Loading...
6.14 ,-,(,/ *( , ) o ,,, y Item# 6 . 14 .cz ity of -• (' . • MEMORANDUM ili River TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistant DATE: May 18, 1998 5e SUBJECT: Request by the City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment, Public Hearing Case No. OA 98-1 Request Consider a request by the City of Elk River to amend the definition of government offices to include jails. Attachments • Ordinance No. 98- • • Current definition of governmental offices • Proposed definition Overview When the county office complex was originally constructed the jail facility was an incidental function to the office and courthouse operations. Since that time the jail has expanded and become more than just an incidental aspect of the total operation of the facility. Because of this expansion it became necessary to examine the issue of where do jails fit within the context of the zoning ordinance. The zoning code has two definitions that cover government facilities, they are "Government Buildings and Facilities" and "Governmental Offices". Government buildings and facilities include more intense governmental uses such as public works facilities, correctional facilities, and waste handling or processing. Governmental offices include less intense uses such as city and county offices, libraries and post offices. One use that is missing from these definitions are jails. There is no provision for allowing jails under either definition. A jail is different from a correctional facility. Jails are short term holding . facilities for people awaiting trial, pending sentencing or serving county jail 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to Mayor and City Cot. CA 98-1 May 18, 1998 Page 2 time. It is different from a correctional facility because correctional facilities are for prisoners serving out sentences for state or federal crimes. These are long term facilities and include such prisons as Stillwater, St. Cloud, Lino Lakes or Pipestone. The issue is under which definition, governmental offices or governmental buildings and facilities, should jails be included. Since jails are a short term holding facility that functions as part of the county court system, it is important that it be including as part of the same definition that includes the county court and office complex. That definition is governmental offices. If jails were included under the definition of governmental building or facility it would not be permitted at the present location of the county office complex. Governmental buildings and facilities are not an allowed uses in the BP (Business Park) district, which is what the county complex is zoned. However, governmental offices are allowed as a permitted use in the BP district. Planning Commission Meeting At the Planning Commission meeting held on April 28th no one spoke at the public hearing. The Commission discussion including a definition for jail and • whether jails should be allowed as a permitted use or a conditional use. They were concerned about public input in the review process. Public hearings are not required for permitted uses but are with conditional uses. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance with the inclusion of a separate definition for jail. The proposed definition for jail is the same as the one provided in state statutes. The Commission also passed a motion asking the Council to consider initiating a future ordinance amendment to include jails as a conditional use and not as a permitted use. Recommendation It is recommended the City Council approve Ordinance No.98- amending the definition of governmental offices to include jails and establishing a definition for jails. • \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\oa98-1cc.doc City Council Minutes Page 4 October 20, 1997 • 4.9. County Attorney Discussion on Upcoming Legislation Regarding Personal Property Tax Kathy Heaney, Assistant Sherburne County Attorney gave the council a brief history of pending legislation pertaining to the elimination of personal property tax. She stated that the County could potentially lose 37 percent of its property tax base and the city could lose over 1/2 million dollars of its personal property tax base under this legislation. Ms. Heaney requested the City Council and Staff to talk to legislators and request them to retain personal property tax. She also requested the council to consider a motion identifying that elimination of personal property tax is not appropriate. It was the consensus of the City Council to have Kathy Heaney present a draft resolution for council consideration. 5. Open Mike No one appeared for this issue. 6.1, 6.2 Request by the City of Elk River for an Amendment to the Land Use Map and Rezoning, Public Hearing Case No. LU 97-1 and ZC 97-3 Paul Steinman, Director of Economic Development, reviewed the strategic plan process. He indicated that the purpose of the strategic plan is to establish the framework for economic and industrial growth of the city. He stated that eight • parcels of land totaling approximately 440 acres have been identified for potential rezoning for industrial development. Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistant, indicated that the City of Elk River is requesting an amendment to the land use map for certain property to change from medium density residential to light industrial. The City is also requesting a zone change of approximately 60 acres from single family residential to business park. The property is located at the north east corner of Waco Street and Mississippi Road. Scott Harlicker indicated that during the planning commission's review of this item residents brought forth issues of concern which included traffic, compatibility with adjacent residential uses and crime. He indicated that the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend denial of the land use amendments and rezoning to business park. City Planner Steve Ach indicated that the staff held a meeting for surrounding residents to discuss the concerns of the residents. He indicated that in an attempt to address these concerns, staff has prepared three different scenarios for consideration regarding the future development of the property if it is rezoned to business park. Steve Ach stated that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to review these scenarios at their meeting. Following his review of the three scenarios he indicated that staff recommends Scenario #3 which allows for the business park to be located on the west end of the property and residential development on the east to buffer existing residents of Sandpiper Estates. He indicated that all scenarios route the industrial traffic to Waco Street or Highway 10. He further stated that it is staff's opinion that Scenario 3 best • addresses the concerns of the Sandpiper Estates residents. City Council Minutes Page 5 October 20, 1997 • Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. Steve Stewart - 18290 Ogden Street-indicated his opposition to the land use and rezoning. He stated his concerns of the possibility of manufacturing hazardous materials in the area and the noise created from industrial uses. Carl Blomguist - Riverview Heights, Naples Street-indicated his opposition and stated his concerns regarding pollutants and contamination of the groundwater from industrial development. Jim Sutton, 18137 Ogden Street-indicated his opposition and concern that property values will diminish. He further indicated his concern that the aquifer could become contaminated from a hazardous spill. Nicole Bar - Ogden Street--indicated her opposition and concern that the business park will be close to her back yard and that it will affect her children and daycare business. Tim Ebner - 17994 Union Street-indicated his opposition and stated that there are many reasons why the property should not be rezoned; the property is surrounded on 3 sides by residential zoning; the property is located within one block of the Mississippi River and next to a golf course; traffic, noise, and pollution and the effect it will have on the quality of life. • Elizabeth McMullan - Ogden Street-indicated her opposition and stated that she is representing the kids in the neighborhood. She stated that she moved from Bloomington to get away from pollution and noise and does not want to have to deal with it again due to the rezoning. Troy DeMars 14220 182nd Avenue - indicated his opposition and questioned what types of business would be allowed in the business park. Jon Lavalle - 18020 Union Street - indicated his opposition and stated he enjoys the view he currently has when he is outdoors. Bob Saxon - 18044 Union Street-indicated his opposition and stated that the current zoning for the area is adequate. Bruce Lindeman - Pinewood-indicated his opposition. Stewart Wilson - 17975 Troy Street-stated that he is the property owner. He spoke about the concerns of the city and the neighbors. He stated that he visited business parks in other areas that were well designed and complimented the areas in which they are located. He indicated that a business park should be planned to ensure orderly and aesthetic development. Stewart Wilson indicated he did not support changing the entire parcel to business park, however he indicated his support of scenario 3. • Jeremy Schoffield - 13038 Mississippi Road - indicated his opposition and suggested the creation of a nature area through a cooperative venture. City Council Minutes Page 6 October 20, 1997 • Ms. Ebner - 17994 Union -- indicated her opposition and stated that she has made a major investment in her home. She indicated that she is familiar with business parks and assured the residents that the problems they perceive are real. Diane Dusek - 18198 Ogden St-indicated her opposition. Natalie Gall - 15283 County Road 30-indicated her opposition and stated her concern of hours of business, the increased traffic, and the proximity of the development to river. George Zabee - 329 Morton Street-stated that he has lived in Elk River for 30+ years and has watched the city change. He indicated that the City is in need of an industrial tax base. He stated that he is in favor of the zone change. There being no one else to address the issue, Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing. Mayor Duitsman stated that the city is in need of industrial development. He further stated that if the proposed property were developed residentially, the city would realize $346,000 in taxes and $1.2 million in taxes if developed as business park. He stated that the City Council must make the determination of rezoning now in order to attract businesses and in order to provide jobs for the residents. • Mayor Duitsman indicated that the council is looking at the tax base and quality of life issue. He further stated that this decision impacts all Elk River citizens not just those in attendance tonight. Mayor Duitsman stated that he supports the rezoning to business park using scenario #3. Councilmember Farber questioned how industrial business would affect the aquifer. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that he did not feel there would be any contamination issues to the residents as the waste would be routed to the wastewater treatment plant. Councilmember Holmgren stated that a mistake was made in the past by not requiring Sandpiper Estates to connect to city sewer and water. He further stated that he felt all of the property in that area should be zoned business park. Councilmember Holmgren indicated that Industrial land is scarce and that an industrial tax base is a necessity. He stated that he is in favor of the zone change to business park. Councilmember Thompson indicated that he concurred with Councilmember Holmgren. He further stated that Elk River is a fast growing community and that the tax base needs to be increased through industrial development. Councilmember Farber indicated that this will impact neighbors, however, a business park in any location would have an impact on surrounding residents. He stated that the city is in need of the industrial based property and indicated his support of the zone change with scenario #3. • City Council Minutes Page 7 October 20, 1997 • Councilmember Dietz indicated that this must be done for the benefit of city. He stated that the city must provide more industrial land and streets with sewer and water to compete with other communities. He indicated his support of the zone change. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON MOVED TO RECESS. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The Council recessed at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Duitsman reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. MAYOR DUITSMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-108 AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM MR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) LU 97-1 AS DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 33, Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North, along the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to a point distant 1,320.00 feet South of the intersection of said East line with the Southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 10, as measured along said East line; thence West, at right angles to said East line, a distance of 310.00 feet; thence Southwesterly to the intersection of a line drawn parallel with and distant 1,160.00 feet West of said East line, with a line drawn parallel with and distant 175.00 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;thence South, parallel with said East line, a distance of 175.00 feet to said South line; thence East, along said South line, to the point of beginning. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 97-21 AMENDING THE CITY OF ELK RIVER ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM R1C (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZC 97-3 AS DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 33, Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North, along the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to a point distant 1,320.00 feet South of the intersection of said East line with the Southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 10, as measured along said East line; thence West, at right angles to said East line, a distance of 310.00 feet; thence Southwesterly to the intersection of a line drawn parallel with and distant 1,160.00 feet West of said East line, with a line drawn parallel with and distant 175.00 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the • Southeast Quarter; thence South, parallel with said East line, a distance of 175.00 City Council Minutes Page 8 October 20, 1997 • feet to said South line; thence East, along said South line, to the point of beginning. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6.3. Request by Metro Gravel for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing, Case No. CU 97-26 Scott Harlicker indicated that Metro Gravel has requested a conditional use permit for a second principle structure at 15683 Jarvis St. in the Ar-Mon Commercial Park. Scott Harlicker reviewed the issues of this request as presented in the staff report. He indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY METRO GRAVEL FOR A SECOND PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AT 15683 JARVIS STREET LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT STORED OUTSIDE MUST BE KEPT WITHIN THE • ENCLOSED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA. 2. THE PARKING AND DRIVE AREA SHALL BE PAVED TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND TO THE CONCRETE FUELING AREA. THE PERIMETER OF THE PAVED AREA SHALL INCLUDE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. 3. NO PAVEMENT OR GRAVEL SHALL BE WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANY PROPERTY LINE. 4. THE DUMPSTER SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A TRASH ENCLOSURE. THE EXTERIOR OF THE ENCLOSURE WILL MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING AND SHOULD BE LOCATED EITHER BEHIND THE EXISTING BUILDING OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING. 5. ALL THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CUP APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 13, 1989 AND AMENDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. 6. 25% OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE SHALL CONSIST OF MATERIAL LISTED ON THE APPROVED MATERIALS LIST OUTLINED IN THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. 7. THE SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PAVING AND CURB AND GUTTER COMPLETED BY JULY 1, 1998 2. LANDSCAPING COMPLETED BY JULY 1, 1999 COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.