Loading...
6.1 & 6.2 ty of I Item# 6 . 1 . & 6 . 2 . FAk ;1 -��'s ,, MEMORANDUM River TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan ��•� DATE: October 20, 1997 SUBJECT: Request by the City of Elk River for an Amendment to the Land Use Map and Rezoning, Public Hearing Case No.'s LU 97-1 and ZC 97-3 Request Consider an amendment to the land use map and corresponding rezoning of certain property from MR (Medium Density Residential) to LI (Light Industrial) and Ric (Single Family Residential) to BP (Business Park). Location The property is located at the north east corner of Waco Street and Mississippi Road (County Rd. 30) Zoning/Land Use Ric (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential) Attachments • Location map • Land use map • List of uses allowed in the Business Park district • Resolution No. 97-_ • Ordinance No. 97- Overview The property is approximately 60 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Waco Street and Mississippi Road. It is • undeveloped with approximately 1/2 mile frontage on Mississippi Road and approximately 1/4 mile frontage on Waco Street. The east half of the property 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to the Mayor and City 1 ciUZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 2 • is flat and is row crops; the west half is gently rolling; a portion is used by the Pinewood Golf Course as a driving range the remainder is row crops. There is a wooded ridge that runs north to south that splits the property. The property is currently zoned Rlc (Single Family Residential) and has a land use designation of MR (Medium Density Residential). The adjacent zoning and land use designations are as follows: North - BP (Business Park); LI (Light Industrial) South - Rld (Single Family Residential); MR (Medium Density Residential) East - Rlb (Single Family Residential); MR (Medium Density Residential) West - Ric (Single Family Residential); MR (Medium Density Residential) Adjacent land uses include Sandpiper Estates, a single family residential development, to the east; land uses on the south side include Mississippi Road, property that is wooded and undeveloped and Riverview Heights, a single family residential development; Waco Street and Pinewood Golf Course to the west, and undeveloped property and the Sherburne County Government Center to the north. Background 411 The property directly to the north was rezoned to BP in 1994 as part of implementing the business park concept identified in the 1990 Focus Area Study, to reflect the underlying light industrial land use designation and to prepare for anticipated development expected when municipal services are extended to the area. On May 19,1997 the City Council adopted an Economic Development Strategic Plan. The City initiated this rezoning request in order to implement some of the goals and priorities identified in that plan. One of the major issues identified in the economic development plan was to increase the city's industrial base. This area was identified as an area that was suitable for the type of development allowed in the BP (Business Park) zone. Attached is a list of the uses allowed in the BP district. The BP district allows a variety of uses, both commercial and industrial in nature. The BP district is intended to allow for commercial type uses, such as hotels/motels, retail sales oriented uses and class I restaurants, in areas where the underlying land use classification is commercial. This will typically occur at intersections such as Waco and Highway 10 and Joplin and Highway 10. Industrial type uses, such as light manufacturing and research and development laboratories, would be allowed in areas that have an • underlying land use classification of light industrial. In this case, the \shrdoc\planning\sco tt\zc97-3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City. icii/ZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 3 • underlying land use classification is light industrial, therefore, the uses allowed on this property will be office, research and development, and light manufacturing type uses. Expansion of industrial base The proposed land use amendment and rezoning would reflect goals and policies identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's policies regarding industrial development includes encouraging industrial expansion in close proximity to existing services and locating it next to an adequate transportation network; the proposed land use amendment and rezoning accomplishes this. The Economic Development Strategic Plan also identified expansion of the industrial base as one of it's major issues and goals. This area was one of the 8 areas identified in that plan as suitable for industrial development. In identifying this area as being suitable for industrial development, the Strategic Planning Committee identified a number of criteria, those criteria were outlined in a report to the Committee dated January 13, 1997 and listed below: • Area 1 -Proposed Business Park ZoninE, 65 acres 0 Bordered by business park property on the north and residential properties on the south, east, and west side. 0 Contiguous to 70 acre Business Park on north 0 Meets topographical constraints for development, i.e. flat, no wetlands, etc. 0 Appropriate buffer by berming and landscaping may be provided on south and east sides of property. 0 Waco Street and County Road 30 provide a physical separation to residential areas. 0 Transportation challenges regarding businesses accessing the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. 0 May not be convenience for distribution type of business. 0 Single owner. 0 Previous concern of property owner regarding how Business Park fits with surrounding area. 0 Planned signalized intersection at Waco Street and Highway 10. 0 Good access to St. Cloud and west markets. 0 Sewer and water may be extended to serve area. • \shrdoc\planning\scott\zc97-3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City C cil/ZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 4 • Issues Traffic One of the affects of a business park in this location would be an increase in truck traffic. However, with proper design the traffic generated by this business park would be directed north towards Highway 10 through an internal road network. Business park traffic would not exit or enter from County Road 30 or through Sandpiper Estates. Compatibility The uses allowed in the business park district would be compatible with the existing land uses and the types of uses that are allowed on the adjacent properties to the north. However, the development of a business park adjacent to residential will have to include thoughtful design, effective berming, landscaping and buffering, as well as the implementation of performance standards to transition from an industrial to residential land use. It should also be noted that the types of industrial uses allowed in the business park district are sometimes referred to as "clean industries" such as research and development facilities, telecommunication operations, light 411 manufacturing, as well as governmental, business and professional offices. Crime Staff spoke with the Police Department regarding the potential for increased crime in business parks. They indicated that there is not a history of an increase in criminal activity associated with industrial parks. They also indicated that business parks can be designed for increased security and ease of surveillance. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission considered this request at their July 22, 1997 meeting and again at their August 26, 1997 meeting. At the July 22nd meeting, 6 residents spoke out against the rezoning; they felt that a business park would not be compatible with the adjacent residential developments, would increase traffic and increase criminal activity. After listening to comments from the public, the Commission tabled the item at the request of the owner of the property under consideration for rezoning. He was unable to be at the July 22nd meeting and wanted a chance to comment on the proposed rezoning. • f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\zc97-3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City Cuuncil/ZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 5 • At the August 26th public hearing 11 residents spoke out against the rezoning. Their opposition was based on the same issues that were brought up at the July 22nd meeting, incompatibility with the residential development, traffic and crime. The owner of the property, Stewart Wilson, indicated that he was not opposed to the rezoning. However, he felt that the eastern portion of his property, adjacent to Sandpiper Estates, should remain residential. This residential property would serve as a buffer between Sandpiper Estates and the business park. The future residents of this residential property would know prior to purchasing property that the adjacent property to the west was zoned for a business park. The Planning Commission voted 5:2 to deny the request for a the land use amendment and rezoning. Those that voted to deny the request felt that it was inappropriate considering the nearby residential development. Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff prepared several different development scenarios. The development scenarios included how the property might develop under the proposed rezoning, how it might develop under the existing residential zoning and how it might develop if part of the property was rezoned and a portion left as residential. These scenarios will be presented at the Council meeting. It should be noted the Planning • Commission did not have the benefit to review the development scenarios. The illustrations may have provided additional information for the Commission to make a recommendation either in favor or opposition to the application. Recommendation The Council has the option of approving the rezoning as originally proposed or selecting a rezoning based on the development scenarios prepared by staff. Should the Council decide to approve the land use amendment and rezoning, the following resolution, ordinance and findings are offered in support of that determination: Resolution No. 97- amending the Land Use Plan based on the following findings: A) THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USEDESIGNATION IS ADJACENT TO OTHER PROPERTY WITH A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COULD BE ACCESSED FROM HIGHWAY 10, WHICH CAN PROVIDE FOR THE ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS REQUIRED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. . B) THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUATION OF WELL DESIGNED EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE COMMUNITY. f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\zc9 7-3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City G: -cil/ZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 6 • C) THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING SERVICES. Ordinance No. 97 rezoning certain property from Rlc (Single Family Residential) to BP (Business Park) based on the following: 1. THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OF LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL). 2. THE REZONING WOULD RESULT IN LESS TRAFFIC GENERATED ON MISSISSIPPI ROAD THAN WOULD BE GENERATED UNDER THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING. 3. TIMES AND CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED TO WARRANT AN EXTENSION OF BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS AREA. THE REZONING IS NEEDED TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES AND TO PRESERVE FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 4. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND IS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING SERVICES. 5. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN HAS IDENTIFIED THIS AREA AS SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED UNDER BP ZONING. • 6. THE PROPOSED BP ZONED PROPERTY CAN BE ACCESSED FROM HIGHWAY 10, WHICH CAN MEET THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT. f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\zc97-3cc.doc � ) -_ ITErQ. 1 \ - CO * of TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL P l ,' Jy1 River FROM: STEVEN B. ACH, CITY PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 18, 1994 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING BUSINESS PARK ZONING ORDINANCE ISSUE Consider a request to amend the zoning ordinance establishing a Business Park zoning district and ordinance . ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 94- Planning Commission Report dated 12/28/93 BACKGROUND In 1990, a Focus Area Study was completed by BRW, Inc . , which identified four areas of Elk River and provided an in-depth analysis of future land use opportunities . One of the areas identified encompassed an area lying west of City Hall and III Orono Park extending to the City' s western limits between Highway 10 and County Road #30 . The major land use element discussed for this area was the creation of a business park. In order to implement the concept of a business park, an ordinance has to be established. Therefore, staff has prepared the attached business park ordinance which sets forth standards and guidelines to ensure that all development within the park maintains an attractive "business park" image. This ordinance has been reviewed by the Business Park Task Force and the Planning Commission at both a workshop and a regular public hearing. Comments from both groups, as well as information from the Focus Area Study analysis have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance . The City Attorney and myself have also reviewed the ordinance for interpretation conflicts and contents to make sure the ordinance ' s structure maintains its integrity and the intent of the business park is met. Attached is the report to the Planning Commission which provides additional background information as well as a brief description of each section of the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION • The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approving the proposed ordinance establishing a business park district and P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 illordinance. There were no comments from the public on this item at the Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council either accept as drafted, or make modifications and approve the Business Park Ordinance. • • Elk River City Council Met ng • P; 6 January 18, 1994 CO p117 • Planning Commission Representative Louise Kuester indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Vice Mayor Farber opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Vice Mayor Farber closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO-YEAR RENEWAL OF THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY LICENSE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CU-87-02) FOR UNITED POWER ASSOCIATION WITH THE STIPULATION THAT MORE RESTRICTIVE STATE OR FEDERAL EMISSION STANDARDS ARE AUTOMATICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY'S PERMITS. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 8.1. Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing a Business Park (B-P) Zoning District by the City of Elk River/Public Hearing City Planner Steven Ach explained that in 1990, a Focus Area Study was completed which provided an in-depth study of future land use opportunities. A land use that was discussed was the creation of a business park. An ordinance must be established in order to implement the concept of a business park. He further indicated that the proposed "Business Park" Zoning Ordinance has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Business Park Task Force. Vice Mayor Farber opened the public hearing. • Louise Kuester indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. She also relayed a concern that the Planning Commission had regarding certain items being accomplished "at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator." This issue was discussed and it was the consensus that no change be made to the ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 94-2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 900.12 OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER CODE OF ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS PARK ZONING ORDINANCE. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 8.2. Consider Preliminary Plat to divide approximately ten acres into one commercial lot and one outlot along with a conditional use permit to operate a motor vehicle station and convenience store by SuperAmerica/Public Hearing/Case No. P-92-7 & CU-92-16 Steven Ach indicated that SuperAmerica is requesting a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 12 acres into 1 commercial lot and 1 outlot at the southeast corner of Highway 169 and 193rd Avenue. The division would create one lot approximately one acre in size for SuperAmerica with the balance of the property retained as an outlot for future development. SuperAmerica is planning to install temporary utility lines with the intention of hooking up to the trunk sanitary sewer when it is extended from School Street and Freeport. If the trunk line is installed prior to the construction of SuperAmerica, they would then • hook directly to the trunk line. i 111 FOCUS AREA "A" ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS Focus Area A, approximately 582 acres in size, is located in the south— western portion of the City of Elk River and is bounded generally by the Elk River on the north, Orono Lake on the east, the Mississippi River on the south, and the western City limits on the west. The location of Focus Area A (along with Areas B, C, and D) is illustrated by Figure 1. The physical, institutional, legal, and economic features which are essen— tial to consider in planning the future use and development of Focus Area l' A are described below. Figure 2, Analysis of Conditions: Area A, refer- - ences graphically some of these conditions. The following section of this ! report summarizes the major issues which result from this analysis. PHYSICAL FEATURES Roads and Public Rights—of—Way The major roads in Area A are listed and described below. • US Highway 10 bisects Area A and is a four—lane divided roadway with a grassy median and rural—section shoulders. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) desires to keep the number of new intersections and driveways along this road to a reasonable minimum for traffic safety and flow purposes. Any new intersections would have to be approved by that agency. I' • County Road 30 runs roughly parallel to TH 10 but along the southern side of Area B. This road is two lanes in width. _4 • 17 • • Orono Road is a local street which is part of the City's Municipal State-Aid roadway system. It connects County Road 30 to TH 10. The City recently agreed to allow Domenic Gaspodor to tir realign a portion of this road at his own cost to create slightly larger lots along the shore of Lake Orono. • Waco Street is a local roadway which runs north-south from •� County Road 30 to the Elk River. The 1988 Growth Management L Plan recommends that Waco Street be extended across the Elk I River. The Growth Management Plan designates County Road 30, Waco Street, and Orono Road as collector streets and recommends a new industrial collector loop between TH 10 and Waco Street. The Western Area Feasibility Study recommends that portion of County Road 30 and Orono r Road be resurfaced or rebuilt in conjunction with the extension of sewer and water into Area A. r L Existing Development • Area A is mostly undeveloped although there are several significant urban developments. These include the new Sherburne County government center, the 116 single-family housing units existing south of County [ Road 30, the approximate 20 single-family housing units north of TH 10, and several businesses along TH 10. There is an unrecorded plat for 19 single-family houses north of County Road 30 which has not and is not expected to be developed. All residential and non-residential devel- opment in Area A is served by on-site sewer systems and private wells. [ (See Utilities, below.) ) Utilities C The availability and cost of delivering sanitary sewer and water service to [ ' Area A is the greatest problem confronting development here. Sanitary sewer service exists only to the intersection of County Road 30 and r-- - Orono Road on the south and to just east of the Elk River on the north. The existing system of water lines extends only to the eastern edge of the j - Elk River on both the north and south sides of Area A, and consists of • only six-inch pipes. 18 r_, _ 7 - I ._ ...............,....... -,„„.I I ..0-r _±,,,,.. . ..To_ y ,c)_....; _..,_ .„,„,,,, , ft, - wit 1 liper 14 A :L161 , par. I �T, ,In. IMI a ; -� .... . 1.1 mall 6121111 1 \ _• ••:::: 61 El _. L_ IQ"11 7..r___________ MO illar1/4 dil trim ii..33 WV"! _ANL r;',..4 4:1",rap .,---;- AM,... 1... ar igt.,:t.! a ,., ..!ititlj _ __ it 0; , � , Q' r "730 R®.: I Ih'�����. , w+ wl= — .13r 1 1 a_,.• mg j V • :4.4., , em I .. 7!ciltia_..9 % N' -- A ; Fil 06 li..".:.- '— — 1l aid /ii_ —:AI _ _�- I i• �_ i \ I i I ..,k_\ 1 1, ) 1 ' ) • .. ...... \ III'1 t _21L3- ) I 41111: j....... - .,P� ,-� %_j .... ,-(.,/ ---\_( i 1, it,,1 :� itikof Area Locations 11, ,, ik . t ,,,, , , - 0 1000 2000 x000 FT NORTH �.� Focus Area Studies EiainV Figure 1 19 • The Western Area Feasibility Study (Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc., January 19 89) included preliminary plans for sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and road improvements throughout Area A and used as its L basis for development the land use plan included in the 1988 City of Elk River Growth Management Plan. This feasibility recommended the fol— lowing: ["�] • Interceptor sanitary sewer, lift station, and forcemain: Extend an tr 18—inch line along County Road 30 to a lift station on the south side of County Road 30 between Denver and Concord Streets. A 12—inch forcemain would carry sewage from there to a point just east of the Elk River where it would flow by gravity to the treat— ment plant. The extension of interceptor sanitary sewer across the Elk River and along TH 10 was considered but rejected. • Lateral sanitary sewers: Extend a 10—inch line up Concord Street L and Orono Road, a 12—inch line up the center of the study area, and a 10—inch line up Waco Street. • Trunk water lines: Loopthe service alongall collector roads in the • study area. • Stormwater Drainage System: Convey runoff via swales, ditches, and pipes to a ponding area located in the floodplain along the J Mississippi River for preliminary treatment prior to release into the river. • Road System: The only major new road needed is an industrial [ loop from TH 10 to Waco Street. Some surface improvements are needed to portions of County Road 30 and Orono Road. The feasibility study estimated that the assessment per typical single—family residential lot for interceptor, trunk and lateral sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water lines, and all street improvements would — t amount to approximately $11,350, This is judged to be within the realm • of economic acceptability, although final costs could vary. Nine of the eleven major property owners in the feasibility study area petitioned for the preparation of preliminary feasibility reports for their individual • properties, indicating a high degree of interest in land development. 20 • A C01° ' 0 sl--J _ 1 ll.�' '°! C�� x.1 -..._. r,. _.__ Iv'_. ......__ gat..., a�^Y 1---__. '�`�f. V'.! '74 t '. , Ar04 ri89TN lG. - •. < it l �• t,':\ �• ��/ ply AL ,fir : ` .3 1 O.__ - a. • 1 % ° , ... . ,,... „. ‘ .,., , , , ._. trance to Area A msc� No ? • "j yFHd tG. 14i. ("1 1 ;3.' ' ..-, -- --- f'•' `, Ide titled By Bridge Crossing a\o . 5 . D .., ,, \ ` _,,. . • Nr I I ..yy.�� j H .rte 'h 'W 18 TN •v I% ` / ::;—F , t� ,4 12y S - � :, r1 IOrono t! I .r i--,-L• 1%• o 0 0Floodplain i Park ?t '�• WI' I [ExI5un :pi 2 L� I i. a � ?, Single, W O Existing y i k` -"---....„,. ...L `• .. i Family a �� N`I1 `1 o ;PPart- ig ca,£ r ai z\\_/ `�='....�•�. 1 L�.� �.�1 U • _ �e—.1(----- ,,, �. ( ExsUn / �'Entrance to ��T'tl�il�Y•�1 il �—t 1 __ 1 �l I( ��\J Housing • V<:‘•...,,,,,.:, of ElkCityRiver r---,, it Proposed (l Fields Water — I I Connection to I County 11 Tower ( �i Future Water and I Govern l `�. m San. Sewer Stub General ��---- [[[ ment ��. East of Bridge Vicinity Realign- . I Center-I Fairgrounds ment ( � \ ' L,_T __. Agricultural ono d.. • �/gi. 2::,:',-...i.....- 2.22.,;_- ' 1 g of Orono Rd , [' 1 Field ------ !.. Agricultural I I -5 zr 0'i '`� 1 ' ; tJ 4y �� --J Platted I o F ? qY a`tea t .. � Field Subdivision: I 1 j .;• = . /� \:. �^ T . r:s.+ -",-..,E-------)_.! o Sandpiper ' F •N. �i E :+/ m. '2"0 5 , ' b?, o Estates P R'', . K {/ CI 3 ¢v,J)� (' ( 11-Aua I 3k4,... I Q ,1b.1 vE. I. . g • Unsetvered Lots) • 2! - g \'' t II I HI�C' 1. I Proposedo!n _h4= ��� r r �I JRD °r ° h— �—, Lift Station an.Sew'er.... .. , L.�. ...... ..� — — Existing Single Family/ '%ti ` —#����'�'°.P'�� -, Golf Course s 3 zroo „! I ,>,e,� 1•. ``, _ - t ' ! _I. River Views ---"•" ! u z Floodplain (I'' %R•, VI Ole 7 0 \\�\\ • ___,..11' -i; i, ;: "`' :. t , f lily Rv1E W - CiR T ` I ,X11 : R 1 lli j '� ASLO'' i - - .. 771 a - l ( i r- ,�rOFT l :r-, ,, __ v! f SMEROUHNE - \ C City of _— MbS, X,VtN —1— Future Watermain Elk River --- Analysis of Conditions: Area A Future Sanitary Sewer Focus Area Studies Focus Area Boundary fLT—LJ ® ffininv a sn ooa soa morr. noRre Figure 2 1 L • Municipal State Aid roadway funds could be used for a portion of the Ci cost of Main Street and Orono Road. The Elk River Municipal Utilities r Commission should be asked to assist in funding the proposed water improvements including the elevated tower, well, and treatment. There were a number of unresolved economicquestions about these ro— Li P jects: I L 1. Should the 345 existing platted lots in the study area be I required to hook up to City services? If so, should they be L assessed some portion of the trunk costs? Should this assessment be levied now or held until these areas hook up to City services? r 2. How much should be assessed to public lands (government [ center and County Fairgrounds)? 3. Most land areas are protected from assessment for City services by the state's "Green Acres" law. This status would • have to be removed prior to proceeding with an improve— ment project. (See also "Green Acres Program" in the Legal, Institutional, and Economic section below.) 4. All properties in the study area have paid a previous inter— ceptor assessment. Any new assessment project would need to provide credit for this former assessment amount. 5. Will it be feasible to use tax increment financing for any [ portion of these projects? [---'Topography Topography does not represent an impediment to development of this [ vicinity; however, by the same token there are no attractive hills for , residential development. The area is generally flat with a slight pitch r toward the river. The only significant topograhic relief is south of L County Road 30 where the land slopes gently upward, then falls quickly ._ll toward the river's edge. C • Hi L 22 — 1 • r • Vegetation There are very few stands of mature trees in Area A except along the rivers which would be an attractive feature for "upper—bracket" housing I development. J Soils Soil conditions are conducive to urban development in Area A as there is Ja high percentage of sand and there are no wetlands outside the river courses. JWetlands and Drainage There are no wetlands in Area A other than the two rivers. While these would be an inpediment to development, they would also be attractive to the housing market. Parks and Trails • There is one park in Focus Area A. Orono Park is approximately 17 J acres in size and has facilities including a beach, softball field, volleyball court, children's playgound equipment, and horseshoe classified as a Community Park. The Sherburne County Fairgrounds (twenty acres in ] size) are located south of Orono Road. The County is interested in moving the fairgrounds out of Elk River to a site more central to the County. n There is interest on the part of some City officials in creating a larger softball and baseball complex to replace the fields available in Orono Park Ii and the County Fairgrounds. The Mississippi River flood fringe in Area A was one location suggested for this complex. The 1988 City of Elk River Growth Management Plan called for a new I!. Neighborhood Park in Focus Area A. The Growth Management Plan also recommended the development of bicyclist trails along County Road 30 from Waco Street to downtown; .1111':11,I • 23 �, I 1 1 L . along the length of Waco Street; along Orono Road; along the Mississippi Li River from the downtown to what is now called Focus Area A; and from the Mississippi River to Orono Park. L, Views and VistasLI Attractive views are provided across the Elk River and Lake Orono, especially from Orono Park and when crossing the river on Highway 10. Li- Views to the Mississippi River are hindered by the lack of public access to the river edge. E___, LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND ECONOMIC FEATURES City Land Use Plan i The Elk River Growth Management Plan addressed Area A and recom— L t mended the following: L1 • Medium—density housing for all undeveloped tracts south of II County Road 30 down to the Mississippi River floodplain; for all land north of County Road 30 to a line approximately half the dis— tance between County Road 30 and Highway 10; and for all the property north of Highway 10. Medium—density housing includes lots with public sewer and water service and not smaller than one—third acre in size. This may also include duplexes and townhouses. - • High—density housing along the south side of Highway 10 from the Elk River to Naples Street except for the location of existing busi— ness. ,, • Highway businesses along the south side of Highway 10 from L Naples Street to the Sherburne County Government Center, on both sides of Waco Street at Highway 10, and where they presently exist along the south side of the highway. L• The Sherburne County Government Center (public). 24 • • Light industry from the Sherburne County Government Center to the western City limits except for the commercial node at Waco Street. • Floodplain protection along the Elk River and the Mississippi River. The floodplain extends north from the Mississippi River to nearly 1 County Road 30 near Denver Street. Also, a portion of the penin— sula which protrudes into the Elk River is in the floodplain. Zoning Zoning in Area A includes C2, Office District, for the Sherburne County Government Center, Planned Unit District surrounding the Government Center down to County Road 30, R 1—C south and southwest of the JFarigrounds, south of County Road 30, and north of Highway 10, and Floodplain along the Elk and Mississippi Rivers. Land immediately west of Orono Park is zoned R3, Townhouse/ Multiple—Family Residential. There is C3, Highway Commercial, zoning wherever businesses already exist along Highway 10, as well as along Highway 10 west of Waco • Street. River Edge Controls There are several zoning controls affecting the Mississippi River and the 1 Elk River (including Lake Orono). • Floodplain Zoning District: This zoning district is divided into a Floodway District and a Flood Fringe District. There is very little development allowed within the Floodway District, as it would impede the course of flood waters and raise the level of floods. Agriculture, parks, parking lots, lawns, and play areas are permitted. The Flood Fringe District is that area which is not in the water— course of channel of a flood but subject to inundation by backwaters. Limited development is allowed provided it is pro— tected from flood waters. Permitted uses include anything allowed • i 25 1' I in the Floodway District plus residences,provided that the lowest . elevation is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. r4' • Shoreland Ordinance: ..,- This local ordinance applies to the two rivers,which are classified as General Development waters by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Allowable land uses include any r permitted by the underlying zoning. The geographic extent of the L-. Shoreland Ordinance is 300 feet from a river. Lot regulations are as follows: C Minimum Minimum Minimum Bldg. [- Abutting Water Edge Area Width Setback from OHW* Sewered Lots 15,000 70' 50' L Unsewered Lots 20,000 100' 75' L 1 Not Abutting Water L All Lots 10,000 75' L III * Ordinary High Water line There are also controls on the removal of vegetation,grading, erosion,and [ amount of impervious surface along the river from the protection of water quality and general aesthetics. J • Wild and Scenic River Ordinance: ` [_Ai The purpose of the Mississippi Wild and Scenic River Manage- -, ment Ordinance is to maintain the appearance of agricultural open space and/or low-density housing and to protect the ecologi- L cal, scenic, cultural, historic, and aesthetic qualities of the river j valley. This is a local ordinance required by the State of Min- nesota. The Mississippi River through Elk River is classified as Recreational by the DNR. Allowable land uses are those per- mitted by the underlying zoning.The land development controls address vegetative removal, erosion, building set- backs, signs, and similar site planning matters. 0 '' Lri, 26 I, j • Anticipated Pace of Land Development Housing: As indicated by the previous chapter which analyzed residential and non—residential development in Elk River, the housing market is very 7 strong. Approximately another 10,000 people are expected to reside in Elk River by the Year 2000 bringing the total to 20,000. It is expected that Focus Area A can attract a high percentage of the anticipated J residential growth in Elk River is properly planned because there are very few lots available with sanitary sewer service in 1989, only relatively minor extension of existing laterals is possible, and the Growth Management Plan recommended that Area A be the first stage in a major program of sanitary sewer extensions. The pace of sewered single—family housing development in Area A is 7 forecast to be approximately 60 acres per year from 1990 to 1992 and -1 approximately 30 to 44 acres per year from 1993 through 1996 for a total of 314 acres. Approximately 10 acres of attached housing is fore- - _ cast to be developed in Area A each year from 1995 through 2000. The total of the attached and detached forecasts is 338 acres through the Year 2000 for Area A. Industry: Elk River Industrial Park has only 14 acres of land left for development, and the City's Economic Development Director anticipates that the Indus— _, trial park will be fully developed by 1992. It is believed that some prospective industrial developments have been lost from Elk River Industrial Park because of the low quality of some existing buildings there and also because of the poor visibility and access to that location. Thus, a new industrial development location with public sewer and water service is, therefore, felt to be needed immediately. The City's Director of Economic Development estimates that the need for industrial land will continue to be at least five to ten acres per year on the average with possibilities for greater demands from time to time. It is assumed that there will be an annual demand for eight acres of industrial - • 27 • land in Area A, mostly for manufacturing and warehousing facilties with small office components. Some pure office space will also be needed in — Elk River, but this is not expected to be a major element in Area A. Total Land Demand Forecast to Year 2000: The above forecast of residential demand amounts to approximately 338 acres through the end of the century. Combined with the forecast annual L, industrial absorption of five to eight acres per year, the 20 acres devoted to the Sherburne County Government Center, this means that Area A may be approximately three—quarters developed by the Year 2000. L1 (Assumes fairgrounds are relocated.) This also means that it will not be easy to quickly extend utilities all the L1 way to west of the County offices for industrial or commercial develop— i ment along Highway 10. If the City is going to follow the 1988 Land L Use Plan from the Growth Management Study, it may have to extend j utilities across land well in advance of market demand. Alternatively, it L could search for an alternative site for industrial expansion for the 1992 1110 to 1998 time period while Area A grows from southeast to northwest. City Road System Plan ] The Growth Management Study recommended a new industrial collector road loop from Highway 10 to Waco Street. Other collector roads needed to serve this area are already in place with Waco Street, County Road 30, L, and Orono Road. C_4 Land Ownership and Parcelization More than ninety percent of Area A is owned by only eleven parties, P including Sherburne County and the City of Elk River. Green Acres Program All of the private, undeveloped property in Area A (except for the Gagne and Gospodor parcels -- approximately 81 acres) is enrolled in the State's "Green Acres" program, under which special assessments and • 28 • non—agricultural property taxes are deferred. A parcel can be taken out of the program at any time, but the owner then has to pay the taxes and assessments deferred over the preceding three years. This program is not as restrictive as the Minnesota Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Orono Road Realignment Mr. Domenic Gaspodor has reached an agreement with the City of Elk River that he move a portion of Orono Road slightly away from his property along Lake Orono at his cost and obtain the vacated portion of right—of—way for residential platting and development. Sandpiper Estates Sandpiper Estates is a platted subdivision of 19 unsewered lots for detached housing on 27 acres of land located north of County Road 30 near the middle of Area A. The roads have been graded and private util— ities installed. It was initially assumed that this plat would be vacated and redesigned for sewered development. The owner has indicated J • (January 1990) that he has lost patience waiting for the extension of sewer and intends to proceed with sale and development of lots. An ear— lier agreement provided for future resubdivision of the lots when utilities become available, although the resultant design will not be very attractive. This prospect further complicates the difficulty of extending utilities 1 across Area A. • J ,I� • 29 4 iii • FOCUS AREA "A" ISSUES The major issues or points of debate involving Focus Area A are listed below: 1. EXTENSION OF UTILITIES [ Providing sanitary sewer and water service is the greatest problem confronting the development of Area A. _� • Will residential development occur at a sufficiently rapid pace [ in Area A that the high cost of extending sewer and water from some distance can be quickly assessed and repaid so as to not incur excessive carrying costs? • Can services be extended to the vicinity of Highway 10 soon [ enough to meet the forecast demand for industrial land? • Can the City afford to "carry" the cost of utility extensions for industrial development if utilities are extended across land j well in advance of market demand? To what extent can [ ,� other funding sources such as tax increment financing be used to help in this regard? • What will be the policy of the City relative to certain utilities assessment questions: Will credit be given for prior assessments? Will public lands be assessed? IT Will parcels protected by the "Green Acres" law be • made available to be assessed in a timely manner? • 30 MI 0Will previously developed parcels be required to hook up to services when they are made available? Will other funding sources such as tax increment ,� financing or Municipal State Aid road funds be avail— able to offset assessment costs? 2. PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER There is very little public recreational access available to the Mississippi River in Elk River. There is a need for additional ball- -' fields and interest in a walkway along the river. Can these be accommodated in the floodplain of the river? J 3. LAND USE PA'!"!'ERN 1 • Is the land use plan of the 1988 Growth Management Plan valid? 1 • • How much land should be reserved for long—term industrial—office development versus being developed for housing in the near future? E • Should the City try to hold out part of Area A for high—quality office and office—showroom development when it appears that those portions of the industrial market will be -1 quite soft in Elk River (and vicinity) for the foreseeable future? • Will the County Fairgrounds remain? • How should the Mississippi River floodplain be used? • Should there be another park on the Elk River? • How much, if any, land should be devoted to attached housing? • - 31 • 4. HOW TO MAKE THE AREA MORE ATTRACTIVE L, TO THE HOUSING MARKET r The lack of trees and hills in Area A, especially when compared to the rest of the City, does not make this vicinity highly desirable to the housing market. What should be done to improve its marketa— bility? r ' L--, 5. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS What standards of site planning and building design should be applied to industrial development in Area A? Should any industry built in Area A have higher standards than Elk River Industrial Park? r 6. ALLOWING ADDITIONAL UNSEWERED DEVELOPMENT What should be done to discourage additional unsewered residential • or non—residential development in Area A prior to the advent of public sewer and water services? 7. HOW TO PRESERVE PARK AND RECREATIONAL -� OPEN SPACE l What is the best way to preserve park and recreation open space that may be planned as part of this study? Il 32 410 j j AREA "A" GOALS AND OBJECI IVES GOAL A j DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN THAT ENCOURAGES ORDERLY GROWTH AND CONTROLS CONFLICTS BETWEEN NEW AND J EXISTING USES. Objectives A-1: Establish a hierarchy of potential land uses based on intensity as measured by building mass and traffic generation. A-2: Use the roadway network to unite similar land uses and corporate incompatible uses. Do not combine traffic from incompatible land uses on collector or local roadways. A-3: Develop zoning regulations that locate the most truck and traffic generating uses near Highway 10. A-4: Identify land uses that complement the Sherburne County Government Center. A-5: Provide site design and architectural guidelines to help the City require a satisfactorily high quality of development. A-6: Where unavoidable conflicts occur, provide adequate buffering between land uses. A-7: Identify and preserve historic natural and architectural landmarks. - • 33 46, A-8: Take better advantage of the Mississippi River for public recreation. GOAL B TAKE ADVANTAGE OF STATE HIGHWAY 10 AS A MARKETABLE SITE AMENITY. Objectives B-1: Locate users with the highest need for visibility nearest to [-] Highway 10. B-2: Create a business park environment that enhances the image of Elk River. B-3: Create an entry theme for the commercial area to further establish its identity and site image. L_ B-4: Preserve natural features as site amenities and reduce utilities costs associated with site drainage. B-5: Locate high density residential uses near the highway corridors, L and lower density uses near the Mississippi River. GOAL C L- IMPROVE SITE ACCESS AND ON—SITE CIRCULATION. Objectives C-1: Develop a hierarchy of roadways that distribute commercial traffic ]. onto Highway 10, and residential traffic onto County Road 30, Orono Road, and Waco Street. C-2: Take advantage of Highway 10 as a state and regional transporta— tion corridor. • 34 1 • • s J MC-3: Examine alternative right—of—way alignments to Orono Road. J C-4: Develop site entry locations that are safe, minimize congestion and enhance site image and identity. C-5: Provide internal circulation system that responds to arterial road— Jways, the proposed land use plan and the natural site features. C-6: Keep traffic from incompatible land uses separate to the extent Jfeasible. I GOAL D MAINTAIN THE NATURAL CHAR.AC1ERISTICS OF THE AREA I BY PRESERVING TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE ELEMENTS OF THE LANDSCAPE THAT ARE DESIRABLE. 7 Objectives • D-1: Where possible preserve major area of vegetation. _' D-2: Develop drainage systems that are harmonious with the site topography, using on—site drainage where appropriate. D-3: Establish an open space link between the Mississippi River J Corridor and Lake Orono through the fairgrounds property. GOAL E Iy 0 RESPOND TO THE PRESENT AND PROJECTED REAL ESTATE '° MARKET IN ELK RIVER. Objectives E-1: Define land use areas in response to market assessment and absorption rates forecast in this document. • 35 C to Create a plan that can be built in phases accordingprojected L • E-2: P Jected market absorption rates and availability of sewer and water lines. E-3: Identify sites that may develop as commercial in the near future. E-4: Identify future uses which may be advantageously located near the Sherburne County Government Center. GOAL F MAXIMIZE THE RETURN ON CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC E, INFRASTRUCTURE. Objectives F-1: Provide infrastructure which is needed to accommodate and pro— mote development including roadway, storm water management, water and sewer installation. [ F-2: Create value while investing in infrastructure by doing it in a way • that creates additional amenity or improves site character. For r example, install landscaping and urban design elements with roadway improvements, or create storm water holding ponds and [ drainage ways which also serve as open space amenity. rl F-3: Plan for usable public open space in the redevelopment of the L Sherburne County Fairgrounds that relates to the Lake Orono Park site. [_ rJ, • 1 J. 36 ri 1� J FOCUS AREA "A" LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN Four alternative layouts for the land use and circulation patterns within Focus Area A were reviewed by the City Planning Commission and the favored design is described below and illustrated by Figure 3. J The Land Use and Circulation Plan for Focus Area A contains the fol— lowing approximate acreages: Single—family housing: 285 Multiple—family housing: 35 • Commercial: 26 Business park: 150 School: 20 Park: 27+ County Offices: 18 Features of Alternative A-1 are:. • It is assumed that the Sherburne County Fairgrounds and the municipal ballfields will be relocated out of the Area. • It is assumed that Sandpiper Estates will be completed with one—acre unsewered residential lots as originally proposed but that the houses on these lots will be located so as to allow the resubdivision of the lots when sewer and water services are • available. 37 • • It is assumed that the municipal .�ballfields will be relocated to another site in the city. • Single-family housing will be built along both sides of County r Road 30 (Mississippi Road) with the exception of a site plan- ned for an elementary school near the intersection of Mississippi Road and Waco Street. Single-family housing is also planned west of Waco Street and along the Elk River north of Highway [ 10. Care will be taken to ensure that the size of future residential lots which abut older large lots (such as the Grandview Addition) are of sufficient size so as to not diminish the value L of the existing homes. • Multiple-family housing is planned in the northeast between the single-family housing and the business park. Multiple-family housing may consist of duplexes, four-, six-, or eight-family buildings or apartments. 40 • A future business park would be developed along the south side r of Highway 10 on both sides of the Sherburne County Government Center. The business park would include light [ industry, offices, office-warehouse, and office-showroom buildings. A new zoning district would be created which would be created which would give the City additional control over site planning [ and exterior building design in the business park to ensure that all developments project an attractive image. Additionally, the City would create a master landscaping plan for the edges of the new business park streets and at the entrances, requiring that private developers implement it. Please refer to the following ri, section, 'Focus Area A Site Design Recommendations" for fur- ther discussion of business park site planning and street edge ra. landscaping. • I 38 • _ . • • r r •._ • t J I_. ! I. J 1 _ t L 1 t__ t L- 1 I I I 1 L-1 L I L _I L.--_J 0 ! • >, /W/ (=-.--\-r-Vr }. SSE o{�.poo \ - v- I Fi"il E . T' 799tH LA ; �, 1 s�\ ... .�.'. oa > __ '�:,"., (rt _!LL 189711 '71(E _ _ 4'4'44.0.......... LSFJ Single-Family Residential r E�, °P `, 6 J0 114- i gy � LI I CM-PD Multifamily Residential v f'' H JLF '.s � , <e ` : ,� 1 L C J Commercial-Retail s, .F N I i k • I I m/SCNDI S� 3,PP ..7t W: : I ✓ ".:k `BPJ Business Park E�� �.1,14-4 r.f 5 K— s .: w ''' ,:.__..;/' ') L S J School .� ��. 1 - --_.. '-SW/4 �"a a, �0 . i`J C e, �� < I [ UD Public 1\ .\_._ ��1'� '7 c/Rq . 8�, Ii !I s '' . H L—J SF �� �� ' z W P Park aa; ' T f. F Ie6TH .r4 ,1‘...,...:=N ' _ •6: a'L ... I \ W�1 �i i�. / Om i' ti Z ' , \\ C i MFIF i I a 'H I \ _ / ,o 444E- sl \ l 1 \‘,/', _ (l: 08040 ON) I gi lir---,`'/ç // II Pu I �11 \( BP / / 1l; 1 it \� m L-- — I __--J �,, ill I Sherburne I�_________14)R___, \\\__ / /J.•/I .: � // `\ I Government) PU 1 I \� BP /I 'I Center Twe1I BP MF !/' ��L'��.� h' °yl o t atr Y~W ;.; )/ I SF > •/ I L ,e 1,.s!` �.0 : __. 'lig • .,u��� a _ 2 P1' i} �' w° ° BP �/ I I r= J •/ SF - P ""i'01,4„--•' \� ; B ..5,7e> I —____ SF i '� I • ::. ,\ Q•. .' .vE �`; �N r--________11 —Ped-Bike I / :� I W 3R,4t•, :1.---e.• •.J� 2 �_-': • I � RY I S 11 i I__ rreu ISF : Vi i/ \p :I{4 t I L--- ----� J J '� , 4.- ---,s.raj, 1 \\ 1 _ rr"' MOH 4, 7 I,WE i'"1-16 r . ____ C.R.30 MISSISSIPPI RD. N o 2N0 1 .—.. a} 37yF �tE• a ^. I km I I ill- 1 __ ' --""' �cyr Qa 4v, „W Ei6 z I *o I SF N I � SF / Flood Plain ` - 1,a z 6 ,v moi- , — R� - ! c ...j_) .u,,,E _ 'I_RIS / \ _ tI' r ' I 1 41_,"I :7[11,1. 4'r,I 41 /r/ \\ _ 1. COUNTY City of i SMER&1RNE EiKElk� �_- ,MSS/SStPP/ V-..-. / � WROMT COUNTY Land Use and Circulation Plan: Area A River Focus Area Studies 1-12-1_1 (1y 0111M 11M e ISO 300 600 ••R f. NORTH Figure 3 L. • • A major new area of public recreational open space would be created in the Mississippi River floodplain with a pedestrian and bicyclist access along Mississippi Road. L-, • Two new neighborhood parks are planned, one north of r , Mississippi Road and one to the south. Each should be 4 approximately three to six acres in size. Additional neigh— borhood recreation space would be provided at Orono Park C_, and the planned elementary school site. • Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities should be provided along all `` collector and arterial roads. These may consist of concrete sidewalks (in residential neighborhoods) or wide paved L shoulders or detached asphalt paths (along Waco Street, Mississippi Road, and Highway 10). L • New collector roads should be built in general conformance with the layout illustrated by Figure 4. Access to and from Highway 10 would be limited to only six locations within 1111 Area A to protect traffic flow and safety on the highway. Waco Street would be extended across the Elk River to con— nect the northwestern portions of Elk River to Focus Area A. • New sanitary sewer and water services would begin to be extended into Focus Area A from their present terminus near the Elk River and Main Street as soon as a public hearing on the matter is held and the City Council approves the public r_, project. These services would be extended in stages and would proceed from southeast to northwest, serving single—family housing, multiple—family housing, and busi— ness park as demand dictates. �J . • r A 40 J FOCUS AREA "A" STYE DESIGN J RECOMMENDATIONS The following points should be observed by the City staff and the Planning Commission and City Council when reviewing development J proposals and when formulating long—term spending programs for public improvements. ELK RIVER VILLAGE CHARACTER The City considers it desirable to promote and maintain a physical character which conveys the image that Elk River is a freestanding, small town with historic roots, set in an agricultural area, and possessing sub— stantial community cohesiveness. Ways in which to build that physical character in Area A include: • Landscaping along Highway 10 to complement the extensive land— scaping along Highway 169 in the northern part of the city and which also acts as an entry and exit feature. Special emphasis should be given to overstory deciduous landscaping at the intersec— tion of TH 10 and Waco Street and at the TH 10 bridge over the Elk River. • Attractive entry signage near the western city limits or near the Waco Street intersection with Highway 10. • Careful site planning in the industrial and commercial areas which downplays truck docks, outdoor storage, signage, and landscaping which softens the buildings. • Overstory trees in the front yards of homes. • 41 r s • Lam. 410 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SITE PLANNING , Substantial liberty can be granted to designers of commercial or industrial L, developments as long as certain minimum requirements, described below, are satisfied. These elements should be reviewed by either the City r Planner/Zoning Administrator or by the City Planning Commission, or both. Because there is oftentimes some judgment involved in adminis— tering site planning guidelines and regulations, review of site plans by the [, City Planning Commission and City Council is helpful. Generic site plans for a commercial and an industrial development lop— ment project have been included to illustrate the design features of importance, which are also listed below. 1. Soften parking areas r L - Use berming along the front property line with landscaping to soften the view to any parking lot between the road and [. the building. Ideally, the major parking lot for industrial or 4111 office projects should be on the side of the building with perhaps only visitor parking in the front, or no parking in the L front at all. Landscaping should not hide buildings or signs but serve to catch the eye and "soften" the image. Berming [should be approximately three feet in height. 2. Hide and shield truck docks Truck docks should be oriented away from the public road [ L by placing them on the side or rear of the building. When on the side of the building or otherwise visible from residential areas, wing walls and landscaping should be used. r, 3. Hide trash handling areas [ If trash must be stored outdoors, it must be concealed with walls and landscaping. • 42 • r • I ,. , t r e I p I e, _I n- i a 1 d _ i & _, 1_____ 1 L—__) 1.,_____1 i— 1 !__ i L__ i (__ 1 L_ i • ilk • i i , ----__ No commercial access -- to residential streets / \ / M/por/qa \ j114%,'+‘ Sde4/ Increase setback or .7 �/wit- \, require heavy planting �% r V `1Id _ �\ v0 //•eef �- along residential streets ' Align driveways ind: / Conll•r •a tlg �'I_� _t '� \and antra eels �, - get across streetc �� ,. ot• ,-11011111111r4 Ir' 0-- 1.0....... _:;;/00, ___Li. RI) ; 1111, A Scroen loading {and trash Center Signage 40 i,44411I�' �M Restaurants„....,.. ` ` Fl ffiRetell /N. l7 • �, A. ° •_ ® � rivt% f/ ,wPaved Parking /�s7416.44/.0, ed10 // illp.. 41rPI g 41. • - --, , . ., . V Shared \ .‘ `,..\\ .. \\ '''',„\, ,4ir,. -_,____- wili_Li_134 rtfib_q_____'" _____ _ r 1,17..._)4111,, Driveway � A Oriv Thru „too/ -� / *( 41 , ,,', 4110>,.. __- __60_ , fia _ „ / ( ,,, , N-, ?.40,. 1, „,342;,,,_ , _ .. ...__ ,..„.„ __ ..... City of Elk Center Signage • (Combine ail / River signage) , Example/Conceptual Commercial Site Plan Focus Area Studies t �,`'t11C11� il 0 5 10 20 30 NORTH J Figure 4 4. Disallow or conceal outdoor storage Outdoor storage should not be allowed if the City's intention L for Area A is to create a better—quality business park for attractive light industry, office—showroom buildings, and offices. Any outdoor storage that may be allowed should be in an inconspicuous location and hidden by walls, opaque fencing, and landscaping. 5. Equal facade treatment on all sides In the business park, buildings should have the same materi— als on all sides. It may be appropriate to grant a dispensation from this requirement for commercial development if the less—attractive side is not visible to residential development. r However, with materials such as rock—face concrete block, L lower—cost construction can be achieved with attractive results. • 6. Generous use of landscaping 1 The City should require that all commercial, industrial, and multiple—family residential developments submit prior to [ approval a landscaping plan (preferably prepared by a regis— tered landscape architect) which indicates species and sizes. Minimum sizes for plantings should be 2 inches caliper for deciduous trees and six feet in height for coniferous trees. Landscaping should be used to soften parking areas, hide [ trash areas, soften blank building walls, blend the building into the site, and add seasonal color and interest. The City should either draft and adopt a landscaping ordi— nance which either ( 1 ) quantifies the number of plantings or [ the percentage of screening along site edges or (2) gives freedom to the City Planning commission and City Council (with staff recommendations) to make subjective judgments about the quality of the plan and require changes if seen fit. II! L 44 - - , - I I I U_ - I a_ __._1 1___1 L__ I L J L_._ 1 L / • • • Require setback with heavy buffering and screening where residential adjacency exists. Face loading and Face non-service service areas and office areas 1 P_ vim. cwt eoo_9 _, - - Require individual lot landscaping and A 41 .==.Minimum setback equal building facade treatment to promote to building height1. - I o l 1 a positive industrial area image 1 j � I 111 Limit signage location and size 4 I /� i — l Ilzt= ____ 7�„ ICY 2*'la p p 'gip .) „ i t1 it C9 11 �i i M ' O v '1' WWI!' �_ _ 1m e 0) III i/- .a wn � �WWI! �I A wU 17� .;1 _ '�)i 1 }Y1 -- Overstory boulevard trees and� W E -d� "' °deft lil 'e ~J Sit +J ':' 11-6011141 ornamental trees and shrubs -- ---• - J w�3' in median O C o ilKle a 0 If _ w�M _ _ _ '0 n , - I r �( City of E1 k River Example/Conceptual Industrial Site Plan Focus Area Studies [�Yl;ltli'11' 0 5' . 20 30 NORTH Figure 5 _, L, , • 7. Paved parkingareas with curb and gutter L All parking areas should be paved with asphalt (or concrete) L, and have concrete curb and gutter. L, 8. Use ponds as amenities Surface water ponds should be used to detain runoff and 1. reduce the need for storm sewers. These can be used as ame— nities throughout the area. 9. Keep signage subdued r The sign portion of the Elk River Zoning Ordinance is relatively restrictive. Its continued enforcement should ensure that signs do not get out of control. The City should con— sider adding provisions which restrict the number of C businesses which can be advertised on one sign or else require a common typeface, color, and size for more than three • names on one sign. Multi—tenant signs should be designed � 1 to appear as a single sign. Low—scale "monument" signs I should be encouraged in the business park. E , 10. Establish a positive character for the business park The businesspark, it isL if to avoid some of the marketing , problems encountered by the Elk River Industrial Park, j should include regulations on exterior building materials (no [ —i i I I metal sided, metal frame structures) and site planning as described above. Additionally, the City should design a comprehensive boulevard landscaping plan which would be implemented on a lot—by—lot basis by business park occu— pants and which includes special emphasis at the major [ entryways. E.._ 1___• r ,1 46 C L .. i L._ J l_-_--f 1-------I L_J L..----J L__.J I_.__J L.J 1.--j 1...1 l..Y..i L.._J L L....2 1-_—.i L-- LJ L._.! i • 0 e Pe`k , f" '. .i` yIv 4. � I lir �� , I 11 011' 1i '1 Parking Building Setback R.O.W R.O.W Setback Parking Lot —_— , .. _ --..__�_ _ _.— __ _— —_-_—_— ___..—14 .p 30' 15' 36' 15' 20 60' Property I Properly Una Une City of 'fia; Elk', River Conceptual Streetscape Improvements In Business Park Focus Area Studies Or 5—�a ,o „� IlltW Figure 6 Pedestrian Features — As Area A develops, the City should establish either paved shoulders or off—road paths for pedestrians and bicyclists along County Road 30, Waco Street, Orono Road, and Highway 10. The planned street leading r from Orono Park to County Road 30 should have sidewalks. A thirty— to sixty—foot—wide pedestrian access to the riverfront park should be obtained just south of Boston Street (although motorized access should be C_ planned only from the eastern end of the park because of poor soil con— ditions in this vicinity.) r Public Landscaping A formal pattern of overstory deciduous trees should be planted along Waco Street, County Road 30, Orono Road, and Highway 10 through Area A. Special landscaping emphasis should be given to the pedestrian connection between Orono Park and the proposed Mississippi River park. Separating Incompatible Land Uses One of the most important elements to the overall success of Area A will be the separation of the industrial or commercial developments from housing. This should be accomplished as follows: • Follow the plan for land use and circulation illustrated by the Land I Use and Circulation Plan: Area A, Figure 4, which separates the 1. two types of traffic. r I L • Observe the guidelines for non—residential site planning described above. rr L- • Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require (in the commercial or industrial zones which abut residential zones) that parking lots or truck maneuvering areas be set back at least 30 feet from that dividing line. Ideally, parking lots or truck maneuvering or —u, docking areas should be on the opposite side of the building from residential properties (use site plan review). i 48 i'1 • FOCUS AREA "A" IMPLEMENTATION General implementation guidelines for the Focus Area Plans are presented later in this report, although several specific recommendations pertaining to Area A are set forth below. EXTENSION OF UTILITIES The Western Area Feasibility Study (Maier Stewart and Associates, 1 January, 1989) examined in detail the feasibility of extending sewer and water services into Area A, including the likely cost per residential lot. Upon adoption of the Focus Area A Study, the City should immediately Jreopen discussions with the landowners with the aim of beginning the first phase of those public improvements and assessments. Serious con— • sideration should be given to adopting a utility routing plan which supports simultaneously the residential and business park land use plans and which minimizes long—term project costs (including financial car— rying costs). i Several questions about assessment policy were raised in the feasibility study which also need to be answered. Additionally, the use of financial tools other than just assessments should be explored. These may include tax increment financing (assuming there are no major changes in the state law), general funds, and Municipal State—Aid roadway funds, and water system financing by the Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission. 3 LAND DEVELOPMENT Sandpiper Estates w One of the major controlling factors in the development of Area A may be the platted and partially improved Sandpiper Estates residential subdi— vision. It will, of course, be essential to discuss carefully with the owner _. • 51 • • Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require that there be a 100 percent opaque fence or wall not less than six feet tall between non—residential and residential sites; that such fence or wall be set back from the property line five feet and the setback be landscaped. • Require that residential lots abutting non—residential sites be extra deep. .J Highway 10 Edge The commercial and industrial buildings along Highway 10 will be the most visible to high numbers of the passing public and, therefore, should be given special consideration in site plan reviews. Ideally, the buildings would be between the highway and the major parking lots. Otherwise, the parking lots should be softened with ben-fling and landscaping as pre— viously discussed. The buildings should present a pleasing facade to the highway, including as many windows as is possible given the internal demands of the operation. 1• 1 I I 1 -0 J 49 7 • of that project abandoning it if Alternative A-1 is to be adopted. If Alternative A-2 (or some variation of it) is adopted, it will also be important to replat the project using smaller, sewered lots. County Fairgrounds The City should encourage Sherburne County to relocate its fairgrounds out of the City at the earliest possible date so that better use can be made L of that site (and surrounding properties) and so that the City can recoup its full investment in utility and road improvements. Park System Expansion Major additions to the City park system have been suggested by the Alternatives to serve this neighborhood and the City at large. The only sure and equitable way to obtain the planned park sites is for the City to buy them; it is very unlikely that such tracts can be acquired through dedication as part of a plat, particularly the major riverfront open space and park in the floodplain. Therefore, if this plan is adopted by the City • Council, the City Parks Commission should initiate discussions with lan— downers and work with the rest of the community to build support for this major undertaking. Combining Properties In designing Alternatives A-1 and A-2, attempts were made to avoid L splitting ownership parcels and to avoid suggesting that various owners combine or sell their parcels to a common developer. However, the t results of a long history of land parcelization are not always conducive to the best urban design and land marketing. Therefore, there may be instances where ownership patterns should change. The City may assist {-- in this although it is best if such arrangements can be made entirely pri— �I vately. • - 52 rJ _ I 1A 3AB hl c Ill IT[ �Iddl�dld�id10 i�jdI s glk (River I = 1 6 FIGURE 6-13 d �` POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL SITE f i l �l OVERALL ASSESSMENT Site # 1 2 3. 4 S 6 Z .8 R J •• Ranking 1st 3rd 7th 8th 5th 2nd 6th 4th N 1988 Growth Management Plan I I�► i� i ill