Adopt Resolution #17-07-162 Approving Preliminary Plat for Cole Addition (Project No. 17-132); Case of Bryon and Lynn Cole

The purpose of this file is to review the Preliminary Plat for Cole Addition, an eight (8) lot subdivision located northwest of the intersection of 168th Avenue NW and Garnet Street NW. The project is a re-plat of an existing residential lot at 6951 168th Ave NW and two adjacent, small outlots (together the "Subject Property").  The Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Plan for this project at its July 6, 2017 meeting. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the development contingent on compliance with the Staff Review Letter.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 700 foot radius of the Subject Property of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union Herald. 

Preliminary Plat Plan review is the second of several steps in reviewing a Major Plat, which includes Sketch Plan Review, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat. This case is being reviewed per City Code Section 117-111 entitled R-1 Residential District and Chapter 117, Article III entitled Subdivisions.

Comprehensive Plan:
The Property is currently guided as Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the LDR land use designation is to allow for the construction of single-family dwellings with access to municipal sewer and water. The eight (8) lots in the Preliminary Plat are proposed to be served by municipal sewer and water. All adjacent properties are also guided as LDR.

Zoning:
The Property is currently zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA). This allows for the development of single family, detached dwellings with a density of Three (3) units per one (1) acre. As proposed, the Preliminary Plat complies with the allowable density of three (3) units per acre and it appears to meet the minimum lot size and width standards of the R-1 Residential (MUSA) district.  However, the plans show a temporary cul-de-sac that slightly encroaches onto multiple parcels, encumbered with a road easement rather than right-of-way.  If platted with dedicated right-of-way rather than easement, as required, multiple lots would be deficient in lot size.  This was discussed with the Planning Commission and the Applicant has since submitted an application for a Variance to cul-de-sac size in an attempt to address the item.

Dimensional/Bulk Standards:
When preparing the Preliminary Plat, the Developer must demonstrate compliance with the bulk standards of the R-1 Residential (MUSA) district.  As proposed, it appears that all lots meet the minimum bulk standards.  However, as noted above, the Preliminary Plat is proposing a temporary road easement rather than dedicated right-of-way for the cul-de-sac bulb.  If right of way is dedicated, multiple lots would be deficient in lot size.  Specifics are outlined in the Staff Review File.  As part of the Public Hearing, an adjacent property owner did support the 'temporary road easement' approach so that he could potentially develop his lot in the future.  Note that the use of road easement or right-of-way has no direct bearing on whether a cul-de-sac could be extended in the future to facilitate additional development, as there is a process to vacate both. 

Wetlands:
While no wetlands are indicated on the National Wetlands Inventory, the Engineering Department believes that there may be wetland present as a result of drainage patterns in the area.  As noted in their Staff Review Memo, they are requesting a wetland delineation be completed.

Density Transitioning:
As proposed, the development is not subject to the density transitioning standards.  However, it is worth noting that there is an existing line of mature evergreen trees along the entire length of the eastern boundary of the Property that does provide some buffering/screening between the proposed project and the existing homes.

Streets and Access:
Six of the eight lots will gain access from an extension of the 168th Lane NW cul-de-sac. The existing home and the proposed Lot 4, Block 1 will be accessed from 168th Avenue Northwest. It appears that the proposed extension of 168th Lane NW terminates in a temporary cul-de-sac (labeled as such on the plans).  Staff noted that this cul-de-sac would need to be constructed to meet the minimum street design standards, including right-of-way with a sixty (60) foot radius per City Code Sec. 117-614. The Applicant has since submitted a Variance to deviate from the minimum radius requirement, which it tentatively scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on August 3.

The City has struggled with 'temporary' cul-de-sacs, which are generally smaller in size than the minimum design standards require, in the past as it is uncertain when a road may be extended to facilitate future development.  In recent years, the City has been put in a position of responding to variance requests to allow lots to become buildable because the owner cannot control when adjacent land will develop, which would extend a road and eliminate the cul-de-sac.  Multiple discussions have been had on this topic and the policy direction at this time is to require any proposed cul-de-sac to be designed and constructed to the minimum standards, which does include dedicating right-of-way with a radius of sixty (60) feet for the cul-de-sac bulb.

In the case of the existing temporary cul-de-sac, the City was aware of the Cole's desire to develop and was actively working to extend the road and utilities to this site.  The Coles have been contemplating a subdivision for several years and had, at one time, submitted a concept plan to the City that was generally consistent with the proposed Preliminary Plat.  At the time of the concept plan, the discussions about temporary cul-de-sacs hadn't fully evolved.  Nonetheless, that is the policy direction that Staff is operating under now and therefore, we feel it important to remain consistent.  However, at the Public Hearing, the owner of the adjacent parcel at 16850 Garnet St did state that he favored the 'temporary' cul-de-sac as it would allow him to subdivide his property in the future (no timetable was noted).

1. Amend the preliminary plat to create necessary cul-de-sac size. Development to the east of this site is purely speculative and not guaranteed. The City has not reviewed any concepts for development of this site. Staff recommends that the Preliminary Plat be corrected for required cul-de-sac size.
2. Grant a Variance to cul-de-sac size. The Developer has requested a variance to cul-de-sac requirements. All recent developments in this situation have been required to develop cul-de-sacs and the appropriate size. Staff recommends for fairness and equity, that the project not deviate from these requirements.

Sidewalks:
The Preliminary Plat does not include any indication of a sidewalk along the proposed extension of 168th Lane.  There is an existing sidewalk on the north side of 168th Lane that ends at the intersection with Kamacite Street.  There is an existing lot east of this intersection, but outside the boundaries of the Preliminary Plat, with no sidewalk.  Staff is recommending that sidewalk be installed along the north side of the 168th Lane extension to the bulb of the cul-de-sac.  Staff is open to discussion about credit for the sidewalk outside the boundary of the Plat.  Note that the exhibit submitted for the aforementioned Variance request does now show a proposed sidewalk along the north side of 168th Lane, terminating at the cul-de-sac bulb.

Utilities and Municipal Services:
The applicant proposes connecting the new lots to city services, but has not specified whether the existing home will be connected.  The assumption is that Lot 5, Block 2 would connect to city services as the Preliminary Plat does indicate that the private utilities would be abandoned, but does not include details pertaining to the connection of existing home. 

Grading and Drainage:
The project will be subject to review by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) regarding both wetlands and stomrwater.  A LRRWMO permit will be required.

The Applicant proposes to vacate a fairly large, existing drainage easement (130 feet by 115 feet in area) on the Subject Property.  The Grading and Drainage Plans will need to clearly resolve how the stormwater would be addressed so that it does not negatively impact adjacent properties or move outside designated easements.  The Applicant's civil engineer, Landform, has since proposed improvements to ensure proper drainage in a memo. This memo has been reviewed by the Engineering Staff as part of the Preliminary Plat process. Engineering staff feel that drainage has not been adequately solved and therefore does not support the vacation of the drainage and utility easement.  The Applicant will need to continue to address and solve for drainage for the project before there would be support to vacate this easement.  However, an approval of the Preliminary Plat can and should be contingent on the Applicant solving for stormwater management, including satisfactorily demonstrating that this easement is no longer necessary. Additionally, the current stormwater plan requires additional easements on the adjacent property. The City has not evidence at this point that the impacted Property Owner will support this additional easement.

Landscaping:
The plan narrative indicates that the amount of significant tree Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) inches removed will exceed the allowable threshold by twenty-two (22) inches.  However, the narrative also notes that twenty-eight (28) inches will be planted to satisfy the replacement standards, which can include the base landscaping requirements of two (2) trees per lot.  Deciduous trees shall be at lease one (1) inch in diameter and coniferous trees shall be at lease five (5) feet in height. Each lot is subject to City's topsoil requirement.

Miscellaneous:
It appears that Temporary Construction Easements will need to be obtained from the two (2) adjacent property owners west of the Property to address the removal of the existing cul-de-sac.

Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat contingent on compliance with the Staff Review Letter. There was public comment received during the Public Hearing.  As noted previously, an adjacent property owner generally supported the development and the 'temporary' cul-de-sac as he would like to potentially develop his parcel in the future. Based on the Planning Commission comments, the Applicant has now submitted an application for a Variance to cul-de-sac size.  One resident noted that he moved in to Brookfield 4th Addition, which had been vacant land adjacent to the Subejct Property at one time and therefore, he did not have any objection now to this proposed project.  Finally, another property owner in the Brookfield 4th neighborhood had commented that they'd prefer to see the trees on the north side of the Subject Property preserved if possible.

Alternatives:

Alternative 1: Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter, which does specifically address the cul-de-sac and easement concerns/issues.  Generally speaking, Staff is supportive of the Preliminary Plat, assuming the drainage concern can be sufficiently addressed and the cul-de-sac design is solved for. Staff is supportive of this approach.

Alternative 2: Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat until the Applicant fully addresses the drainage easement concerns and submits a revised plan set that includes dedicated right-of-way for the cul-de-sac and what, if any, implications that has on the size and/or number of lots.  While the Applicant is anxious to finalize the entitlement process to complete a pending land transaction, there are some significant, unresolved concerns with the plat design that, if not solved for, would result in nonconformities.  Staff would not object to delaying action until the Applicant and their design team better addresses these items that were identified during the Sketch Plan review but also notes that they are identified within the Staff Review Letter.

Alternative 3: Deny Approval the Preliminary Plat.  While there are some significant issues yet to be addressed, Staff believes that they can be resolved (whether the Applicant supports the necessary revisions or not is unknown).  Staff would not support this option at this time.

All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant. There are no City funds proposed to be utilized for the construction of this project at this point.

As long as the plans can be revised in accordance with the Staff Review Letter, including solving for the drainage (and easement vacation) concern and the cul-de-sac design, Staff would recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat.  If the revisions result in a change in lot configuration, number of lots, and/or deficiencies in lot size, the revised Preliminary Plat could be routed back through the Planning Commission for consideration.

Note: a variance for cul-de-sac size will heard at the August Planning Commission meeting. Both cul-de-sac size and stormwater management appear to have the potential to result in a net loss of a buildable lot(s). It may be reasonable to reduce the net buildable lots by one to better accommodate stormwater needs and culd-de-sac size (if the variance is not supported by Planning Commission).

Motion to approve Resolution #17-07-162 contingent upon compliance with the Staff Review Letter and upon the Applicant successfully obtaining a variance to cul-de-sac size.