Loading...
5.5. SR 07-12-2004TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Michele McPhers~, Director of Planning July 12, 2004 Comprehensive Plan Discussion Item ~ 5.5. Attachments · July 12 Memo from the City Admimstrator · December 15, 2003 Council Minutes · November 17, 2003 Council Minutes On Monday, July 12, 2004 the City Council has set aside time to discuss in work session the Comprehensive Plan. Please bring your draft plan for discussion purposes. The role of the plan is to provide the framework to evaluate future land use proposals and guide more specific studies/plans such as the Greenway Plan, the Master Park Plan, a focus area study for the gravel mining area reclamation/development, transportation corridor studies, etc. On July 19, 2004 the Draft Comprehensive Plan will be removed from the "table". At that time the City Council can elect to take one of the following three actions: 1. Approve the plan as presented 2. Direct staff to amend the plan and bring it back for approval at a later meeting. 3. Do not adopt the Plan. As noted in the City Administrator's attached memo, there are issues that may prohibit adoption of the plan. The minutes of November and December 2003 are attached an provide an outline of the issues that may need to be resolved to adopt the plan. Hopefully, the work session discussion can lead to consensus on changes that need to be made in order to adopt the plan. Rusty Fifield will be in attendance to answer any questions the Council may have. S:\PLANNING\Comp Plan\Memos\7 12 04 Council.doc TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Pat Klaers, City Administrator July 12, 2004 Comprehensive Plan I believe that part of the City Council discussion on the Comprehensive Plan needs to concentrate on "what needs to be done" in order for a Plan to get adopted. No city Councilrnember is going to like every part of every section of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the city has spent 18 months working on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has had extensive citizen input along with involvement from numerous commissioners and city Councilmembers as part of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Additionally, the city had a highly skilled (and slightly expensive) consulting from work with the city through the Comprehensive Plan development and review process. As we all know, the Comprehensive Plan requires a 4/5 majority vote to be adopted by the City Council. At this point, unless some compromise is reached, this supermajority vote does not appear likely. There are a number of issues being debated, but from my understanding there are two key issues that may lead to negative votes on the Comprehensive Plan. These two issues are: 1. urban development east of County Road 40; and 2. removal of 10 acre minimum lot size north of County Road 33. My concern about getting the Comprehensive Plan adopted relates to one Councilmember being strongly opposed to the recommendation regarding urban development east of County Road 40 and another Councilmember being strongly opposed to the recommendation for the type of development north of County Road 33; and then both of these individuals voting against the Comprehensive Plan because of their strong beliefs. Therefore, on a 3/2 vote, the Plan does not get adopted. S:\PLANNING\Comp Plan\Memos\7 9 04 PDK CompPlan.doc It seems that the only way to get the Plan adopted is through compromise and consensus building by the City Council. A strategy may be to have the City Council "informally" vote on each of these two issues. In this regard, if the urban development east of County Road 40 gets either in or out of the Plan by a 3/2 vote, then a majority consensus has been reached and we can move on. Likewise the same is true with the type of development north of County Road 33. Whether or not this goes to 2 1/2 acres all at once, in stages, or not at all can be decided by a Council 3/2-majority vote. Once a majority consensus has been reached on this second issue, the Council should be able to move forward with the adoption of the overall plan. If these two controversial issues are not dealt with individually and some Council consensus or compromise achieved, I have a concern that no plan will be adopted and this will be a disservice to everyone. S:\PLANNING\Comp Plan\Memos\7 9 04 PDK CompPlan.doc City Council Minutes December 15, 2003 Page 5 4.10. 6.1. Consider 2003 Budget Amendments Finance Director Lori Johnson reviewed the 2003 budget amendments. MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TVEITE TO APPROVE THE 2003 BUDGET AMENDMENTS. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Open Mike Richard Gruys, 22347 Monroe Street- Discussed the definition of the Municipal Boundary according to the MN Department of Administration. He quoted section 414.6 and gave out a contact name and phone number for information on this section of the state code. This section of the code discussed detachment of landowners from municipalities. Request by City of Elk River to Review Updated Comprehensive Plan Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that this item had been tabled from the November 17, 2003 Council meeting in order for the Planning and Park and Recreation Commissions, along with staff, to develop a timeframe for implementation of certain components of the Plan, as outlined in Ms. McPherson's staffreport. She reviewed the implementation procedure of the Plan and suggested a one year citywide development moratorium. Mayor IGinzing allowed citizens to speak on this issue. Mike Ziegler, 9730 313th Avenue, Princeton-Stated that small builders from the Elk River area would be hurt by this moratorium. He stated that the moratorium is discriminatory as it would affect older people who are ready to retire and would not be able to sell or develop their property for retirement purposes. Duane Peterson, Park and Recreation Commissioner-Stated that both the Planning and the Park and Recreation Commission put a lot of time and effort into their recommendation to the Council. He stated that two years (moratorium) is needed to implement the Plan. Scott Breuer, 16070 201,~t Avenue-Stated that Elk River may have two years worth of lots that are ready for construction but these lots are owned by national builders and not local builders. He stated that the moratorium would hurt his business. He suggested that the Council consider other options. Mark Pederson, Planning Commissioner-Stated that the moratorium would give the city time to review and plan for transportation and sewer and water issues. He stated that after six months of a citywide moratorium, parts of the city could be phased in to allow for development. He questioned if the city could afford to have a moratorium in effect for two years. Mark Lee, 10934 County Road 33-Stated that he is in favor of the moratorium and would like to see it extended for a longer timeframe. He is concerned about the schools being able to keep up with the current growth. He would hke to see Elk River remain a more rural community. City Council Minutes Page 6 December 15, 2003 Mary Jo Miske, 10078 Twin Lakes Road-Stated that she is concerned about the moratorium. She stated that the city should have the moratorium in effect north of County Road 33 because that is where the concerns are being raised. She questioned why the city would allow 2 1/2 acres lots north of County Road 33. She felt they should remain as 10 acre lot minimums. Doug Hipsag, North of County Road 33-Stated that the city should have considered the transportation and sewer and water plans prior to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he would like to sell his property for retirement purposes. Councilmember Tveite thanked the Planning and the Park and Recreation Commissions for their work and recommendations. He stated that he has concerns for traffic and would like to see a greenway system established. Councilmember Kuester stated that the moratorium should be citywide as there are other citywide issues such as transportation. She is concerned about the tax base of the city if development is limited. She is concerned about the lack of commerdal and industrial development in the city. Councilmember Motin stated that more information is needed before adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He is concerned with sewer and water issues and the development of the gravel mine area. He is concerned over the lack of commercial availability in the new Plan. Councilmember Dietz stated that he appreciates all the work put into the Plan. He stated that he is unsure if the moratorium would be a good idea. He stated that the city should follow through on the transportation and the sewer and water plans before adopting the Comprehensive Plan. Councihnember Tveite stated that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be adopted before the transportation and the sewer and water issues can be implemented. MOVED BY MAYOR KLINZING AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TVEITE TO ADOPT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PRESENTED AND TO IMPLEMENT A 12 MONTH CITYWIDE MORATORIUM WITH A SIX MONTH REVIEW(WITH EXCLUSIONS BY STAFF). MOTION FAILED 3-2. Councilmembers Dietz and Motin opposed. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that the Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity study would take about six months but that he could have a scope of services to Council in January. He stated that this study has not taken into consideration a second plant. Mayor Klinzing asked about the timeframe for the greenway study. Ms. McPherson stated that the she thought it could be completed by July. MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ TO TABLE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The Council took a ten minute break at 8:25 p.m. City Council Minutes Page 4 November 17, 2003 6.1. Request by City of Elk River to Review Updated Comprehensive Plan~ Public Hearing Director of Planning Michele McPherson submitted the staff report. Ms. McPherson introduced Rusty Fifield, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Mr. Fifield presented the draft Comprehenswe Plan (Plan) to the Council. He thanked the Task Force members and all the boards and commissions for their input on the Plan. He discussed some of the issues that the city should consider in adopting the Plan such as sewer capacity, areas of high density residential, and additional commerdal land. Mayor Fdinzing opened the public hearing. Councilmember Kuester stated that she received a phone call from Doug I-Iipsag, a resident who lives north of County Road 33, and he stated his support for the 2 1/2-acre North of County Road 33 part of the Plan. Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. All the Councilmembers thanked the Task Force and the boards and commissions for all the work, Ume, and effort they put into the Plan. Councihnember Tveite stated that he is in support of the Plan. He views the Plan as a preservation of land by allowing the establishment of Greenways. He stated that there is no way for the Plan to be perfect and to please everyone. Councihnember Motin stated the following concerns with the Land Use Plan and Mr. Fifield provided a response to each of the concerns Concern The area north of County Road 33 should not be opened up to allow 2 1/2 acre lots without any infrastructure to support it. A sewer and water capacity plan should be completed prior to approving the Land Use Plan. The Commercial districts have been decreased from the 1995 Comprehensive Plan and more areas need to be designated Commercial in the new Plan. The designated high density areas around the railway station do not have a transportation system to support the increase traffic. The residential areas near the former Ron's Foods site is still designated residential even though it is sandwiched bet~veen Commercial Response The area is already open for higher density development (cluster developments). The city should determine if the area is going to remain unsewered in its ultimate form. Agree that a sewer and water capacity )lan eventually needs to be completed. Agree that more Commerdal districts are needed. City needs to review the sewer capacity before establishing any more Commercial districts. Areas that could be considered are the Highway 169 corridor and east Highway 10. East Highway 10 area is not market driven at this time. High density residential put near railway due to mass transit system in area and to be near the Business Park (future employment base). City Council Minutes November 17, 2003 Page 5 and Industrial zoned property. There is not statement in the Plan that Commercial and Industrial districts are given a preference over Residential districts when it comes to sesver and water expansion Not addressed. Not addressed. Councilmember Dietz stated that he is concerned about opening up the land north of Counu: Road 33 to be developed into two and a half acre lots. Mayor IClinzing stated that property owners north of County Road 33 petitioned to have the area developed into smaller lots. She stated that this area is no longer considered agricultural. She stated that there should be a phase implemented plan prior to rezoning the area and allowing any development. Councilmember Kuester stated that she is concerned about the lack of commercial districts in the Plan. She stated that land east of Highway 169 along the corridor needs to be addressed as to its future use. She stated that that there is a need to implement a phasing in of the Plan. Councilmember Kuester stated that transportation is the most important issue that needs to be addressed with any future development. She questioned how the city could be financially viable if it limits residential growth. She is concerned it may become unaffordable for residents to live in Elk River. Mayor Klinzing stated that Elk River residents xvant to see the area remain as "City and Country Flow Together" and she believes the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan reflects this desire. Mayor Klinzing stated that the Plan shows Elk River as expanding out to a population of not more than 35,000 residents in a 44 square mile area and that this is low compared to surrounding communities. People moving to Elk River will end up paying a higher tax for enjoying a more rural community. She stated that the tax base would be support cd by more commercial and industrial development along Highway 169. Mayor KSinzing also expressed concerns over the sewer capacity and its expansion to the east. Mr. Fifield stated that the city needs to complete a timeline on the implementation of the issues discussed (sewer capacity, zoning, etc). Councilmember Dietz stated that he believes it is possible that sewer and water could some day be extended to the properties north of County Road 33 and the city needs to take this into consideration before adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Councihnember Motin stated concerns about the city being built out beyond the Plan's recommendation and what xvould happen if another sewer plant were to be built. Planning Commissioner Dana Anderson stated that he was disappointed in the amount of pubhc input received on the Plan during the process. He suggested that the Council give staff and the Planning and Park and Recreation Commission direction on changes they would like to see implemented in the Plan and postpone its approval for a month. He stated that both Commissions learned and realized the un-inventoried resources that are available for grecnway and trail corridor development. Couucihnember Motin requested language changes to parts of the Plan. MOVED BY MAYOR KLINZING AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TVEITE TO ADOPT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PRESENTED WITH City Council ~finutes Page 6 November 17, 2(31)3 THE CHANGES SUGGESTED IN CLIFF LUNDBERG'S LETTER AND BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN WITH STAFF TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ZONE CHANGES AND THAT ONE-QUARTER MILE EAST OF HIGHWAY 169 FROM COUNTY ROAD 21 TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE CITY REMAIN A1 AGRICULTURAL. Councihnember Dietz questioned if the Plan was approved, then could anyone come to the Council For a zone change to allow for 2 1/2 acre lots north of County Road 33. He stated that thc implementation stages for the zone changes to the city code should be completed prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor l<21inzing stated that the Plan could be adopted now and the zone changes implemented at a later date. City Anorney Peter Beck stated that it would be best to finish the implementation issues of the Plan and then to approve the Plan at a later date. He stated that the Council could approve the Plan and then establish a moratorium. He stated it would be better for the city to create stronger regulatory controls before adopting the Plan. Ms. McPherson suggested that the Mayor divide her motion into parts so staff could have better direction on the Councils intentions. The Mayor declined to change her motion. Much discussion was held on the timeframe for implementing the changes suggested in the Plan. MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER KUESTER AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN TO TABLE THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ONE MONTH TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO DRAFT AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TO ESTABLISH MORE LEGAL CLARITY FOR ADOPTION OF THE PLAN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Thc Cotmcil took a five minute break at 9:10 p.m. 6.2. .Reclues~ by City of Elk River for an Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-1, Definitions, Regarding Governmental Buildings and Facihties, Governmental Offices, and Jails, Public Hearing-Case No. OA 03-07 Director of Planning Michele McPherson submitted the staff report. Ms. McPherson stated that duc to the discrepancy between Council and staff regarding the interpretation of City Code Section 30.1, regarding Governmental Offices, staff has proceeded to more clearly define what is intended as a jail that is operated in conjunction with a county courthouse. Maxtor l-~linzing opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Mayor I~in×in&,, closed the publ/c hearing. MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER KUESTER AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 03-17 AMENDING SECTION 30-1 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES. MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ TO AMEND THE MOTION AND TO MAKI:~ A