently under contract for purchase and the existing development agreement needs to be released in order to complete the sale. The City Attorney reviewed and approved the attached documents, which maintains one (1) existing condition from the development contract. This is a standard process that the City executes during the sale of land previously involved in a development agreement or contract with the City of Ramsey in order to clean up title work for the sale.

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 for the May 7, 2020 Public Hearing. A notice was also published in the Anoka Union Herald, the City's Official newspaper for said hearing.  The City also sent an invitation for an online open house hosted before the April Planning Commission Meeting to provide additional preparation for this meeting. Staff has also extended the typical public comment period from 2 weeks to 4 weeks and allowed written public comment which are attached to this case for the public record.

Summary
 

Site Acreage	~200 acres
Proposed Lots	343 Lots
Net Density	2.7 units/acre
Existing Zoning	R-1 Residential (MUSA) District, R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District (Small Section, mainly wetland)
Proposed Lot Sizes	55, 65, 75 foot wide lots

Sketch Plan
The City requires a sketch plan for any major plat in order to provide the Applicant high level feedback before investing in the expense and time of a Preliminary Plat. The Sketch Plan also provides the residents of the community an opportunity to weigh in on the project before the preliminary plat, when the City will hold a formal public hearing on the project. The City wants to reiterate that if the project moves forward, there will be future opportunities for residents to weigh in on the project.

The City has dedicated a webpage for the community to stay updated on this project, which can be found at http://www.cityoframsey.com/748/Trott-Brook-North. Please note that it is very likely that the project name will change throughout this process.

Two adjacent projects have come forward for sketch plan at the same time - this project and a sketch plan for the Hunt Property from Platinum Land (see the attached Site Location Map for context). Staff has attempted to combine these two applications to the extent possible by combining mailings and the public open house is scheduled to discuss both projects.


Rezoning

1. The Subject Property is all currently zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) District (Detached Single Family), which allows for 80-foot wide lots, except the SW parcel (mostly un-buildable wetland), which is zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) and allows for 2.5 acre lots.
2. The Applicant has proposed 55, 65, and 75 foot wide lots.
   • 55 foot wide lots: requires rezoning to R-2 Detached Villa
   • 65 foot wide lots: requires rezoning to R-1 Detached Villa
   • 75 foot wide lots: requires rezoning to R-1 Detached Villa

If the Planning Commission and City Council are supportive of the underlying proposal, Staff proposes a Zoning Amendment to the above districts rather than a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. For those familiar with the PUD process, it is often seen as subjective and not as straight forward. While an appropriate zoning tool, Staff believes it is an unnecessary level of complexity in this case.
 

	Proposed	Allowed	Difference
The Excelsior Group (Makowsky Property)	343 lots	274 lots	+69 lots

Important Items

• Public Park: This area is generally in the search area for Future Community Park #6. The City's Parks Superintendent is excited about the opportunity to provide residents an amenity in this area. The park is currently proposed in the NE corner of the site and provides two fields. The park provides an amenity to Brookfield residents who have expressed the need for a public park amenity near them. There would be a covered bridge (pedestrian bridge) over Trott Brook and trails connecting Brookfield to the park.
• Traffic: Many residents expressed concerns over increased traffic in the area. Nowthen Boulevard is a County Road, so Staff sent to Anoka County for review. Their review letter is attached. With one proposed entrance to the site off both Variolite Street and Nowthen Boulevard, upgrades to both roads are likely with the project (such as turn lanes). If the project moves forward, the Applicant will need to work with the City's Engineering staff and the County's Engineering Staff to propose a solution that accommodates the new homes. Additionally, the combined projects will require the Developers to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) that will include detailed traffic forecasts and recommended area-wide traffic improvements. Finally, the City Council has included in their 2020 Strategic Plan an action to complete a Corridor Study of the entire Nowthen Boulevard Corridor. Staff is working with Anoka County to advance this study later in 2020 or in early 2021. Based on feedback from residents as part of this process, it is reiterated that a traffic study will be required as part of the approval process for this project specifically. In addition, a broader traffic study may occur to supplement this required traffic study in 2020 or 2021.
• Environmental Concerns: Staff has already notified the DNR about the project due to its proximity to Trott Brook. Please see the "Next Steps" section for more information about the environmental precautions that will be required if the project moves forward.
• Utilities: This area is guided for City utilities in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and is currently zoned for utilities. Staff would like to note for the record that just because utilities are in the area, individual property owners on well and septic will not be forced to connect to City utilities per the City's charter.
• Lot Sizes: The Applicant is proposing 55, 65, and 75 foot wide lots. The City recently completed a Housing Study with Maxfield Consulting that indicated there is a demand for this type of product. Staff has heard from the development community that the market is demanding more of this product with smaller lots due to development costs and lifestyle choices. The market for 80 foot wide lots has decreased significantly in the past 5 years, as evidenced by Ramsey's own permit data. are Staff would like to note that just because there is a demand for this type of product, and it is likely it will sell, that does not mean the City is required to allow them in every location. The Planning Commission recommended removal of the 55 foot wide lots, and only including 65 and 80 foot wide lots.
• Shoreland Overlay District:  A portion of the Subject Property is within the Shoreland Overlay District due to proximity to Trott Brook.  The Shoreland Overlay District boundary extends 300 feet from the Ordinary High Watermark (OHW) of Trott Brook.  Within this area, lot width at both the OHW and the building line must be at least seventy-five (75) feet.  There is no minimum lot size (area) requirements for streams in the Shoreland Overlay District.   It does appear that the sketch plan conforms to the lot width standard of the Overlay District.

Changes to Typical Process
Due to the Stay at Home Order, Planning Commission meetings have been moved online, which changes our typical engagement process. The City has implemented the following changes to ensure the public is provided opportunity to comment on this case, including:

• Postponed cases
• Hosted preparatory webinars
• Placed videos online
• Extended public comment periods
• Did more focused outreach
• Suggested alternative means to provide comment

60 Day Rule
The Applicant has agreed to an additional 60 day extension which will allow review of the Sketch Plan and Rezoning application through September 1, 2020. While the Applicant has provided this additional window for review, City Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on the project. Staff is seeking firm direction from the City Council on the vision for this area, allowing the Applicant to make any necessary changes to the Sketch Plan. If the Council desires to postpone action, Staff would request specific direction on what is desired to be studied further. The Council can choose to take action on the Zoning Amendment if it chooses; whether for approval or denial.

Public Comment
Written Comments Received: All written public comments have been attached to this case and shall be considered part of the formal public record. Staff has also attempted to summarize comments received in an attached document to note the most significant areas of concern from residents.

Discussions with Residents: For the last two months or so, Staff has been speaking with residents about this project one-on-one and attempting to clarify the proposal, summarize the public hearing process, and provide opportunities for comment. While many telephones calls were followed up with formal letters or emails, some were not. Staff estimates that approximately ten (10) calls took place with residents who were opposed to the project. Reasons varied but the majority of reasons were: lack of rural character with project, project is too dense, traffic concerns, and environmental concerns. Calls came from residents throughout the City, but most were from those along Variolite or in the Brookfield neighborhood.

Staff sent letters to the three (3) residents whose homes are directly adjacent to the proposed new lots offering meetings or personal calls. Staff heard back from two (2) of the three properties and had conversations about the project. One resident was not concerned about the project, noted that he appreciated the letter, but that he understood development would happen onsite. He stated that he was hopeful the project would reduce his taxes. One resident stated some concerns with the project and the change to the rural character, but understood it was slated for development. They are currently working with the Applicant of the Hunt Property to allow for future development of their property to provide them alternatives in the future. Both property owners were cordial and Staff appreciates the time that residents have dedicated to this project.

Change.org Petition: A resident of Ramsey has created a Change.org petition as an advisory petition against the project with 325 signatures. The signatures from the petition are attached for reference as well as comments that some signers left. It does appear that the original petition page, which received over 100 signatures, was written as petitioning Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, which is not correct. The owner of the petition has since changed to accurately reflect the project. An advisory petition of this nature is not typical with these projects, but will likely become a more standard tool as the City practices social distancing measures. For future petitions, residents should sign with their names and addresses so that Staff can ensure they are Ramsey residents. Staff attempted to match names from the County GIS File. Staff would estimate that up to 25% of the responses came from non-Ramsey Residents. Staff has not been able to verify the address of nearly half of the signatures, although it is assumed that many, if not most are truly Ramsey Residents. Regardless, there appears to be a clear indication of a cluster of signatures along Variolite Street. In response, Staff suggests a City initiated survey to ensure proper data is provided in terms of existing vs. proposed conditions and ensure addresses are included in the response.

City Code Sections

• Section 117-111: R-1 Residential (Existing Zoning and Partial Proposed Zoning)
• Section 117-111: R-2 Residential (Partial Proposed Zoning)
• Section 117-588: Major Plat
• Section 117-614: Subdivision Design Standards

Preliminary Plat/Next Steps
At time of preliminary plat, the City requires: grading plan, landscape plan, tree inventory and preservation plan, utility plan, preliminary plat, and for a project of this scale, an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) to lay out the basics of the project and determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. At this time, the Applicant and Staff are looking for high level review of the project as opposed to going into detailed engineering plans which takes place with the preliminary plat.

Planning Commission Meeting (May 7, 2020)
The draft minutes for the Planning Commission meeting are attached. The Planning Commission met and held a public hearing for the proposed project. After numerous resident comments and thoughtful discussion with residents, the Planning Commission recommended Alternative 2 below, with a majority of the lots at the allowed 80 foot wide size. The written comments that the Planning Commission received are also attached for reference. The Planning Commission was held fully online due to Covid-19 and the Stay at Home Order. Staff attempted to work with residents who struggled to call in or connect via the computer, though some reported technical difficulties. For that reason, Staff does encourage the City Council to receive any new comments on this item at their meeting, noting that residents who have already commented via written comment or at the public hearing have had their comments incorporated via the attached documents (draft minutes, written comments, summary comments, and Change.org petition and comments).

Alternatives
Alternative 1 (Current Proposal): Recommend approval of Ordinance #20-07 rezoning the Subject Property contingent upon preliminary plat approval by the City. This would allow 55, 65, and 75 foot wide lots on the Subject Property. The Zoning Amendment would not be finalized before a preliminary plat is approved. Recommend the Applicant move forward with developing a preliminary plat as the sketch plan indicates.

Alternative 2 (Compromise Scenario): Recommend modifications to Ordinance #20-07 allowing 65 and 80 foot wide lots on the Subject Property and recommending the Applicant keep 80 foot wide lots along Variolite Street and abutting existing residential homes, while putting smaller 65 foot wide lots interior to the site to create a natural density transition. Recommend the Applicant modify the Sketch Plan to remove 55 foot wide lots. This would keep the entire site located in the R-1 Residential District and each lot size would fit within the City's current set of zoning standards (either in the standard subdistrict/80 foot wide lots or the detached villa subdistrict/65 foot wide lots). The Planning Commission supported this recommendation.

Alternative 3 (Existing Zoning): Recommend denial of Ordinance #20-07 rezoning the Subject Property and recommend that the Applicant makes major changes to the sketch plan to comply with existing zoning (80 foot wide lots) before moving forward with preliminary plat.

In any event, Staff has been looking for ways to compromise. It is possible to craft a development scenario that generally maintains the same number of lots as allow, but clustering to a certain degree in order to maximize density transitioning and development creativity. Staff would like additional time to better vet this scenario, although the Planning Commission suggested doing so with only 80 foot wide lots and 65 foot wide lots. Staff supports that approach from an exploratory and public comment phase (without making it a Staff recommendation to formally support that alternative at this time).

The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with review.

Since this is a legislative (policy) decision of the City due to the fact that the request requires a Zoning Amendment, Staff needs broad policy direction before formulating a recommendation.  The Planning Commission recommended that the Developer remove the 55 foot wide lots Staff is looking for confirmation on this direction.

This is a key time in the project to make major layout changes, provide feedback on lot sizes, road alignment, trails, etc. before the Developer incurs the expense of detailed civil engineering drawings. Staff does believe there is room to compromise on a mix of lot sizes.

Motion to introduce/deny/postpone Ordinance #20-07 approving a Zoning Amendment for the Makowsky Property, direct the Developer to revise the Sketch Plan accordingly prior to submittal of Preliminary Plat and adopt Resolution #20-075 approving Amended and Restated Development Agreement.

(Note: These actions have been consolidated into a single motion for ease of administration. The City Council may take each action separately if it so desires).