PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Recommendations Related to Riverstone South; Case of Capstone Homes/Riverstone Development

1. Adopt Resolution #21-015 Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for Detached Townhome Section and Preliminary Plat for Riverstone South
2. Adopt Ordinance #21-03 Approving Zoning Amendment from R-1 Residential (MUSA - 80) District to R-1 Residential (MUSA - 65) District, R-1 Residential (MUSA - 50) District and R-2 Residential (Detached Townhome) District

The purpose of this case is to consider Preliminary Plat approval and associated approvals related to the proposed Riverstone South neighborhood. The City has been working with the Developer, Capstone Homes, over the past year on a long-range planning exercise to come to a consensus on a concept plan for this site. This Preliminary Plat Submittal represents conformance to the planning framework approved by the Planning Commission and City Council as well as the Sketch Plan recently submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission. 

Staff has attempted to notify all Property Owners listed with Anoka County Property Records within 700 feet of the Subject Property and the Bowers Drive Neighborhood via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing Notice was properly advertised in the Anoka County UnionHerald, the City's Official Newsletter. 

Previously, the same mailing list was used to invite residents to 2 virtual/hybrid Open Houses as well as Sketch Plan Review. 

This step is the result of a 12 month planning and collaboration process between the City, Developer, Property Owner and adjacent neighborhood. The Preliminary Plat has been prepared consistent with previous City direction. This case has been prepared at a summary level. Materials from the City Council direction at the Sketch Plan Phase are attached for more detailed background. 

Comprehensive Plan

A majority of the site is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan showing this portion of the site as Low Density Residential. The smaller detached townhome portion will need to be amended to Medium Density Residential. 

Zoning Code

The project site is generally located in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District allowing for detached single-family homes on municipal services. However, lot sizes are smaller than allowed within this district and will need to be amended accordingly to R-1 Residential (MUSA - 65) and R-1 Residential (MUSA - 50). The detached townhomes will need to be amended to be included in the R-2 (Detached Townhome) District. Note - a previous case amends City Code to have a more logical distinction of districts and subdistricts based on lot size. Additional detail is included in the attached review memo.

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

The State of Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) administers mandatory environmental review parameters. For a project of this type, an EAW would not be required if the project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and less than 250 units. While the project is less than 250 units, it does require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment due to the detached townhomes and therefore meets the criteria for Mandatory EAW. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation now, but the City Council cannot take action on the Preliminary Plat until the EAW process is finalized. The Riverstone North Neighborhood went through this same process without issue. Given the quality ecological resources (significant native tree canopy and proximity to Mississippi River), the relative closeness of meeting the mandatory criteria based on lot count (242/250), Staff was leaning towards recommending a discretionary EAW anyway. All materials have been prepared for the EAW, it is just a matter of process at this point. 

Bowers Drive Connection

Direction of the City Council at Sketch Plan Phase was to not create a second connection within the previous Pearson Place to Bowers Drive as previously discussed. However, the Developer shall still be required to extend watermain with a hydrant at Bowers Drive through the City-Owned Parcel for public safety purposes and improved Fire Department Response. 

Architectural Standards

Generally speaking, the City requires a sliding scale of increased architectural elements as density increases/lot sizes decrease. This is a fair trade off for allowing smaller lots. The intent of the regulations is not simply to create a smaller lot for a standard, basic dwelling. There remain ample opportunities for the style of homes in areas throughout the community. Staff will honor any direction provided by the Planning Commission and City Council, but highly recommends a higher degree of architectural control, especially for the detached townhomes. 

The City has some additional discretion in this project.

1. Project Requires Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment (highest level of discretion the City can have in land use decisions)
2. The Project is requesting that the City contribute dollars to the Riverdale Drive Extension

Staff is not recommending anything significant in this instance. The only parameter suggested at this point is a limit on the number of split entry homes (50%) in the detached townhomes. Preference should be given to full one-level and two-level homes with or without a full basement. The intent of the detached townhome district is not to simply allow a split level home on smaller lots. Split Entry Homes are a cost effective solution (save money on basement construction), but have other drawbacks (architectural design, heavier reliance on stairs, neighborhood design). Staff feels it is appropriate to allow some split levels in this area, but is concerned that these small lots are becoming dominated by the most basic of designs. Staff would like to see these standards held to a higher degree. It should be noted that unlike the existing Riverstone North Neighborhood, also by Capstone, there are Villa Style Homes (one level slab on grade) in this proposed Riverstone South Subdivision. Staff is open to other suggestions, such as better defining required architectural elements required for split entries without a restriction on percentage, etc. For example, in other similar neighborhoods, the City has defined limits on exposed roof, roof pitch, required front porch, etc. 

Previous Steps

• Concept Plan Review
• Planning Framework
• Sketch Plan

Future Steps

• Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
• Final Plat
• Riverdale Drive Extension Approval

Please note that this will be the final time the Planning Commission will see this case. All future actions are handled directly by the City Council. If the Planning Commission feels it needs more time to evaluate the project, it should postpone action until the February Planning Commission Meeting. 

Alternatives

1. Recommend that the City Council approve the project as presented
2. Request amendments to the project
3. Postpone action requesting additional information
4. Recommend that the City Council deny the project

All costs associated with reviewing this Application are the responsibility of the Applicant. 

This site will require the extension of Riverdale Drive from Llama Street to Highway 10/Bowers Drive. While not a binding agreement, the Council's approved framework for cost share/funding essentially splits the cost of this extension evenly between the City, Property Owner (Pearson Properties of Ramsey) and Developer (Capstone Homes). This cost share agreement is outside the review purview of the Planning Commission, but is noted as the Preliminary Plat Approval will not be valid until a contract for the extension of Riverdale Drive is approved by the City Council. This is the same arrangement as with Riverstone North with the Puma Street Realignment. 

Additionally, the City has not yet secured a funding source for the acquisition of the 7 acre Tree Preservation Area. Staff strongly recommends against using Park Dedication Dollars for this purpose, as it will not leave sufficient funding to develop the 1 acre park also included within the proposed subdivision. The Preliminary Plat is also not valid until this funding source is solved. 

Staff recommends approval of the project with the following contingencies:

• Address any comments contained within the Official EAW Review Record when available
• Plans subject to current Staff Review Comments and final approval by City Engineer
• Approval of a contract for the Riverdale Drive Extension along with Cost Share Agreement consistent with previous City Council Direction
  • Must also include an Assessment/Petition and Waiver Agreement to assess the Property Owner and Developer shares back to benefiting properties
• Securing $350,000 for the acquisition of the Tree Preservation Area
• Architectural Approval for Detached Townhomes - No more than 50% of the Detached Townhomes may be split entry, split level or modified basement (at least 50% full one-level of full two-story) Shall include all of the following minimum requirements:
  • Garage may not extend closer to the front property line than the covered front porch/stoop – garage must be even with or behind
  • Garage must be tucked under second level – second level should extend over the entire garage
  • Front façade must have at least 3 materials (exception ‘farm house’ design) – should not be dominated by horizontal siding
  • Stoop/front porch must be covered
  • Plans must include the minimum number of windows shown on the approved master plans
• Architectural approval is limited to those models included in the review record. Any significant changes from these models shall require City Council approval
• Noise Study Meeting MnDOT Requirements must be completed and approved by City
• Post-Preliminary Plat Approvals Required
  • Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval by Metropolitan Council
  • Critical Area Overlay District Amendment by Minnesota DNR
  • City Approval of Zoning Amendment
  • Approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt Ordinance #21-03 and Resolution #21-015 approving actions related to the Riverstone South Preliminary Plat. 

(Note: recommended contingencies are already included in the attached Resolution).