Loading...
02-24-2004 PC MIN . . . MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT LIONS PARK CENTER TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Members Present: Chair Pederson, Commissioners Anderson, Lemke, Offerman, Ropp and Stevens Members Absent: None Staff Present: Scott Harlicker, SeniorPlanner; Chris Leeseberg, 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 6:40 p.m. by Chair Pederson. 2. Consider 2/24/04 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 24,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3. Consider 1/27/04 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 27,2004 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: PAGE 5, IAST PARAGRAPH - REMOVE THE PHRASE "COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN STATED THAT THERE WERE ALREADY ENOUGH BANKS IN TOWN... ... " AND REPLACE WITH THE FOLLOWING: "COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN STATED THAT THERE WERE ALREADY A NUMBER OF BANKS ALONG HIGHWAY 169... ". MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend March 15. 2004 City Council Meeting Commissioner Ropp will attend the March 15, 2004 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by Elk River Landfill. Inc. for Conditional Use Permit Renewal. Public Hearing - Case No. CD 04-01 Building & Environmental Administrator Stephen Rolf presented the staff report for this item. Mr. Rohlf explained that both the Solid Waste Facility License (SWFL) and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are under consideration for renewal. He stated that both the City Attorney and the city's Landfill Consultant have reviewed the SWFL and CUP. Mr. Rohlf noted that the Landfill is proposing an expansion in the near future, but that this renewal deals only with the current operation. . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Rohlf reviewed the issues associated with the Landfill regarding odor, litter, and contamination. Mr. Rohlf noted that the landfill is dealing with individual cell contamination and that this is an ongoing process. He stated that the Landfill was to have completed an End Use Plan in 2006, but that this will be included in the expansion plan. Mr. Rohlf stated that the remainder of the changes are mainly housekeeping in nature. Staff recommends approval of the renewal of the SWFL and the DUP with the modifications proposed by staff. Chair Pederson asked what is causing the odor when driving by the Landfill. Mr. Rohlf stated that they believe it is caused by the methane gas venting system which extracts the gas from deep within the landfill. Mr. Rohlf noted that the City has received a number of complaints recently regarding the odor and that this may be caused by the gas-to-electricity plant. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Deb Dehn, representing Elk River Landfill, stated that they are working with Bryan Adams, Municipal Utilities General Manager, to try- to figure out what is causing the increased odor. Commissioner Franz asked if Mr. Rohlf felt the language in the permits was sufficient to address litter. Mr. Rohlf stated that he felt the language was sufficient, and noted that if a complaint is received; all it takes is a phone call to the Landfill to correct the situation. Mr. Rohlf stated that the Landfill routinely picks up along Highway 169. Ms. Dehn stated that the complaints typically are received after a windy day. Commissioner Anderson asked if the date would be changed in the permit and license for the End Use Plan. Mr. Rohlf stated that the date would be changed to 2006. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN THEIR MEMO DATED FEBRUARY 24,2004, CASE NO. CU 04-01. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. It was the consensus of the Commission that they supported approval of the Solid Waste Facility License by the City Council, as well. 5.2. Request by Dancin on Broadway II, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Dance Studio in Elk River Plaza 4th Addition, Public Hearing - Case No. CU 04-02 Planner Chris Leeseberg presented the staff report for this item. Tammy Wills of Dancin on Broadway has requested a conditional use permit to operate a dance studio and retail space for dance equipment at 716 Freeport Avenue. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the layout of the facility, number of employees and students, hours of operation, scope of the business, access and parking. Staff recommends approval of the request with one condition; that the applicant will be required to apply for an amendment to their conditional use permit if they wished to expand their facility. . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 3 Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY DANCIN' ON BROADWAY II, INC. FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DANCE STUDIO, CASE NO. CU 02-04, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. IF THE BUSINESS IS TO EXPAND BEYOND 5,091 SQUARE FEET, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.3. Request by S & A Family Investments. LLLP for a Rezoning from R1c (Single Family Residential. To PUD (planned Unit Development). Public Hearing - Case No. ZC 04-01 Request by S & A Family Investments. LLLP for Preliminary Plat Approval (Woodland Hills). Public Hearing - Case No. P 04-02 5.4. 5.5. Request by S & A Family Investments. LLLP for a Conditional Use Permit for Woodland Hills Planned Unit Development. Public Hearing - Case No. CU 04-03 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker presented the staff report for these items. S & A Family Investments requests a zone change from R1c to PUD, a conditional use permit for the PUD, and preliminary plat approval to subdivide 52 acres into 135 single-family lots and 5 oudots. The proposed plat (Woodland Hills) is located on the east side of County Road 1 south of Elk River Country Cub. Mr. Harlicker reviewed lot sizes, setbacks, layout of the lots and streets, environmental issues, and park dedication considerations. He reviewed areas where trees would be saved, and also, noted that the tree loss would be relatively the same with a conventional R3 plat. Staff recommends tabling the requests to allow revisions to the plat and to publish a public hearing notice for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Stevens asked if the developer would be required to replace trees. Mr. Harlicker stated that there is nothing in ordinance to require replacement of trees, but that through the PUD, additional plantings and clustering of trees can be negotiated. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Marty Campion, Civil Engineer of Otto & Associates, project engineer, introduced Scott Breuer, applicant. Mr. Campion stated that a number of concepts have been presented to the Commission since mid-2003, including a townhome development, a conventional plat under the existing zoning, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). He stated that the direction he received from the Commission was that there was some work yet to be done, but that they generally supported this the layout of the PUD which is being presented, or one very similar. He explained that due to the topography, the site will have to be graded no matter what type of development is proposed. He noted that minor revisions were made to . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 4 the plan that the Corrunission reviewed, in response to the Park and Recreation Corrunission's recommendations on February 11th. Those changes included widening the buffer between the trail on the east side and the easterly-most homes. A trail corridor was added to the southwest and a lot was eliminated near the access to County Road 1. Due to the unique topographical conditions, Scott Breuer came up with a number of home designs to fit the site, and the lots were designed to fit the home designs in order to preserve the buffer of trees to the east and to the north. He noted that the buffer ranges from 115 feet to 125 feet wide at a minimum and is approximately 190 feet from edge of the trail to the back of the houses. Mr. Campion stated that in discussing custom grading, it was both his and the Gty Engineer's opinion that custom grading of the lots creates nothing but problems and that trees that may have initially been saved end up being lost when trying to fit a house on a particular lot due to grading issues between the house, the street, and yards. He stated that the applicant is willing to work with the city to come up with a plan to replace some of the trees that will be lost. Scott Breuer, 907 Main Street, applicant, stated that have worked very- hard to maximize the tree buffer as much as possible. He stated that the homes will be designed specific to the lots; some homes having 2-car garages and some having 3-car garages. He stated that they looked at some concepts for townhomes and rowhouses but the designs did not prove to be feasible for this site. He felt that there will be some very- nice homes in the proposed development and people will be proud to live in them. Corrunissioner Anderson asked how many homes are proposed compared to the design that is in the Corrunissioner's packet. Mr. Breuer stated that 135 homes are proposed. Mr. Harlicker stated that the design being discussed is the one which was distributed to the Corrunission and only the grading and utilities plan have yet to be modified to match the revised plan. Mr. Breuer stated that the revised plan reflects changes were requested by the Park and Recreation Commission at their February 11th meeting. Corrunissioner Franz asked what the city would be getting back in exchange for the PUD zoning. Mr. Breuer stated that the city would be getting more of a buffer area (6.9 acres versus 5.2 acres), sidewalks throughout the plat to create a more walkable neighborhood, and a theme for the homes to provide a more appealing neighborhood (garages set back near the homes). Mr. Breuer stated they have also discussed having a small park with playground equipment, and planting additional trees with a least two trees per lot in addition to the boulevard trees. Corrunissioner Franz asked if these amenities would be worked out by the March 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Campion stated that Mr. Breuer would continue to work with staff on these items. He noted that they will be providing over one mile of sidewalks and 1,000 feet of trail connection. Mr. Harlicker noted the location of the trail connection between Outlot A of Nordic Hills and the city trail. Mr. Breuer noted that an access would also be provided to the Municipal Utilities pumphouse so that their trucks will no longer be using the Gty trail to access their site. Corrunissioner Anderson stated that the Gty Engineer referred to the custom grading of lots being a fiasco when dealing with multiple builders. He asked if Mr. Breuer would be the exclusive builder. Mr. Breuer stated that he plans to build all of the homes in the development. Mr. Breuer explained problems that were encountered in developments such as Lafayette Woods and Windsor Oak Hill where trees were left that should have been taken out, causing drainage problems. He stated that all those extra costs for removing trees and grading were passed on to the consumer and could have been avoided if the lot had been properly graded in the beginning. He stated that the homes on the smaller lots will start at $225,000 - $250,000, and that will vary depending on the lot and the style of house chosen. . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt some strong language should be included in the developer agreement which would provide for tree preservation and replacement. Mr. Campion stated that he anticipated some language would be included to ensure that the lot was graded properly and trees will be saved which realistically can be saved. Mr. Breuer stated that a perimeter will be set up to mark the grading boundary. He stated that they would not be able to guarantee that trees will be saved, since there is already Oak Wilt in the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant would be open to a more aggressive reforestation of the lots, such as 3 trees on the smaller lots and 5-6 trees on the larger lots. Mr. Breuer stated that they would certainly consider the proposal. Mr. Harlicker noted that staff has discussed with the developer a minimum of 1 boulevard tree every 30 feet, so that most lots would have two trees and larger lots would have 3 or 4 trees. He stated that they will also discuss planting of trees in other areas of the plat where appropriate. Commissioner Franz concurred with Commissioner Anderson's concerns. Mr. Harlicker asked if the Commission had a preference as to the tree size or number of trees. Chair Pederson stated that he would feel the trees should be larger than 2 ~" caliper size and would prefer a 4" size. Chair Pederson stated that this area is very heavily wooded and he felt a tree inventory should be required for this site. He stated that he felt it was a very poor use of this property to cut down nearly all of the trees and poor stewardship of the land. Chair Pederson stated that he felt trails were an amenity to the PUD but sidewalks were not, since sidewalks would be required in the R1c zoning anyway. He felt the lots were too close together and that the city needs to receive something in return for allowing the PUD zoning. Chair Pederson stated that he does not see that the City is getting anything in return. He stated that he felt a development could be designed that would protect the trees, such as cluster and would be a better use of the PUD zoning. He stated that he felt the Commission did not want to see this area leveled and that custom grading could be done. He asked if the four lots on Block 8 are proposed to be removed as recommended by TEP Panel. Mr. Campion stated that the mitigation plan has been revised by removing one lot and they feel that this plan will be accepted by the TEP. Mr. Campion asked if the Commission would consider multiple family housing with a cluster. Chair Pederson stated that he felt this would be an option. Commissioner Ropp asked if a park has been identified on the plan. Mr. Breuer stated that there are discussing with staff the possibility of locating playground equipment somewhere in the buffer area. Jim Nord, 19645 Hudson Circle, joint owner of the property, stated that his family has been long time property owners in Elk River, residents and stewards of the land. His family owned a dairy farm in the location of the existing energy plant until the highway was changed. They then moved out to the Meadowvale area. He stated that his grandfather homesteaded the area 1880 where the golf course is now located and his parents purchased the property and sold 160 acres to the golf course in 1960 for $16,000. The land being discussed has been owned by the family for approximately 75 years. District 728 School purchased a portion of the property in the early 1990's for Meadowvale Elementary School. The purchase brought sewer and water to the area, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in assessments to his family. These assessments are an obligation that must be . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 6 satisfied. He stated that they now have a quality builder and developer. He stated that his family desires a development that they can also be proud of. He stated that his family and the golf course have done a lot of work to save the trees from Oak Wilt with minimal results and that it seems to be impossible to save them. Steve Parker, 19530 Albany Circle, asked if they are to assume the rezoning will be approved to PUD and who initiated the rezoning request. Chair Pederson stated that the applicant made the request after presenting several options to the Planning Commission. Mr. Parker stated that he felt the 60-foot wide lots were not appropriate for this area and would not be aesthetically pleasing. He asked what the front yard setbacks are for the PUD. Chair Pederson stated that the setback is 25 feet, and that it has been suggested to reduce the setback to 15 -20 feet in order to preserve more trees in the back yards. Mr. Parker stated that he did not feel there would be adequate space to park a vehicle in a driveway without encroaching into the boulevard. Mr. Parker expressed his objection to parking on only one side of the street. He stated he was concerned that the property value of the homes in Nordic Woods and Nordic Hills would be negatively impacted by this development, and asked why the builder would be allowed to only build two-car garages rather than three-car garages. Mr. Harlicker stated that there is no requirement in the city's ordinance to have a more than a one-car garage. Mr. Parker expressed his objection to having the municipal utilities vehicles coming down his street, and felt they should continue to use the City trail. He asked what would happen to the drainage in the area. Mr. Harlicker stated some of the existing drainage areas would be leveled, new areas created, and that the drainage from this development will be maintained on this property and no increase in off-site drainage will be allowed. Peter Neises, 12879 195th Avenue, expressed his concern for safety with the number of homes, narrow streets, and reduced setbacks. He asked why the developer chose to do this many homes and if the reason was financially driven. Chair Pederson stated that he would have to ask the developer and that the Planning Commission does not look at the financial aspects of the development. Denise Lanthier, 19533 Albany Street, expressed concern for the elimination of the trees, spread of Oak Wilt, and the environmental impact on the area. She asked if the city had a tree preservation ordinance. Chair Pederson stated no, but that a draft was presented to the City Council but was not approved due to lack of funding for staff to enforce the ordinance. Ms. Lanthier also expressed her concern for impact of the new development on the schools. She asked that the Planning Commission consider allowing fewer lots and requiring more open space for this development. Ms. Lanthier also expressed her concerns regarding traffic and decreased property values in the neighborhood. Mike Niziolek, 12275 Rush Circle, Park and Recreation Commissioner, stated that he felt it would be in the City's best interest to preserve as much of the forest adjacent to the City trail as possible. He explained that in the 1900's, the Department of Natural Resources identified this area as being naturally significant and is now one of few left in Elk River. He stated that this may be one of the city's last chances to preserve an area of the remaining forest. Mr. Niziolek stated that he felt the City's trail corridor will be one of the City's most prized amenities in the future, especially if the remaining forest adjacent to the trail can be preserved. John Kuester, 19834 York Street, Park and Recreation Commissioner, asked if the buffer is being measured from the edge of the trail or from the right of way. Mr. Harlicker stated that the buffer is shown as 190 feet from the edge of the trail to back of the homes . . . The Planning Commission Februmy 24, 2004 Page 7 and approximately 150 from the right-of-way to the back of the lots. Mr. Kuester stated that the Park and Recreation Commission had a difficult time with this development and their intent was to preserve the viewscape of the trail. He asked that the Planning Commission require that the developer meet a minimum 200 foot buffer from the homes. Mr. Kuester stated that the Commission was not sure how a park would fit. He stated that it was the Park and Recreation's recommendation that the access to the water filtration facility come through this development in order to eliminate heavy vehicles from the trail, making it safer for trail users. He encouraged the developer and Commission to continue to pursue some type of cluster development. Mr. Kuester stated that the city needs to seriously consider how it values trees and how trees can be preserved. Jeffrey Ochsendorf, 12932 195th Avenue, stated he felt the reduced lot and home sizes will reduce his property values. He expressed concern for traffic and safety of children. He asked that the developer be required to place covenants on the development. David Schultz, 19512 Albany Circle, asked why this property cannot be developed the same way Nordic Woods and Nordic Hills was developed. He stated he did not feel it was appropriate to place a park in the buffer zone near the trail. A resident at 19476 Albany Circle expressed his concern that the same clear-cutting will occur in this development as was done in the Chenywood Hills development. He stated that when the second phase of Nordic Hills occurred, large mature tree were taken down that did not need to be removed. Large equipment came within 10 feet of his home to remove trees after he had been told he would not even see any machinery. He stated that the city needs to make developers accountable for statements they make. He did not feel the small lots would be appealing. Ron Whealdon, 19490 Zumbro Street, stated that they chose this area to build their home because of the larger lot sizes. He stated that the small lots being proposed are like those he moved away from in south Minneapolis. Bill Lanthier, 19533 Albany Street, stated that he built his home 15 years ago in Nordic Woods. He stated that six lots of this development will abut his lot. He expressed his concern for the amount of traffic which will be generated by this development and also for the safety of children. He stated that he feels the lots in this development should match what is in Nordic Hills and Nordic Woods. A resident at 19492 Albany Circle stated that he felt the development was atrocious, shrinks their property values and destroys the wilderness. Dave Anderson, 14845 County Road 30, Park and Recreation Commissioner, stated that he concurred with the comments made previously about preserving the premier walkway. He expressed concern that the drainage not be directed so that it drowns the forest area. He concurred that a minimum 200-foot buffer be maintained. He stated that he was shocked at how little forest is left when flying over Elk River recently. Mr. Anderson expressed his support for a tree inventory, clustering the homes and tree preservation. Lance Holka, 12915 195th Avenue, stated that he felt this development was an opportunity to destroy a great woodland area. He expressed his concern for traffic congestion and safety. He felt that with the small lots, there would be no place for the children to play except in the street. Mr. Holka stated that he felt the reason for the large number of lots is for the developer to make more money. . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 8 Darryl Bellin, 12805 195th Avenue, expressed concern for the additional traffic through his neighborhood and safety at the County Road 1 access. He felt there will be drainage problems; trees will not be saved; and there will be noise issues. He asked that the Commission consider reducing the density of the project. Dawn Polston-Hork, 19308 Rush Court, Park and Recreation Commissioner, stated that the Commission would not recommend trees be taken out in order to put in playground eqUlpment. Jean Olson, 19516 Boston Street, expressed her concern that the creek behind her home will be impacted and also, her concern that the trees would all be removed. Brett Benkins, 19497 Boston Street, expressed concern for safety of the children playing in the streets and driveways. Neil Christy, 19488 Boston Street, stated his concern for traffic coming through his neighborhood and requested that these accesses be eliminated Chair Pederson stated that the street connections were approved as part of the Nordic Woods and Nordic Hills developments for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Christy asked if the storm sewer will run into the creek behind his property. Mr. Harlicker explained that drainage water must be treated before discharge, and cannot exceed the rate of the existing discharge. Mr. Harlicker explained the location of the retention ponds. Mr. Christy asked if the creek would dry up. Mr. Harlicker stated no, that the wedand will be relocated from the north side of the street to the south side of the street. Mr. Christy stated that he did not feel the sidewalks will be useful or improve the looks of the property. He stated that he moved from Minneapolis to get away from this type of residential neighborhood and that he is opposed to the development. Jim Nord, joint property owner, stated that the streets were stubbed off in Nordic Hills and Nordic Woods with the City's approval. Corey Barstorf, 19493 Boston Street, stated that he felt the developer is trying to put too much into this development in order to make money. He felt the proposal was a disgrace and puts an undue burden on the people in Nordic Woods and Nordic Hills. He felt that the residents of at least 80 of these lots will use the streets in his development to access County Road 1. A resident stated he did not feel the developer was prepared. He did not feel the drainage would be contained on the property. He stated that he felt the developer was asking that the plat be tabled in order to see what they can get away with. Marty Campion, project engineer, stated that they submitted a complete application package for review and that the request for tabling is because a public hearing notice for the conditional use permit was not published. Also, there are some revisions and issues that need to be worked out with the TEP Panel. A grading plan and drainage calculations have been submitted to the City Engineer for review; a utilities plan and preliminary plat have been submitted. The preliminary plat being reviewed this evening is only a slight revision from what was submitted, in response to the recommendations by the Park and Recreation Commission 1 ~ weeks ago. Mr. Campion explained that they were prepared to go ahead with their original submittal, but that they felt that since the change was slight, the information contained in the original submittal was adequate to address the revised plan. He . . . The Planning Commission February- 24, 2004 Page 9 stated that he felt the Commission nnderstands that a full submittal was made and that some modifications will be made before the next Planning Commission meeting. He stated that they did not ask to be tabled but that they are willing to be tabled in order to address some of the comments received at tonight's meeting. Scott Breuer, applicant, stated that they have been working closely with staff for months, and made the revision in order for the Commission to review that change at this meeting. He stated that they are not trying to pull anything; that is not how they do business, but that everyone has a right to their opinion. He suggested that if residents have questions, they should talk to staff find out if they have accommodated them in providing a complete package and met all their criteria. A resident asked if the developer was proposing these smaller homes because of the economic conditions. Mr. Breuer stated that the reason a plan was submitted with a variety of homes was based on the three workshops held with the Planning Commission and staff where there were comments that Elk River does not need all these $400,000-$500,000 homes. He stated that it has been difficult to get clear direction which way they should go. He stated that they are trying to corne to a compromise to please as many people as possible. He stated that they can build different homes at different prices, and that the change to these types of lots and homes was based on what they were asked to consider. He stated that it is not the case that they are proposing to build a large number of cheap homes based on the economy. A resident asked how he could get copy of the staff report. Mr. Harlicker stated that residents wishing to obtain further information should contact City Hall. He asked if the developer will make more money with 113 homes or with 135 homes. Mr. Breuer stated that it would be about the same. He asked if it would matter to Mr. Breuer what size the lot sizes were. He stated no. Chair Pederson closed the public hearing at this time. Commissioner Stevens stated that he concurred that too many homes are being proposed for the site. He encouraged Ms. Lanthier to attend a City Conncil meeting and express her thoughts on a tree preservation ordinance at the Open Mike portion of the meeting. He felt that there is no place for children to play in this proposal and that neighborhood parks are needed. He stated that he felt the property needs the same care and attention that Oudot A of Brentwood received, and that more care needs to be taken to meet the needs of this property and the surronnding properties. He stated that he does not support the plat as proposed and asked that the developer rethink his proposal. Commissioner Anderson stated that he supported tabling the request in order to allow time to look at the drainage issues. He stated that he felt the developer is only guilty of trying to listen to too many opinions of the Planning Commission, the Park and Recreation Commission and city staff. He stated the developer has met with them a number of times, and that it is nnfair criticism that this developer is trying to stick anything down their throats. He stated that the applicant is in the business to make money, but that he has shown a willingness to work with them. He felt that by tabling this request it may be possible to work out an alternative plan but that he was not sure how a cluster would work in an urban service area. Also, he stated that by tabling the request, drainage issues could be worked and the possibility of a tree inventory could be pursued. He noted that the street connections make sense and have been planned all along. Commissioner Anderson stated that he agreed that custom grading of the lots should be considered to save trees as well as a reforestation . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 10 plan. He concurred that children should not be playing in the streets and that an area is needed for them to play. Commissioner Offerman concurred with Commissioner Anderson that the request should be tabled, and that no trees will be preserved if the property is developed under the existing R1c zoning. He noted that Planning Commission approved a vety detailed tree preservation ordinance, but that due to financial cutbacks, the City would not be able to hire a city forester and without a city forester to enforce it, a tree preservation ordinance would not work. He stated that he would encourage the residents to talk to their City Council representative if they are in support of a tree preservation ordinance. He stated that they hope to get back some amenities through the PUD zoning, and he felt that those amenities proposed fall short. Commissioner Offerman noted that they have been given direction by the Council that Elk River is to be a place where people can both live and work. Based on current salaries, this is not happening in Elk River and there is a need for some affordable housing. He stated that things are changing due to land costs, and larger lots such as those in Nordic Woods may become a thing of the past. Commissioner Ropp stated he also would like to encourage the residents to speak to the City Council at a meeting during the Open Mike portion. He noted that there also were some issues in the discussion of the tree preservation ordinance regarding how much control the City should have over what property owners do on their own property. Commissioner Ropp also expressed concern regarding the traffic generated by the number of homes proposed and also felt that there was a better way to use this land. He stated he would likely not vote in favor of the plat if a few lots are dropped and a street or two was changed. He stated that he would like to see something completely different when the plat comes back next month. Chair Pederson stated that he felt the property could still be developed while saving a majority of the trees. He concurred that preservation of the trail corridor is vety important. He stated that sidewalks were a safer place for children than in the streets. He stated that affordable housing was discussed with the developer but he did not feel $225,000-$250,000 is affordable housing and the focus should be shifted to redevelopment in older part of the community. He stated that he felt a cluster could work if it were moved closer to County Road 1 and had significantly less lots to preserve forested corridor area. Planner Chris Leeseberg asked for direction as to what the Commission would like to see. He stated that development of the property under the current R1c zoning will also destroy most of the trees. If there is no PUD, there will be no design standards; the City cannot require the developer to plant additional trees' or plantings; the buffer area along the Great Northern trail will be reduced by one third (10 percent park dedication), and there will be little the city can do to prevent the developer from stripping the land down to put in the 113 lots which are allowed by the R1c zoning. Mr. Leeseberg asked that the developer and staff be given clear direction whether they want the R1C zoning or PUD zoning. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt it should be zoned PUD with 113 sites or less, with a cluster approach. Chair Pederson concurred with the PUD zoning. Commissioner Franz stated that he agreed with the PUD zoning. He stated that the Commissioner had asked the developer for a mix of affordable housing and that 84% of the lots under 11,000 square feet is not a mix. . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Anderson stated that the housing proposed is not what he would consider affordable and that a heavily wooded area is probably the wrong site for it. Commissioner Offerman stated that he agreed that the property should be zoned PUD and that he felt the Commission was looking for some lots with affordable housing, but not this many. Mr. Harlicker asked what density the Commission considers too dense for this proposal and what would be acceptable. Commissioner Ropp stated that he agreed with the PUD zoning. He did not see how traffic and safety issues could be addressed with the number of lots being proposed. He suggested that a cluster with fewer lots be considered. Mr. Breuer stated that if there are less than 130 lots, a PUD project will not work economically due to costs of infrastructure. Chair Pederson stated that he would not like to see the developer come back with a straight R1c development and clear-cut the trees. He asked that the developer work with the Gty to look at what is best for the Gty. Commissioner Anderson stated that the developer needs to show a creative way to layout the site with 113 to 135 lots, the density needs to be reduced to the south and packed to the north to reduce traffic impacts. He stated that he did recall a similar layout in one of Mr. Breurer's earlier concepts. He stated that the developer needs to meet with the Commission at a workshop to discuss some options. He stated traffic is a major issue and the developer needs to look at a way to keep the traffic to the north and away from Nordic Hills and Nordic Woods as much as possible. He stated that he supported narrower road widths, and that fewer lots would eliminate some of the driveways. Mr. Harlicker asked if the Commission would support a townhome components to the development. Commissioner Anderson stated that if it saves trees he would support it. Commissioner Offerman concurred. Mr. Harlicker asked if the focus is on tree preservation and clustering. Commissioner Anderson stated that traffic, drainage and park land are also issues of concern. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO TABLE THE REQUESTS BY S & A FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLLP TO THE MARCH 23,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND TO EXTEND THE 60 DAY REQUIREMENT FOR ACTION ON THE REQUESTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on February 9. 2004 Gty Council Meeting Commissioner Stevens provided an update on the February 9, 2004 GtyCouncil meeting. . . . The Planning Commission February 24, 2004 Page 12 8. Adiournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Corrunission adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,{)Jt0 ~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary