Loading...
03-08-2005 PC MIN . . . WORKSHOP MEETING NOTES ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005 Members Present: Commissioners Anderson, Lemke, Offerman, Scott and Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: Chair Ropp Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Peter Beck, City Attorney Conncil Liaison: Conncil Member Motin 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 Vice Chair Anderson. 2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair The floor was opened for nominations for the position of Chair. Vice Chair Anderson stated that he would like to volnnteer to be Chair. A question was raised regarding Chair Ropp's preference. Director of Planning McPherson stated that in the message left in voice mail indicating he would not be in attendance tonight he stated his support for Commissioner Stevens as Chair. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO ELECT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AS CHAIR FOR 2005- 2006. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Anderson opened nominations for the position of Vice Chair. Commissioner Offerman asked if the position should be rotated; for example, the Vice Chair would then become Chair, etc. Chair Anderson described his experience on the Parks and Recreation Commission in regards to the chairmanship. Commissioner Offerman nominated Commissioner Stevens to serve as Vice Chair for 2005-2006. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Scott. Having no other nominations, the nominations were closed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO ELECT COMMISSIONER STEVENS AS VICE CHAIR FOR 2005-2006. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Policies and Procedures The Commission had no questions regarding the policies and procedures of the Commission. Conncilmember Motin asked if the policies and procedures of the Commission included a statement regarding advocacy of issues and the need to clearly define the role between a citizen statement and a statement as a commissioner. . . . Planning Commission Meeting Notes March 8, 2005 Page 2 Much discussion ensued regarding the example in question. Of specific concern to the Council is commissioners using their position as commissioners to advocate a position contrary- to City Council action. The Council encourages diverse opinions, however, the diverse opinions should be represented as citizen opinions as opposed to opinions of a commission, when appropriate. 4. Review of Legal Constraints City Attorney Peter Beck was present to review information regarding the legal constraints within which the Planning Commission needs to work. Mr. Beck reviewed the constitutional and statutory foundations from the Federal government and State of Minnesota. He reviewed plats and zone changes. Councilmember Motin asked if a new Council was bound by a preliminary plat that was approved by a previous Council. Mr. Beck stated that as long as the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat, the new Council must approve the final plat. Commissioner Offerman asked if a preliminary plat complied with the zoning district requirements, what findings could be used to deny it. Mr. Beck stated that conditions could be applied to address the issues and that no one is entided to maximize the number of lots under the zoning requirements. Mr. Beck cautioned the Commissioners to note that citizen input and opposition cannot be the sole basis of denial of a project. Chair Anderson stated that public health and safety standards are a basis for findings of fact for denial. Mr. Beck cautioned, however, that the Commission needs to state specific standards versus broad general statements as part of the findings of fact. More discussion occurred regarding the Commonweal Development project located at the southwest comer of Main Street and Highway 169. Mr. Beck noted that complete denial of access would constitute a taking under case law to date. Councilmember Motin asked if down-zoning a property, say for instance, removing property out of the urban service district and down-zoning it to Ria, large lot single family would constitute a taking. Mr. Beck cited the Penn Central case relating to down-zoning and stated the courts have found that down-zoning does not constitute a taking and that the municipality has the greatest discretion relating to zoning and land use actions. He noted that making land owners wait to develop is not an issue in the eyes of the court. This would be related specifically to phasing in of land uses north of County Road 33. The Commission discussed overlay zoning as a tool. Commissioner Stevens in particular was interested in determining if overlay zoning would be considered a taking. Mr. Beck noted that the property owner, after the zoning overlay is in place, still needs to have reasonable use of the property, not the highest and best use. Commissioner Stevens asked if there is a definition of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the city. Mr. Beck noted that the courts have not clearly defmed these in black and white terms, therefore, it is dependent upon a review of case law to identify how the courts define these items. Mr. Beck noted that amortization is no longer a tool that cities can use. . . . Planning Commission Meeting Notes March 8, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Beck reviewed the 60 day rule requirements, the use of extensions and the need to have written findings and resolutions of denial. Mr. Beck briefly discussed the use of moratoria and the recent changes in law limiting municipalities' abilities to use this. The Commission discussed condemnation. Current court cases at the Supreme Court may limit the ability for cities to use condemnation to acquire property for a higher purpose, but transfer that property to private development for redevelopment pwposes. The Richfield example was heavily discussed. Conunissioner Stevens suggested that the HRA consider a redevelopment project in north downtown in the area of the Arrow Building Center, NAPA, and Eagle's Club sites. Mr. Beck reviewed the variance standards. Case law has suggested that as opposed to a specific standard for granting a variance, that the standard is now that a variance could be granted if the use of the property is reasonable. He stated this is a much more relaxed standard from what we have previously considered in the past. Consistency between the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. The City is not bound by the same rules that cities within the seven county metro area are, in that we do not have to have consistency between the zoning map and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. However, it has been the City's policy to have these two items consistent whenever possible. The Conunission discussed with Councilmember Motin the 175m Avenue land use request. This item will come back to the Conunission at a later date. 5. Goal Setting Session The Conunission briefly discussed possible goals they would like to accomplish for 2005- 2006. The goals identified in no order of priority were: . Move the Northstar Corridor stop to downtown north of the tracks between Proctor and Jackson. . Redevelop the Arrow Building/Eagles/NAPA site . Implement the Natural Resources inventory to prevent any more "Woodland Hills" projects . Begin transportation planning east-west corridor and Highway 169 interchanges Ms. McPherson noted that two members of the Conunission are needed to serve on the Natural Resources Inventory Task Force. Conunissioners Stevens and Offerman volunteered to serve. 6. Adiournment Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by, Michele McPherson Director of Planning