Loading...
07-12-2005 PC MIN WORKSHOP MEETING NOTES ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005 Members Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Lemke, Offerman, Ropp, Scott, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: None Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner Council Liaison: Council Member Motin - Absent Also Present: Mr. & Mrs. Robinson, Mr. & Mrs. Schneider, Geraldine Graham, Mr. Izati, Mr. Brenan and Carol Turner 1. Call Meeting To Order Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. 2. 175 Avenue Neighborhood Discussion th Senior Planner Harlicker presented the four revised options based on the input from the Commission and the residents at the last workshop meeting in June. He reviewed the transportation points that have been set by the City Engineer and provided an overview of the various land use components. Director of Planning McPherson stated that she had contacted the residential assessor at Sherburne County who indicated that the method by which the valuations are completed would not change if a long-term plan were adopted by the City. Valuations are based on current use of the property; not future potential uses of the property. Commissioner Stevens asked if the pedestrian access that is noted on Option A could be utilized on Option B or C. Mr. Harlicker stated it could. Commissioner Westgaard had a question on Option B and the depiction of right-of-way in the northwest corner of the area. Mr. Harlicker noted that was an error in creating the drawing; the right-of-way is actually not as wide in that area. Commissioner Ropp stated that he liked Option D. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he liked Option D, except that he felt the office should be closer to Twin Lakes Road and that apartments should be located where the office is indicated and then townhomes should replace the apartment area. Commissioner Stevens stated that he liked Option B, but that the pedestrian connection noted on Option A should be added to the overall concept. Chair Anderson asked if the four options were a result of input from the Commission and the residents. Mr. Harlicker stated it was. Chair Anderson asked if staff had completed a Planning Commission Meeting Notes July 12, 2005 Page 2 ------------- density calculation for the residential areas and if the concepts had been tested in the market. Mr. Harlicker stated that staff has not done a density calculation, but that it could be done. Ms. McPherson stated that staff has contacts with various developers in the market and will ask the market to comment on the concept, if one is identified this evening. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt the market would prefer the less infrastructure noted in Options B and C, and that he too preferred the pedestrian connection noted on Option A. Commissioner Offerman stated that he liked Option B. He inquired as to whether or not high density townhomes would equal rental or if they could be owner-occupied. Mr. Harlicker stated that high density townhomes could be rented or owned. Commissioner Scott stated he liked Option B. He questioned the purpose of the pedestrian connections and would they provide connections to the large City park north of this area. Mr. Harlicker explained the relationship of the site to Hillside City Park and parks located in the Park Pointe development. Mr. Schneider asked why there was no single family identified in the concepts and what would happen to someone living in a single family home. Mr. Harlicker stated that single family is inconsistent with the high density residential land use designation, but that if someone wanted to stay in a single family home, that would be possible. Commissioner Stevens asked if the land use areas crossed property lines. Mr. Harlicker stated that while staff attempted to utilize existing property lines, the land use areas do cross over and encompass more than one property in some cases. Mr. Izati asked how the concept plan would be used. Ms. McPherson stated that the Planning Commission will be asked to recommend that the Council adopt the concept plan and that the City would hold firm to the concept and not allow development to occur until the Council felt an adequate number of parcels were acquired in order to begin the process. Commissioner Westgaard stated that as with business park areas, the City should hold firm until they can implement its ultimate vision. 3. Review Concept Plan for Holzem Property Project Engineer Bob Weigert of Paramount Engineering provided an overview of the 500- unit concept plan. He identified road connections, the school site, parks, wetland enhancement, and discussed the mix of small and large lots. Commissioner Anderson asked what the small exceptions were. Mr. Weigert noted that they were existing single family homes that would remain. Commissioner Stevens asked where the City and County were with the County Road 40 turnback discussion. Ms. McPherson noted that the County is moving forward to construct a two-lane rural design on County Road 40 and that the issue of the turnback is no longer on the table for discussion. Commissioner Ropp asked if the trail could be constructed around the wetland enhancement area. Mr. Weigert noted that they had not gotten to that level of detail at this time, but felt that it would be possible in that it could be utilized by a middle school biology class for an outdoor classroom. He indicated that it could be located within an outlot which could be deeded back to the City. Planning Commission Meeting Notes July 12, 2005 Page 3 ------------- Commissioner Stevens asked if blocks 4 and 5 could be interrupted in the middle with a trail corridor. He felt that the blocks were quite long and that a trail corridor would provide pedestrian access mid-block. Commissioner Lemke indicated he felt the density level was ridiculous and that it was too dense. Discussion ensued regarding the level of density of the existing zoning (2 ½ acre minimum) and the total number of lots that could be constructed under the R1d Urban Single Family Residential designation. It was noted that under the R1d, the largest single family zoning district, 570 lots could be constructed on this site. Commissioner Offerman stated that the school site won’t take care of kids from the development and that the school site should not be the only reason to allow a significant change in density by bringing this parcel into the Urban Service District. He stated that there are significant transportation issues and that the Council is ignoring the recommendations of the Transportation Plan by focusing on only one east-west corridor. In addition, the County is failing to acknowledge the urban density of the City of Elk River and by constructing a rural section road in this area, is constructing a road which will be inadequate from the start. Chair Anderson stated that the City needs to look at transportation issues before approving any additional density in the eastern area. He stated he felt it would be irresponsible to approve this project without other road corridors in place. Those other road corridors would be Elk Hills Drive and 193 Avenue. rd Commissioner Westgaard stated that he could not swallow the density and felt that the site was significantly more dense than he would be comfortable approving. The Commission went on to discuss the merits of bringing any of the parcels east of County Road 40 into the Urban Service District, considering the significant level of density increases that would occur, even with single family developments only. Ms. McPherson reminded the Commission that they are to providing comments on the concept layout and that the property owner has the right to request a land use amendment to be brought into the Urban Service District. At that time, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation whether the site should be in or out of the Urban Service District. Having no other comments regarding the concept plan, the Commission moved on to the next item. 4. Review Concept Plan for Gateway Business Center Director of Planning McPherson reviewed the concept plans for the Gateway Business Center. This area is bounded by Highway 10 on the west, 171 Avenue on the north, 165 stth Avenue on the south, and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks on the east. The City owns 60 net developable acres in the center. Ms. McPherson reviewed the ownership of the adjacent parcels. She provided an overview of the City Council/EDA discussion of July 11 regarding the same issue. The City will be th developing a new zoning district entitled “Gateway Business Center” which will allow for a more restrictive series of commercial uses and allow for business park design standards with limited outdoor storage for industrial users. Planning Commission Meeting Notes July 12, 2005 Page 4 ------------- The Commission concurred with the assessment of the Council and the EDA. Ms. McPherson noted that the adjacent property owners would be invited to the August 9 th workshop meeting for a discussion of the concepts and the City’s plans. Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by, Michele McPherson Director of Planning