Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/19/2024

Home

including no proposed roads. Each lot would have a driveway directly out on to 181st Avenue. The Applicant has included a driveway bump -out or turn -around for each driveway, so that rather than backing out on to 181st Avenue, one can easily turn their vehicle around so they can pull forward rather than back out on to 181st Avenue. The Applicant has provided a narrative/memorandum supporting the layout as proposed rather than incorporating a service road or cul-de-sac to reduce the number of direct accesses onto 181st Avenue. The narrative states, among other things, that a covenant will be filed against each lot requiring a driveway turn -around. Furthermore, while the City of Ramsey and Anoka County do not have driveway spacing standards, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) does have an Access Management Manual, which includes driveway spacing recommendations based on the type of roadway and speed limit. 181st Avenue, also known as County Road 64, is categorized as a Type 2 Rural Road and has a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Based on this data, the MnDOT Access Management Manual recommends a minimum spacing of 100 feet between driveways, which this plan meets and, in some cases, even exceeds. The Applicant has modified the driveway configuration for Lot 7. The Planning Commission may recall that on the Sketch Plan, this driveway curved on to Lot 8 to avoid the wetland and wetland setback area. However, it has been modified now so that it stays outside the wetland and wetland setback to the west and meets the five (5) foot driveway setback along the eastern boundary. Staff forwarded the Preliminary Plat submittal, including the memorandum/narrative addressing the driveways, to the Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) for review and comment. As of the writing of this case, Staff has not received any additional comments (if you will recall, ACHD commented on the Sketch Plan, stating that the 13 driveways directly on to 181st Avenue are undesirable from their perspective). Natural Resources The Subject Property is heavily wooded and nearly half of it consists of wetland. There are some areas designated as floodplain as well (although the vast majority of floodplain is within wetlands, and there are no proposed impacts to wetlands). The submittal includes both a Tree Inventory and a Landscape Plan. More information is needed regarding the Tree Inventory, as noted in the review comments in ProjectDox (and attached to this case). However, due to the amount of tree cover and the fact that the Applicant intends for each lot to be custom designed and built, it appears that this project will not have any problem complying with the tree preservation standards. Existing vegetation may satisfy the planting requirement for most, if not all, lots. But, since the Tree Inventory is lacking certain information (such as which trees are slated for removal and preservation), Staff requested a Landscape Plan be submitted, which has now been received, but has not been fully reviewed yet. It is clear that minor revisions will be needed (e.g. the Plant Schedule includes Black Ash, but with the destruction that EAB is causing, no species of ash will be credited towards the planting requirements). The Environmental Policy Board will be reviewing the natural resources aspects of this project at their December 16, 2024, meeting. If warranted, Staff will provide a verbal update of their discussion at the meeting. Alternatives Alternative 1: Recommend that City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Emerald Estates, contingent upon compliance with Staffs review comments. All thirteen (13) lots meet the bulk standards for the Rural Residential District. As proposed, there will not be any direct impacts on wetlands and floodplain areas, and tree loss should also be fairly minimal. The Applicant has provided a reasonable option (driveway turn-arounds) to address the safety concerns raised by ACHD. Alternative 2: Recommend that City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Emerald Estates with modifications identified by the Planning Commission. Alternative 3: Recommend that City Council not approve the Preliminary Plat for Emerald Estates. The lots meet the bulk standards for the zoning district and this configuration appears to have the least impact on natural resources on the Subject Property. Staff does not support this alternative.