Loading...
08-24-2021 PC MINMeeting of the ver Elk River Planning Commission Held at Elk River City Hall Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Members Present: Chair Jill Larson -Vito, Commissioners Perry Beise, Dennis Booth, Eric Johnson, Craig Keisling, and Robert Rydberg Members Absent: Commissioner John Jordan Also Present: Councilmember/Liaison Mike Beyer; Brandon Nolin, Houseal Lavigne; Tim Thoreen, HR Green Staff Present: Planning Manager Zack Carlton, Senior Planner Chris Leeseberg and Sr. Admin. Assistant/Recording Secretary Jennifer Green I . 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 Larson -Vito. 2. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Consider August 24, 2021, Planning Commission Agenda Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Beise to approve the August 24, 2021, Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried 6-0. 4. Consider July 27, 2021, Planning Commission Minutes Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Keisling to approve the July 27, 2021, Planning Commission minutes. Motion carried 6-0. 5.1 City of Elk River ■ Comprehensive Plan Update, Case No. LU 20-01 Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. He distributed some information and comments received from property owners regarding the plan. He then introduced Brandon Nolin from Houseal Lavigne, who presented a PowerPoint outlining the Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 2 process of the Comprehensive Plan document amendment and updates made from the previous plan dated 2014. Tim Thoreen from HR Green then discussed the transportation and mobility portion of the plan. He explained roadway realignments and future potential impacts. Look at key recommendations; they discussed those throughout the presentation. Chair Larson -Vito opened the public hearing. Lance Lindberg —18621 Simonet Drive, Elk River, stated he was a member of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), and he was happy with most of the plan but had concerns with the recommendation of rural lot placement in the Urban Service Expansion area. He explained his concerns with the difficulty getting additional lots into the proposed neighborhood like Ridgewood and could not see where it was possible to split current parcels. He also noted concerns with the Windsor Woods and Greenhead Acres developments. He stated he felt the cost to install city services would be high and asked what percentage of votes would be required from the neighboring property owners to approve proposed upgrades. Mr. Carlton explained the process of road improvements with a full reconstruction for a neighborhood and explained it would typically be a majority of property owners, but that the decision would ultimately come down to a council vote. Mr. Lindberg asked questions about scenarios about future lot sales and buyers being forced to connect to services. Mr. Carlton stated that as the ordinance currently reads, if sewer and water are available within a public right-of-way and within 300' of a building, the resident is required to connect at time of sale or septic failure. He noted it would be up to each individual buyer to make the decision whether to connect immediately or wait for a future trigger. Chair Larson -Vito stated the plan is a governing document to develop a city in an orderly fashion. She stated she was also on the CPAC and when she made the recommendation to the committee regarding the areas that have the capacity to support additional residential development, and to leverage existing roadway infrastructure, her perspective was coming from the wife of a firefighter. When a fire call comes in, fire fighters ask, "Does this house have a hydrant? What truck do they bring?" She explained if the city expands services in the future, they should do it in a logical way and not draw unusual boundaries around neighborhoods, which could somehow inadvertently miss homes, and further complicate public safety services among other things. She noted it was not her intent to add any cost to homeowners but to ensure logic. She stated the city currently has lots that don't have coverage and are waiting for septic systems to fail. Mr. Lindberg asked what would happen if a resident had a septic failure. V Ee er URE Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 3 Chair Larson -Vito stated when septic failures occur, some residents have the option to hook up to city services. Mr. Carlton stated there are unique challenges to certain lots but as the city expands in an orderly manner, this is a logical approach. He also noted that approval of an expansion to the urban service area doesn't mean automatic hook-up to city services nor is he aware of an immediate impact to a home value of properties in these areas. He provided an example of Island View Drive and the homes that are currently along that road have been in the Urban Services District for quite some time and don't have city services. When, however, the road requires a full reconstruct, the city would then consider the possibility of extending city services. Vicky Stevenson, 19850 Watson Circle, Ridgewood Third Addition, asked general questions regarding the commissioner's terms of service. She expressed concerns with the Houseal Lavigne members not being members of the community and wondered how much outreach they did in the city to develop the plans. Mr. Nolin stated the availability of a document outlining the entire process taken by staff of Houseal Lavigne either via the city website or on paper. Ms. Stevenson expressed concerns with the availability of broadband to get feedback from members of the community especially the elderly. She stated she was never asked to submit any feedback on these developments, at this time or any other. She asked about the mining area behind the development and the conditions placed on it between Ridgewood and the owners. She expressed concerns with parks and trail lands and trespassing. She isn't opposing development or growth in the city but wants it makes sense and isn't being forced. Chair Larson -Vito stated the parks and trails plan was adopted by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Nolin stated of the six members of his team, four of them have been through Ridgewood. She expressed concerns with employment opportunities in the city and community outreach. Christine Stearns, 12268 Ridgewood Drive, Ridgewood First Addition, expressed concerns with the city messing with someone's neighborhood, financial concerns of increasing property taxes from the planned changes for her and other homeowners. She disliked the Highway 10 traffic, stating it was a giant joke, and didn't feel traffic concerns are addressed for getting in and out of the city. She disliked the number of parks and trails and would rather have better roads than new parks and trails. She was surprised about the lack of intemet in the city. She doesn't ever want to go downtown because the underused park for concerts didn't have enough parking. She asked how they are communicating to the community. 1111A11 B1 ATU�� Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 4 Ms. Stevenson commented about the lot sizes in Ridgewood and the covenants that are in place, indicating dividing lots is not allowed. There being no one else to speak, Chair Larson -Vito closed the public hearing. Mr. Carlton explained if city services are available to a property the owner would then be able to connect; however, in some instances, installation of utilities may not be feasible. He noted HOA rules and covenants are outside of the city ordinance and the enforcement of those regulations, splitting lots for example, is outside of the city's jurisdiction. The city will review and approve under the ordinance rather than HOA standards. Ms. Stevenson commented about the park land adjacent to Ridgewood and the negotiations done to save the Sherburne County forest. Mr. Carlton stated he will research and outline answers to those questions regarding the Top of the World park when this plan is presented to the City Council. He then discussed the three right-of-way trail stubs that offer access to the north of the Ridgewood development. He stated there may not be much available parking but if there is dedicated right-of-way under city control, individuals can legally park on the city street and enter the park through that area. Commissioner Rydberg stated there should be careful prioritization of what's important in this community. He expressed concern first with employees coming into the city to work and those leaving the city to work. He felt there is a burden on businesses for "third places." He felt the downtown was landlocked, highways needed updates, and should riverfront access be updated if there's no parking available. He was hoping the council will be careful when reviewing to determine when things are critical to the needs of Elk River. Chair Larson -Vito discussed the priority matrix on page 131 and asked if there was anything in the matrix to adjust. Commissioner Rydberg was concerned with the housing point of view by pushing for more infill but there's limited economic return in those who purchase these properties. He felt it was more expensive to the developer and the city shouldn't force a certain type of action but be more open and flexible. He asked if it was the place of the Planning Commission to write ordinances. Mr. Carlton stated they aren't writing ordinances tonight but instead this plan is a broad idea, staff would come up with an ordinance in the future, and that's the time when you could get into the details and formulate what Commission Johnson stated a plan such as this is important to guide the commission to assist them in moving forward. Commissioner Keisling noted the plan to him is a framework for future work. NATURE Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 5 Councilmember Beyer discussed the numerous opportunities available for the community to provide feedback and input on this plan, the meetings, surveys, and the communications that blanketed the city. He explained the detailed process for implementation of any part of this plan. He expressed his desire to increase broadband availability and outlined work already being done to increase it. The commission reviewed each chapter of the plan and had the following comments and changes: Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (MMPA) — property near 225`' Street and city border. Mr. Carlton explained based on previous discussions with MMPA, modifying the land use would set up the guidance for the MMPA. He explained to construct anything would require an ordinance amendment. It was the consensus of the commission to support the modification of this land use from Rural Residential to Business Park. Sherburne County — property south of Government Center. Mr. Carlton explained the property was originally marketed for data centers, but the Sherburne County EDA requested it be rezoned to multifamily residential and will go before the full board and city council. Commissioner Beise noted the area would hold a high number of multifamily residences and expressed public safety concerns. He would be in favor of mixed residential. Commissioner Rydberg expressed concerns with traffic in the area. It was the consensus of the commission to support the modification for the 33 acres directly south of the government center owned by Sherburne County changed from Business Park to Multifamily/Mixed Residential. Chapter 4 — Housing Plan: Commissioner Johnson noted he liked seeing the plan identifies options of duplexes and row houses that allow for additional flexibility. Commissioner Rydberg suggested making R1 a, b, and c more flexible. Based upon a question from the audience, Mr. Carlton stated the school district has participated on this plan review during the early stages. He stated he meets with the school district every other year to communicate areas of growth in the city and how that affects school capacity. He felt information could be added to Chapter 2 Community Context — how do we work with different entities, like the county, MnDOT, and the school district, explaining how the city works. Mr. Nolin indicated language could be added on Page 49 and add a section to Chapter 3 called Service Provider Coordination showing how city staff works in conjunction with school officials to review capacity levels and needs, as well as other p 0 I E B E 1 0 7 f XA-iTURE Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 6 entities such as bordering municipalities, MnDOT, and Sherburne County. It was the consensus of the commission to add this explanation. Commissioner Booth commented that he felt infill while an appealing option would be difficult to accomplish. He stated he personally liked having the opportunity to move out to this area due to affordability and not having this type of infill. Commissioner Johnson noted that in his years of reviewing applications before the Planning Commission, he found that some older lots in high density areas in the city needed a greater flexibility of options when looking to update or improve a property, and he also noted the current market also drives what people want to buy. Chair Larson -Vito asked if the plan allowed the commission to choose which districts infill would be applicable to and maintain the oversight of it. Mr. Carlton stated the changes to this plan would require a serious review of the residential zoning districts and what neighborhoods would have these options to work towards providing a range of opportunities. He stated the zoning ordinances and map would be updated where necessary. Mr. Nolin noted on page 43 — Accessory Dwelling Units — provides some guidance in the plan on how to apply this but it's up to the Planning Commission to review and input. Chair Larson -Vito asked if the commission wanted to comment on the Urban Service Expansion areas. Commissioner Johnson stated the CPAC had extensive discussions on this, and this expansion would be natural but getting services to the north needs to be planned and studied. He stated the priority is when some areas have failures such as community septic systems and the city addresses those when they come up. Mr. Carlton clarified the city isn't going to come into those proposed areas and add city sewer and water without first talking to the affected neighborhoods about the possibility of expansion of city services. This plan provides an over -arching policy that proposed future expansion may occur as well as looks at what's adjacent to these proposed areas and what is logical. He noted the need to also evaluate the potential impact of the urban service expansion areas on the wastewater services and recognize the important link between community growth and the capacity to handle wastewater. The commission then discuss Chapter 5 — Economic Development. Commissioner Rydberg expressed his concerns with the development of "third-place" and outlot development and didn't feel it was fair for developers to have an additional cost to support this concept and the city telling them they should provide these amenities. Commissioner Johnson disagreed and stated the developers aren't going to spend additional dollars on this unless they are provided a framework to follow like other NATURE Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 7 surrounding communities. He noted the last year and a half showed the need for spaces to gather and found those spaces in empty parking lots. Chair Larson -Vito felt there is a real problem with having outdoor space available for gatherings, especially for teenagers. She stated it wouldn't have to be in all commercial districts either and it could be a recommendation in location. Mr. Carlton stated it could be part of the PUD process and sets up that framework or policy discussion. He stated this keeps the goals transparent to the developers and shows the expectations. Commissioner Keisling asked why there was a different approach in Chapter 4 and 5 about the framework for reduction of fees for redevelopment of homes versus spurring business development. Mr. Carlton explained the fee structure for the residential redevelopment and funding sources versus commercial development and stated there were funding sources for business redevelopment and improvements. Commissioner Rydberg discussed the inhibition of high fees that homeowners and business owners face and felt that should be reviewed. Mr. Carlton stated an action step could be added to review the fee structure for the commercial development process, showing comparison with peer cities, and have it reviewed by the city council. He stated sewer and water fees could also be discussed. It was the consensus of the commission to add to the Economic Development Implementation Action matric to review the fee structure for commercial development. Chair Larson -Vito asked about the possibility of reduction of park dedication fees if implementing the "third places" concept. She felt it would eliminate the financial cost for developers. Mr. Carlton stated they could craft the ordinance or policy language to work towards that. Mr. Nolin stated it might be welcomed by developers because of the current trend in retail with the market shift. It was the consensus of the commission to ensure "third places" language is softened to not take a hard line on requirements versus incentives; add potential strategy of reduction in park dedication requirement as a potential incentive for including "third place" amenities and include in Implementation Action matrix. The commission reviewed Chapters 6 and 7 and had no recommendations for changes. During discussion it was noted the trail connections as outlined in the Trails t®,EAEI v NATURE Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 8 Master Plan were specific to the side of the road the trail would be placed and wouldn't be prioritized as to which trails are done first. The trails would be added as roadways are improved and as developments go in. The commission reviewed Chapter 8 — Infrastructure, and Commissioner Booth asked if residents were surveyed regarding broadband availability. Mr. Carlton explained the map put together by Sherburne County of areas where broadband is available and where there are service gaps. It was noted DEED also provided a database of broadband information for the plan. Chapter 8 — Mr. Nolin indicated they are editing the section north of Highway 10 between the lake and the river and acknowledging the cutoff. It was the consensus of the commission to include the section north of Highway 10 and the lake/river to acknowledge the cutoff. Commissioner Keisling asked about the park maintenance provisions and how those are managed. He felt the focus on building parks should include how these assets are maintained and perhaps some framework could be included. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the commission to add language on page 110 in the Focus Resources to maintain park assets to a high level; page 139, on the Implementation Action Matrix - maintain the current parks before adding additional. The commission discussed Chapter 9 — Implementation Plan. Commissioner Rydberg discussed the importance of community communications; he also supported the negotiation process between staff and the developer prior to meeting with the commission and council level, and to support and encourage staff to allow them to have resources to make decisions before presenting and providing detailed information on how staff came to the final product. Chair Larson -Vito agreed but stated some of these communications are guided by state statute and going above and beyond can be problematic legally; she felt discussions with the city attorney could clarify those concerns. Mr. Carlton indicated the consistency in public hearing notice requirements and how the council notifies for each project consistently. Commissioner Keisling asked if the components are prioritized in the matrix and how those are taken into consideration. Comtmssioner Johnson stated things happen organically and didn't think there was a way to weigh each item, noting each committee or commission will review these items. He stated the council will direct staff and the commissions of what is a priority. p I I I R I I Ir NATURE Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Page 9 Councilmember Beyer indicated when drilling down on the specifics of action implementation, each commission will be reviewing their priorities as are outlined in the matrix. Mr. Nolin explained while each plan and each city handles these implementation items, it seems that each city does annual planning retreats and use this document as a guide to determine what's important during this time. He stated language can be included on how to use the document but refrain from specially outlining what the timeframe was for implementation. Chris Larson -Vito stated the Key Themes on page 23 might be useful as guiding principles to what is most important to include in the plan. Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Beise to recommend approval of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan updated as outlined in the staff report and with the following recommendations: • MMPA and County Government Center land use map edits (and related edits to supporting maps). • Add discussion regarding coordination with schools and service providers to address capacity as growth occurs (on last page of Land Use chapter). • Add recommendation regarding fee schedule review (and include in Implementation Action Matrix). • Ensure "third places" language is softened to not take a hard line on requirements versus incentives; add potential strategy of reduction in park dedication requirement as a potential incentive for including "third place" amenities (and include in Implementation Action matrix). • Revise park service area map to account for waterbodies as barriers. • Include discussion of park maintenance plan within Focus Resources section of Parks chapter. Motion carried 6-0. 6. Council Liaison Update Councilmember Beyer provided an update to the Planning Commission about recent city council activities. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. PR11RER RT NATURE Planning Commission August 24, 2021 Minutes prep d by Jennifer Green. —7 7 Tina Allard City Clerk Jill arson -Vito Planning Commission Chair Page 10 hJAIURE