Loading...
06-26-2001 PC MIN . . . MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001 Members Present: Chair Pederson, Commissioners Franz, Mesich, Ropp and Schuster Members Absent: Commissioner Baker Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Pederson. 2. Consider 6/26/01 Planning Commission Agenda COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: - ITEM 5.5. - WITHDRAWN COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consider 5/22/01 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 22,2001, MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: PAGE 9, ITEM 5.8. - PARAGRAPH 4, SHOULD BE COMMISSIONER BAKER COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend July City Council Meeting Commissioner Ropp will attend the July 16, 2001, City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by Gold Nugget Development. Inc. for Preliminary Plat (Kliever Lake Fields). Public Hearing - Case No. P 01-08 Staff report by Michele McPherson. Gold Nugget Development request preliminary plat approval for Kliever Lake Fields; 98 single family lots and three outlots. Outlots A and B are to be dedicated for park and Outlot C to be held in abeyance for a possible townhome Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 2 . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. . development. Ms. McPherson reviewed the revised preliminary plat, noting that sidewalks will be installed along Streets A, B, E and G. She noted that staff has spoken with the County Ditch Inspector and they will be meeting with him tomorrow Oune 27th). Ms. McPherson explained that the City Council approved including this property in the Urban Service District on July 7,2000 and the property will be assessed for sewer and water this fall. Outlot C could have a possible 92 townhome lots if rezoning is approved. If not, the site will be developed as single family. All lots meet the 12,000 square foot minimum requirement and density is 2.21 lots per acre. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the 19 conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Horst Graser, representing Gold Nugget Development, explained that the lots south of the County pond will have the typical 5 and 10 foot drainage and utility easements and no additional easements will be required for the pond. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that he did not have any significant issues with the plat and that he was comfortable with the original submission. He stated that any outstanding issues can be resolved when final plat is submitted. Commissioner Mesich asked if the mining location had been changed. Ms. McPherson stated that it had not and that the excavation location is reflected in the landscape plan. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (KLIEVER LAKE FIELDS), CASE NO. P 01-08, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. ALL COMMENTS OF SHERBURNE COUNTY SHALL BE ADDRESSED. OUTLOT A SHALL BE DEEDED TO THE CITY FOR PARK WHEN THE PLAT IS RECORDED. A SIDEWALK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG STREETS A, B, E AND G. STREET liGHTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER MUNICIPAL UTIliTIES. A SEALCOAT FEE SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. A STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT FEE SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 3 . 9. UPON COMPLETING ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVING THEM ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, A WARRANTY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 25% OF THE IMPROVEMENT COSTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. 10. THE APPLICANT SHALL EXECUTE A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 11. THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY $300 PER UNIT TO ELK RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES FOR W ATER AVAILABILITY CHARGES. 12. THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE FINAL GRADE FOR THE PARK AND ESTABLISHING VEGETATIVE COVER. 13. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MARKING PARK. BOUNDARIES WITH THE CITY'S PARK. BOUNDARY SIGNS. 14. THE PARK. SURVEY INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE REQUIRED ELECTRONIC FORMAT. 15. THE MAILBOXES SHALL BE CLUSTERED. . 16. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE SNOW STORAGE EASEMENTS AROUND THE CUL-DE-SACS. 17. A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 18. A DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 19. ALL GRADING BE CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Commissioner Mesich opposed. 5.2. Request by Elk River Municipal Utilities for Conditional Use Permit to Construct a Municipal Well and Water Processing Facility. Case No. CU 01-21 Staff report by Michele McPherson. Elk River Municipal Utilities requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a well and water treatment facility. The facility is proposed to be constructed on a remnant piece of property which the city purchased for the Twin Lakes Boulevard (Tyler Street) road construction. The 26' x 74' structure will be located south and east of Twin Lakes Boulevard, 50 feet from the property line. There will be one driveway access which will be a "right-in, right-out" on Twin Lakes Boulevard. Staff suggests some minor modifications to the pre-cast rake finished concrete panels, in order to present a more residential design. A turn-around is suggested to provide space for the employee checking the facility to maneuver in and out of the site. . Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 4 . Staff recommends approval of the request with the four conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Mesich asked to see a map of the Trott Brook Farms townhome project which would be adjacent to this site. Ms. McPherson provided a map of the location, noting that the building would be approximately 250' - 300' from the townhomes. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mesich asked if there are wetlands on the property. Ms. McPherson stated that there are wetlands to the east and north of the property. Commissioner Mesich asked the City Engineer if any special design was required for this site, since chemicals will be used. Mr. Maurer stated that all of the activity will be within the building and normal precautions will be taken so that there is no discharge. Commissioner Mesich asked how the chemicals are brought in. Mr. Bryan Adams, Utilities Manager, explained that the chemicals are delivered in cylinders. Commissioner Mesich asked how the fluoride is added. Mr. Adams explained that the fluoride is delivered by a tanker and the operation is regulated by the Department of Health. Commissioner Mesich asked if the building will look similar to other single family homes in the city. Ms. McPherson stated that the modifications will help to make the building blend in with the residential. . Chair Pederson asked if the building would have a standard raked finish. Mr. Adams stated that he feels the concrete panel construction is appropriate for a water treatment facility, and that he is agreeable to using some type of exterior treatments, including a change in the roof design. Commissioner Ropp asked if Mr. Adams had any concerns regarding the roof type. Mr. Adams stated that the roof is not a large issue. Commissioner Franz asked if it would be difficult to expand the building if a hip roof was used. Mr. Adams stated that if the building were to be expanded, it would be to the east, and they would have to re-do the roof line if a hip roof were utilized. Chair Pederson felt that a pre-cast building with a pitched roof would look out of place and did not have a problem with a flat roof. He would like to see some architectural treatment used on the exterior, rather than a plain raked or smooth finish. . Commissioner Mesich asked if the city's business park standards could be applied. Ms. McPherson stated that the property is not zoned Business Park. Commissioner Mesich stated he did not want to see a "concrete bunker" placed in such a highly visible area. Ms. McPherson stated that there is a similar structure near the railroad grade trail which blends in with the surroundings, however, that building is fairly well screened by natural vegetation. Also, there is a similar building in the Hillside Estates area. Commissioner Franz stated he would like to see a pitched roof. Commissioner Ropp stated that he was opposed to a "concrete bunker" look. . Commissioner Schuster stated that he did not have a problem with a flat roof. He stated that he would like to see more screening to the east between the building and the residential Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 5 . area. Ms. McPherson stated that staff is recommending additional screening to the east and north. Commissioner Franz stated that he would support requiring a percentage (30%) of alternate materials be used such as brick or stone, with coloring or texturing to make the building more aesthetically pleasing, on all sides of the building. Commissioner Mesich asked what would be used for roofing materials. Ms. McPherson stated that timberline, standing seam metal, or standard asphalt shingles could be used if a hip roof was used. She noted that Mr. Adams has stated he would prefer asphalt shingles. Ms. McPherson stated that if a flat roof design was used, a parapet could be included. Commissioner Mesich stated that he felt a shingled roof would look odd on a concrete tip- up panel roof. He suggested that some glass on the front of the building would give it a more residential look. Mr. Adams explained that wire mesh would have to be used in the glass because of vandalism. He felt glass would be a safety concern and would prefer no glass be used. Mr. Adams stated that he felt he could work with staff before the City Council meeting to come up with a design. Commissioner Franz asked if there would be any generators on the site which would need to be screened. Mr. Adams stated that they have a generator which is moved around from site to site. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to table this issue to the July 10,2001 Planning Commission workshop meeting. . COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER MUNICIPAL UTiliTIES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER TREATMENT FACiliTY, CASE NO. CU 01- 21, TO THE JULY 10,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP. COMMISSIONER MESICH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Commissioner Mesich asked that staff look at the noise issue of having a generator running at the site. 5.3. Request by Jerry's Foods dba Cub Foods for an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Cub Foods for an Expansion. Public Hearing - Case No. CU 01-23 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to amend the Elk Park Center PUD Agreement to allow a 19,579 square foot addition to the existing Cub Foods store at 19216 Freeport Street. Two additional wall signs are proposed; a 3'x24' canopy sign over the new entrance saying "Pharmacy" and a 4'x16' sign over the drive through window which says "Pharmacy Drive- Thru". Staff recommends that the exit for the drive-through be realigned so that it exits onto the Jackson Street entrance opposite the parking area for the retail shops to the south, and that a landscape plan be submitted and approved by the City. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request with the conditions listed in the staff report regarding landscaping, signage and realignment of the drive-through. . Commissioner Franz asked why the limit was placed on the amount of square footage. Mr. Harlicker explained that amount of square footage was based on a plan which was approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 6 in the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement. Jerry's Foods is asking to amend that agreement. Commissioner Schuster asked if addition parking will be required. Mr. Harlicker stated that there is adequate parking. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Bob Shadduck, Christiane Jones and Mike Jutz, representing Cub Foods, were introduced at this time. Mr. Shadduck stated that the addition is proposed to be 20,267 square feet and will be constructed on the south end of their existing building. He noted that there is an existing easement which will need to be vacated in the area where the new loading docks are proposed. Mr. Schadduck explained that he would like to leave the drive- thru exit in the location they have proposed, stating that there is a fairly substantial grade change in the location proposed by staff and this could become a safety issue in the winter when there is snow and ice. Mike Jutz explained that there is 6 1,1 foot drop in elevation from the drive aisle to the end of the exit proposed by staff, which is an 11-15 percent change. Chair Pederson asked if the existing loading docks will be moved. Mr. Jutz stated no, and that the proposed loading docks are shown on drawing C-3 in the Commissioner's packets. Chair Pederson stated that he felt there could be a potential traffic conflicts in the loading dock area. Commissioner Mesich asked if the loading docks are at grade. Mr. Jutz stated that the docks are lower than grade. Commissioner Mesich asked if any screening of the loading docks is proposed. Mr. Jutz stated that a landscape plan will be provided. Commissioner Mesich asked if they had considered a concrete wall to screen the loading area. Mr. Jutz stated that they have not. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mesich asked the City Engineer if screening of the loading dock was considered when the original PUD was reviewed. Mr. Maurer stated that he did not recall much discussion regarding screening and that the focus was mainly on preserving the existing trees along Jackson. Chair Pederson asked what type of materials would be used for construction of the addition. Mr. Jutz stated that the exterior would be rock face block and E.I.F.S. Commissioner Pederson asked if there would also be some brick, in order to match the existing exterior, and also if this new entrance would be the main entrance. Mr. Shadduck stated that the main entrance would remain in its present location and that the addition will match the existing building exactly in construction materials. Ms. McPherson noted that the drawing does not show the brick being extended, but that it is noted in the description key. Chair Pederson asked how much traffic will be generated by the drive-thru pharmacy. Mr. Shadduck stated he did not know, since there are only 3 or 4 other stores that have them. He stated that he operates 10 other Cub Foods and this is the first one to have the drive- thru. Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 7 . Commissioner Mesich stated he did not see a good alternative to the drive-thru location issue. Chair Pederson stated he would like to see the drive-thru go straight out, as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Mesich asked why people would go through the drive-thru and then go park in the parking lot. Ms. Jones stated that at other stores with drive-thru pharmacies, it is common for customers to drop off a prescription at the drive-thru and then proceed to the parking lot to park their car and come in to shop while waiting for a prescription. She felt the exit as proposed would provide safer flow of traffic. Commissioner Mesich stated that he had reservations about the loading dock area in regard to screening and truck traffic. Mr. Harlicker asked if he would be in favor of extending the wall to screen the loading dock, and require additional landscaping. Commissioner Mesich stated yes. Discussion followed regarding whether or not the loading dock should be allowed to jut out from the building, or if it should be recessed into the building. Ms. Jones explained that the trucks only come in one way, and then would be backing up to either of the loading dock locations. She did not feel there would be any truck traffic conflicts. . Commissioner Franz asked why the city should allow the applicant to extend beyond the square footage which was allowed in the PUD agreement. Mr. Shadduck explained that when the Cub Foods was originally built, the city had a clear understanding that they proposed to expand at some point in the future to this exact size and that the only change is adding the drive-up facility. He stated that Kraus-Anderson had the opportunity to commit to the expansion in 5 - 10 years and has assumed the expansion was part of their approval all along. Commissioner Mesich asked where they lost the additional square footage. Mr. Harlicker stated that the additional retail which was not in the original concept was added, and the city reduced the amount of square footage originally approved for the Cub Foods for the added retail. He noted that the original building was to be 52,680 square feet and was actually built at 60,000 square feet. He stated that Kraus Anderson was aware they were "maxed out" on the square footage for Cub Foods with the addition. Chair Pederson asked if the addition area would have been left as green space without the addition. Mr. Harlicker stated yes. Commissioner Schuster stated he did not support the new loading dock as proposed and would like to see it recessed. He stated he has concerns for pedestrian traffic in the drive- thru location. Commissioner Schuster stated he supported the addition. . COMMISSIONERMESICH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY JERRY'S FOODS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE ELK PARK CENTER PUD AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A 19,579 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, CASE NO. CU 01-23, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: - 1. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER BE ADDRESSED. 2. ALL WALL SIGNS WILL REQUIRE SIGN PERMITS. 3. A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY. Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 8 . 4. A WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED TO SCREEN THE LOADING DOCK FROM JACKSON. 5. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED TO FURTHER SCREEN THE LOADING DOCK. CHAIR PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Commissioner Franz opposed. 5.4. Request by Powell Development Co. for Conditional Use Permit for Townhomes (Mississippi Ridge). Public Hearing - Case No. CU 01-22 Staff report by Michele McPherson. The applicant requests that a conditional use permit be approved for site plan approval of 22 townhomes in Mississippi Ridge. The site is located west of Highway 10 between 171 st and 173rd Avenues and adjacent to the Mississippi River bluff line. Ms. McPherson reviewed the building design, elevations and materials of the proposed townhomes. She noted that the applicant has requested that vinyl siding be allowed in the areas originally proposed to be stucco. Ms. McPherson reviewed the requirements of the Shoreland and Wild & Scenic River Ordinances including setbacks, grading, tree protection, use of earth tone colors, glare and lighting. Staff recommends that more native plan species be used. Ms. McPherson then reviewed the 8 conditions of approval recommended by staff in the staff report to the Commission dated June 26,2001. Tony Powell, 13696 Island View Drive, representing the applicant, displayed samples of the building materials. . Chair Pederson asked where the utility boxes would be located. Mr. Powell explained that the boxes would be placed on the sides of the townhomes, near the rear. Commissioner Mesich asked if a 15 foot driveway was adequate. Ms. McPherson stated that they would be required to provide at least a 20 foot long driveway. Chair Pederson asked if there would be off street parking. Ms. McPherson stated that there would be no parking on the private entry drive, but off street parking would be allowed on both sides of Yale Street. Commissioner Mesich asked what the outcome was regarding wetland mitigation. Ms. McPherson stated that the City Council approved the purchase of banked wetland credits. Commissioner Mesich asked what the height limits would be for the townhomes. Mr. Powell stated that the buildings would be single story, higher-bracket "retirement" homes. He stated that the floor plans will be identical, but that the buildings will be staggered and some will have large single garage doors and some will have double doors. Commissioner Mesich stated that he felt more could be done to break up the "sameness" ofthe buildings. He felt that stucco should be required, rather than vinyl siding. Chair Pederson concurred. . Commissioner Schuster stated that he did not oppose using vinyl siding on the backs and sides of the buildings, but felt the stucco would be appropriate. Commissioner Mesich stated that during the Commission's mobile tour of townhomes, he did not find the vinyl siding to be attractive. Commissioner Ropp stated he would rather see all vinyl than a mixture of vinyl and stucco. Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 9 . Commissioner Franz stated that he favored stucco and that he liked the variety in elevations. He suggested varying the earth tone colors on the buildings. Commissioner Ropp concurred. Chair Pederson suggested that requiring 20' driveways and the location and screening of utility boxes be added as conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY POWELL DEVELOPMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MISSISSIPPI RIDGE TOWNHOMES, CASE NO. CU 01-22, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE EXTERIORS OF THE TOWNHOMES ARE DONE IN EARTH TONES TO HELP THEM BLEND IN WITH THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. BillLDING MATERIALS SHALL BE BRICK, STUCCO AND ASPHALT SHINGLES. 2. GLARE FROM OUTDOOR LIGHTS ON THE REAR OF THE UNITS BE SCREENED FROM THE RIVER. 3. THE DEVELOPER RECEIVE STAFF APPROVAL PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF VEGETATION FROM THE BLUFF AREA. 4. A 30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE BLUFF IS MAINTAINED. . 5. NO TOPOGRAPHICAL ALTERATION OF THE BLUFF AND WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE IS TO TAKE PLACE. 6. THE MAILBOXES SHALL BE CLUSTERED. 7. THE ENTRY DRIVE SHALL BE POSTED "NO PARKING" AND "ONE- WAY" . 8. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS AND BUDGET TO STAFF FOR REVIEW. 9. DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN LENGTH. 10. ANY UTILITY BOXES LOCATED IN THE REAR YARDS OR IN THE BACK SIDE YARDS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM THE RIVER. CHAIR PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. . 5.6. Request by Elk River Station. LLP for Land Use Amendment to change the land use from Ll and LR to CC and MR and to bring property into the Urban Service District. Public Hearing - Case No. LU 01-02 5.7. Request by Elk River Station. LLP for Rezoning from Rla and Al to POO. Public Hearing - Case No. ZC 01-03 5.8. Request by Elk River Station. LLP for Preliminary Plat Approval (Elk River Station). Public Hearing - Case No. POl-OS Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 10 5.9. Request by Elk River Station, LLP for Conditional Use Permit (Elk River Station), Public Hearing - Case No. CU 01-08 . Senior Planner Scott Harlicker stated that staff has been working with the applicants on the following issues: 1. Access to the site, future connection to the north, south and east. 2. Commercial/office locations 3. Senior housing/daycare center 4. Townhouses, expanding the amount of open space. 5. Apartments/community center 6. Pedestrian access/sidewalks 7. Landscaping 8. Park and Recreation Commission comments. 9. Grading and drainage. Len Pratt, co-applicant, introduced John Peterson, co-applicant, and the design team for this project. He explained that the project began last fall, about the same time the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) began meeting with the City to discuss the commuter transit station and the MN/Dot Park and Ride facility. These outside influences have driven their request for approval of a residential, mixed-use community. Mr. Pratt stated that they are aware the City had very different plans for this area from what is being proposed. The project has been designed using guidelines of NCDA, as well as the City of Elk River. He felt that staff has done a good job of listening to them. . Mr. Pratt stated that he has some experience in commercial development in a variety of cities including New Brighton. He stated that they are proposing a total of 80,000 square feet of commercial space for the Elk River Station project located in various buildings. He reviewed his project in the City of New Brighton which was done with Paul Sween and Chris Barnes of Dominium. Uses included insurance, mortgage, financial planning, and dental offices, as well as a restaurant, deli, coffee shop and dry-cleaning facility. He explained that the residential provides the critical mass for the services, and the services provide the rationale for the residential to live close together, and be able to walk or ride a bike, rather than having to drive. Mr. Pratt provided a summary of the densities for the various components of the project. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Director of Planning Michele McPherson explained to the residents present that a more formal presentation will be given by the developers at the July 24th meeting, but that if they had any questions or comments at this time, they are welcome to speak. . Commissioner Mesich asked if all of the external parking spaces for the apartments are necessary, if they are proposing underground parking as well. He felt that there was a significant amount of asphalt being proposed. Paul Sween of Dominium explained that they have provided for a 2: 1 ratio for parking, which is a community-based standard. The area will be buffered by some large mature trees. He explained that this project will be less dense than any of their other projects, due to the abundance of green space. Commissioner Mesich asked if they will be able to excavate and build the apartments without removing the existing trees. Mr. Sween stated that most of the trees will be preserved and new ones will be planted, as well. He noted that they will be marking individual trees and siting buildings in order to preserve trees. Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 11 . Commissioner Mesich asked if a concept plan was available for the senior housing component. Mr. Pratt explained that they have met with Guardian Angels 3 -4 times and twice with their architect. They have requested several months to analyze and develop their concepts. When details are available, they will be presented to the Commission. He noted that Carol Mills of Guardian Angels has stated they have a strong desire to build a daycare center attached to the senior housing. Commissioner Mesich asked how parking would be affected by the senior housing. Mr. Pratt explained that these senior housing units are cooperative and are individually owned. Parking would be similar to Dominium's apartment project. Marc Putman stated that the apartment building is roughly 30 apartments per floor ~ess than 90 units) with a greater percentage of parking than they normally see. Commissioner Mesich stated he was concerned that the area which was previously proposed to be commercial is now going to be senior housing, and if so, where are these people going to go, when they want to walk to the hairdresser or the drycleaners, etc. Mr. Pratt stated that Guardian Angels stated that they have proposed the senior housing be where all the "action" is, all the cars and people, at their request. . Chair Pederson asked if the apartment buildings would be three-story. Mr. Sween stated that they are proposing a "step" design for a 2-3-4 story building, which will take away from the "mass" appearance of the building. He stated they are also considering offering a number of choices including 1 bedroom apartments, 2-bedrooms, and townhouse-style apartments where the living area is underneath the sleeping area. Brian Lubben, BKV Group, reviewed sketches of the proposed apartments, stating that this style of building tends to break up the facade and presents a more monolific appearance. He stated that the ends of the buildings will be stepped down. There will be approximately 52 units per block. A variety of materials will be used, including brick and siding, and will feature architectural treatments such as bumps and bays. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the location of the proposed project at this time for those in the audience who are not familiar with the project. . Commissioner Mesich asked why single family detached townhomes are not included in the plan. He asked where garages will be located. Mr. Putman explained that there will be two types of buildings; one will be a "row house" configuration and the other will be "back-to- back". He stated that when finished, it will be difficult to tell the front from the back. The appearance of the ends of the buildings will be given careful consideration. The fronts of the buildings will face the sidewalks and greens. He stated that they have worked hard to become a model for current market rate multi-family residential housing. He felt they will accomplish this by mixing up a variety of buildings ~arge masses and small masses) and turning them different directions, with some order and organization, and by using different scales and designs with interesting architectural treatments. Mr. Putman explained that there are design challenges in planning single family detached townhomes and he felt this type of housing style works better in areas that are well-defined and removed from other places; where each development can have its own little "pod". Often empty nesters prefer this type of housing. Mr. Putman did not feel this design would work because of the layout of the site. He felt there is only so much that can be done in designing this type of housing and Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 12 . that they tend to all look alike. He added that there are also marketing reasons why they chose the row house design. Commissioner Ropp asked what the estimated population of this area would be when built out. John Peterson, Oakwood Land Development, co-applicant, explained that he was asked to write a letter by MN/Dot on this issue for their applicant for federal funds. He stated that there are approximately 475 units proposed including 208 apartments, 196 townhomes, and between 70 and 90 senior housing units. Estimating less than two people per unit would be 900 - 1,000 residents. Commissioner Ropp questioned how much retail is proposed in the project to serve these residents. Mr. Pratt stated that there will be a total of approximately 80,000 square feet of retail which will be scattered throughout an area within walking distance of the senior housing building. Chair Pederson asked if the streets will be standards width or less. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that this issue has not been worked out yet. Mr. Harlicker asked if there would be any retail space in the senior housing building. Mr. Pratt stated that this area would be strictly senior housing and daycare. He noted that Carol Mills of Guardian Angels proposed that a daycare be built attached to the senior housing, stating that their studies have shown that this makes sense. She also stated that the seniors like to be "front and center" to all the activity where they can see it. . Commissioner Mesich asked why the first plan did not include the green spaces and the "traffic calming" layout which is now being proposed. Mr. Pratt explained that a project of this size is done with a companion market study and that several designs were done, including the one being presented tonight. He stated that by listening to what the community wanted, which was more open green space, this plan was chosen. H;e noted that in some communities, they want the most density possible, and they are not as concerned about quality green space. John Pederson noted that the original plan advocated by their planner, Marc Putman and Leonard Pratt had this amount of green space. He explained that it is his responsibility to make sure that the project is economically feasible. He stated that the amount of sidewalk and trails in this project is huge and beyond any other development in his experience. He felt the landscaping is extraordinary and the costs are extensive. He felt more density would be needed to make it work, but he now feels they can make it work with this plan. He stated that the last proposal the Commission saw was driven by costs. . Ijaz Osman, 10616 175th Avenue NW, neighboring resident, asked why there is such a push for high density. Mr. Pratt explained that the idea behind the proposal is based on creating a transportation-oriented community, with a Park & Ride, and, if funded, a light rail transit station, which offers people alternative ways to get to work. The model for how this works is to put housing where people can live and walk to transportation alternatives. He explained that from a planning perspective, density is definitely justified in this type of area. He noted that this type of living is not for everyone, but it offers another choice for a growing community like Elk River. Mr. Putman added that planning data for this type of project has been gathered from all over the country. Mr. Osman asked if it has been proven that it works and stated that he has read an article that only ten percent of the people living in this type of community actually used the alternative transportation which was available. Mr. Pratt stated that this is s chance developers take. He explained that over time, he felt the ridership will grow as the highways become more congested. He stated that the Park & Ride and the light rail system will offer people who want to live in Elk River an alternative way to Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 13 . get to work. Mr. Osman asked how the blaring train homs will affect the people living there. Mr. Pratt stated that people who consider living in this development will be aware of this fact and will have to make their own choice. Mr. Osman stated he did not feel the project makes sense and questioned the mix of uses. Mr. Pratt stated that there are a significant number of people present who have committed to this project because their market studies indicate it will be successful. Mr. Osman asked what the impact would be on the wetlands. Derrick Passe of Passe Engineering, explained that he met with staff and the Wetland Technical Panel early in the planning stages for their input. They discussed whether or not to drain into the wetland since it is relatively dried out now, due to the ditching that has occurred. It was decided that ponding would be provided on site. He explained the location of the ponding areas which will provide sedimentation for water quality, as well as provide retention to reduce the runoff of what currently drains from the site into the wetland. He stated that all precautions will be taken to prevent any adverse impacts to the wetlands. Mr. Passe noted that the trail along the wetland will follow the natural grade as much as possible. When the trail is actually designed, first consideration will be given to the large oak trees along the wetland, and boardwalks will be constructed in sensitive areas if necessary, which is allowed by the Wetland Conservation Act, or the trail will be moved farther away from the wetland. He stated that it is there intent to protect the wetland, as well as its habitat. . Commissioner Franz questioned what the anticipated completion date of the project would be and if there would be any phasing. Mr. Pratt stated that they are estimating approximately a three year process. Mr. Peterson felt that it would take approximately 2 years for the townhomes to be sold and that the apartments and senior housing would also be built during that time period. He felt that the office and commercial development will take longer, and that the entire project will be in place in four years. Commissioner Schuster asked what the estimated price range of the townhomes would be. Bill Pritchard of Orrin Thompson Land Development Division felt that the back-to- back townhomes would range from $130,000 - $140,000, and that the single-loaded row townhomes would be in the $180,000 - $200,000 range. He stated that these prices are variables, since the market is always changing. He explained that it is their goal to offer the most square footage to the consumer that the dollar will allow. Mr. Pritchard stated that the rear-entry townhome designs vary and that some have bay windows, shutters and roof line changes. He felt that the rear elevations will look as good as the front. He noted that more detailed plans will be available at the July meeting. Chair Pederson asked if there would be parking in the "alley". Mr. Pritchard stated that parking will be provided in the individual driveways for four vehicles. Mr. Pritchard stated that there are stairways and landings in the rear and decks over the garages which will help to break up the facades of the buildings. He stated that staff has been receptive to the concepts they have come up with and these will be refined as they go through the process. Commissioner Mesich asked if elevations of the back-to-back units are available. Mr. Pritchard displayed the concept plan, noting that their intent is to orient the buildings so that the ends of the buildings are on the street side. He noted that elevations changes will be created by changes in the roof lines, and that they will be continuing to modify the designs. He stated that if a bedroom is added downstairs, this can be done on an end unit, which helps to change the look. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes/Elk River Station June 26, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Franz asked if the ballfield is still in the proposal. Mr. Pratt stated that they are working with the Park and Recreation Commission on park issues. He noted that they have attempted to demonstrate what the green spaces can be used for and specific uses have not been identified at this time. Mr. Pratt stated that the aesthetics of this project have been created by developing the green spaces. He displayed photos of green space development in other projects they have done work. Mr. Putman sated that the park policies in a particular community have a fundamental impact on how the green spaces work. Mr. Pratt encouraged the Commissioners to contact staff or any of the people on their design team which are listed on the sheet which was passed out to them. COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUESTS BY ELK RIVER STATION, LLP TO THE JULY 24, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on 6/18/01 City Council Meeting Commissioner Schuster provided an update on the June 18, 2001 City Council meeting. 6.2. Downtown Redevelopment Chair Pederson asked if another workshop was scheduled to discuss downtown redevelopment. Ms. McPherson stated no, and that when the draft plan is prepared by the EDA, it will be presented to the Planning Commission. 7. Adiournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,!Jku'~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary