Loading...
6.13. SR 10-17-2005 Item # 6.13. MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and City Council Ak _ Scott Harlicker, Senior Plann~' TO: DATE: October I 7, 2005 SUBJECT: Concept Plan for the Development of the South Side of I 75th Avenue Request The Planning Commission and staff are requesting the City Council adopt the attached concept plan for the development of the south side of 17Sth Avenue. Attachments Concept Plan Minutes from the Planning Commission meetings of May 10th, June 14th, July 12th and September 27th Overview At the City Council meeting held on March 7th, the Council denied Joel Larson's request to change the land use and zoning of a 6 acre parcel on the south side of 17Sth Avenue. He had requested a land use amendment from Rural Residential to High Density Residential and a zone change from Rla (Single Family Residential) to R3 (Townhouse District). Following that discussion, the Council directed staff to work with the property owners and the Planning Commission to put together a plan for the overall development of the 80 acres on the south side of 17Sth Avenue. On May 10th the Commission held the first of four public meetings to discuss how this area might develop. All of the affected property owners were invited. Staff explained the review process, discussed possible access alternatives, development issues and restrictions, and listened to resident's comments. The minutes from this meet are attached. On June 14th staff presented six concepts plans. The land uses included in the diagrams were commercial, office, mix use (commercial/office/residential), apartments, townhouses and single family residential. Residents were given an opportunity to comment of the concepts and ask questions. The minutes from this meeting are attached. On July 12th staff presented four revised concepts. The comments received at the June 14th meeting were incorporated into four options. These four options included an internal road network, possible trial corridor along the wedand. The land uses included were commercial, office, mix use (commercial/office/residential), apartments, townhouses. The minutes from this meeting are attached. At the September 27th Planning Commission meeting staff presented the attached concept plan. The comments from the July 12th meeting were consolidated into this plan. With the approval/ adoption of this concept plan, the City will have a concept plan in place to guide potential developers. The concept plan includes a mixed use component adjacent to the intersection of 17Sth Avenue and Twin Lakes Road. This area could include commercial, office and residential uses and is about 7 acres in size. Apartments are proposed for the central part of the site. There is about 5 % acres, and at a density of 16 units/acre could be developed with 91 apartments. The townhouse component is located on the east third of the site. This area is about 6 acres in size, and at a density of 8 units/acre could be developed with 49 units. There is a central road proposed through the site with two full access points on 17Sth Avenue and a right-in/right-out only on Twin Lakes Road. A greenway/trail is proposed along the wedand Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve the proposed concept plan. WORKSHOP MEETING NOTES ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 Members Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Lemke, Offerman, Ropp, Stevens, and Scott Members Absent: Commissioner Westgaard Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlick.er, 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. 175m Avenue Land Use Discussion ) / Senior Planner Harlicker reviewed the six concept plans prepared by staff illustrating the variety of land uses that could occur within the study area. Commissioner Stevens stated that he liked a combination of options SD2 and SD4 with minor changes. He questioned how many units would be allowed in each area. Mr. Harlicker stated that staff had not calculated that for tonight's discussion. Commissioner Offerman stated he liked Option SD 1 with high and medium density townhomes as opposed to apartments. Mr. Izati asked if we had talked with any developers to see if the market would support these concepts. Staff indicated no, but that once two or three options have been selected, they would talk to a couple of developers to get their input on the proposal. Mr. Brenan asked how realistic these plans and whether or not staff realizes there was a housing slump. Mr. Schneider stated that he wants to see single family and would rather have low density residential as a land use. Commissioner Scott asked if apartments would be a component of mixed use, as noted in Option SD 1 Mr. Harlicker stated yes. Mr. Schneider asked if in any scenario, could someone sell a lot for a single family home. It was noted that in Options SD2 and SD6, it could happen. ) Commissioner Ropp stated he liked Option SD6. Chair Anderson stated that he preferred Option SD1, but that once the roads were constructed, it may end up looking like SD6. Chair Anderson stated that he felt the developers might like larger blocks of property to develop as illustrated in SD1. Planning Commission Meeting Notes June 14,2005 Page 2 Commissioner Lemke stated that he liked SD6, but that there should be more office space and that he would like to this be a place that people reverse commute to, versus commuting to Minneapolis. Commissioner Offerman stated that he liked the transportation access points. Ms. Graham asked if we had obtained the tax and assessing information requested at the last meeting. Director Planning McPherson noted that we have not been able to contact the Assessor, but that information would be available for the July meeting. Mr. Izati stated that he would like to see high quality townhomes. Mr. Brenan asked if we were under a mandate for affordable housing. He stated he would prefer high-end townhomes, condominiums, or apartments. 3. Turner Concept Plan The Commission reviewed the preliminary concept plan for 75 lots on 40 acres owned by Ms. Turner that is being developed by Meridian Development Company. Director of Planning McPherson reviewed the site constraints and the connections to River Park. Commissioner Stevens asked if there would be an access to County Road 40. He felt one was desirable and a connection to the southwest should also be included. He asked what the tradeoff for the increased density to the City would be. Commissioner Lemke asked what the distance would be between access points on County Road 40. Ms. McPherson noted that they would be approximately 1,300 feet. Commissioner Offerman concurred that a connection to the property to the south or to County Road 40 was needed. Commissioner Stevens questioned the level of density and whether it was consistent with the adjacent developments. Commissioner Anderson noted that he needed to understand the benefit to the City for the smaller lots. 4. Discuss Maxim Furniture Building Materials Tom Ryan, Ryan Development and Dave Anderson of FabCon were present to review the proposed material change for Maxim Furniture. They explained the technical differences and execution in creating the proposed panel for the furniture building and noted that the ribbed panel that was initially proposed would not be well executed, based on the factory's abilities. They displayed samples of the proposed corduroy pattern and it was the consensus of the Commission to approve the use of the integrally colored exposed aggregate random pattern corduroy with the stamped lower portion as proposed by Ryan Development. 5. Discuss 2005 - 2008 Goals and Objectives The Commission had no changes to the goals and objectives as presented, but wanted additional projects added to the workshop schedule prepared by staff. These items will be added to the regular agenda for June for formal approval and forwarding to the City Council. ) 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. 175m Avenue Neighborhood Discussion 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 comer 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 ro 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 op~ons 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 Conncll adopt the concept plan and that the City would hold firm to the concept and not allow development to occur nntil the Conncll 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 tumback discussion. Ms. McPherson noted that the County is moving forward to construct a two-lane rural design on Connty Road 40 and that the issue of the tumback is no longer on the table for discussion. Commissioner Ropp asked if the trail could be constructed aronnd 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. \ ; WORKSHOP MEETING NOTES ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005 Members Present: Vice-Chair Stevens, Commissioners Lemke, Offerman, Ropp, Scott and Westgaard Members Absent: Chair Anderson Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner Council Liaison: Council Member Motin - Absent 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 Stevens. 2. 175m Avenue Study Area Meeting with Neighbors Neighbors present included.: \ ) Mrs. Geraldine Graham and son Mr. & Mrs. Schneider Mr. & Mrs. Ejaz Mr. Robinson John Howard of Hecker & Holmers Real Estates Senior Planner Harlicker provided an overview of the purpose of tonight's meeting. He provided an aerial photo of the area in question and discussed the presence of wetlands. Commissioner Stevens asked for clarification of the wetland areas and inquired as to whether or not the proposed wetland buffer area would be included on the delineation noted on the aerial photo. Mr. Harlicker noted (on the aerial photo) that the boundary from the National Wetland Inventory and was not an accurate delineation of the wetlands. Mr. Robinson asked what "high density" meant. Mr. Harlicker stated that high density residential would allow for apartments at 12 units per acre, townhomes, and mixed use which could include some commercial. Mr. Ejaz stated that he was concerned with the odd lot shapes and with piecemeal development. He stated he was also concerned with not obtaining adequate value from the property and what would happen in the event that property owners did not sell and would be surrounded by incompatible developments. ) Mrs. Graham stated that developers have approached them to purchase their property. However, the prices offered would not allow them to replace their existing home and property with comparable real estate .:lsewhere. Developers have no restrictions in regards Planning Commission Meeting Notes May 10, 2005 Page 1 to the amount that they are required to pay. She stated she is concerned with the cost to hook up to City sewer and water. Mr. Ejaz asked if the wetland could be filled in order to make more buildable area. Director of Planning McPherson stated that State regulations limit the amount of area to be filled and City policy does not allow wetlands to be filled for the purposes of creating buildable sites; only for addressing public safety needs. Mr. Schneider stated that he felt the City was forcing out the residents and that he had lived on his property for 45 years and had no interest in moving. He also does not want townhomes or apartments next door looking down on his property. He stated he was interested in determining what the developers were interested in. Victor Pacheco, attending for another item on the agenda, stated that as a developer he would be interested in identifying what the City's interest was for development of the area. He understands that the City Council would not allow piecemeal development in this neighborhood and that a developer would need to enter into contracts with multiple property owners with simultaneous closings in order to make a project work. Mr. Graham stated that in the last five years more and more townhomes have appeared in the neighborhood and that property owners are being forced to sell out at a lower rate because of the fact that the adjacent townhomes are adversely affecting property values. i j Director of Planning McPherson noted that the City Council wants staff, the Planning Commission, and the neighborhood to prepare a plan that can be adopted in order to guide developers. The Council understands the impact of the land use change to the residents and want to make sure that the market responds to the residents, but developers also need guidance in terms of what the City's vision is for the area. Commissioner Offerman asked how a change in zoning would impact the assessed value and therefore, the tax rate. Ms. McPherson stated that she would contact Jerry Kritzik, the County Assessor, for an answer to this question. Commissioner Stevens stated that it is his understanding that there will be no change in assessed value or zoning until a developer or developers acquire enough properties to bring forth a project. He stated that he would like to see commercial uses at the west end near the intersection with a transition to lower density to the east end of the site. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he felt that the site was very- limited in terms of its opportunity due to the presence of wetlands on the site. He questioned where the transportation connections would be and indicated that it makes sense to align streets and intersections. Commissioner Offerman stated that assuming that there are willing sellers in the neighborhood that high density is the destiny for this parcel. He felt that with the Business Park zoning to the west and the train station to the southwest, that this is a good site for high density so that owners can live and walk to the future train station to take advantage of Northstar Commuter Rail. ) Mr. Howard stated that while commercial would be an option for their development group, they are not interested in apartments due to the current market. With interest rates '. Planning Commission Meeting Notes May 10, 2005 Page 3 remaining low, renters are difficult to come by and they would prefer to do an owner- occupied type product. Mrs. Graham noted that the townhomes to the north have "for rent" signs in front of them. Ms. McPherson stated that staff would develop multiple concepts for discussion purposes for the June 14th meeting and that information would be obtained assessments and wetlands to be forwarded to the residents at the same meeting. She noted that the residents are invited back to the June 14th meeting in order to provide input in revisions to the concept plans developed by staff. Mr. Schneider stated that he would like the property to go back to being low density residential. 3. Victor Pacheco - West T rian~le Property Senior Planner Harlicker provided a brief overview of the location and site conditions for the west triangle property. This is a parcel in joint ownership by Mr. Chuba and Mr. Kincannon, and a remnant part of West Oaks owned by George Sanford. Victor Pacheco described the proposed project which include 76 townhome units, all one level, as they are interested in attracting the 55 and older age group. They had projects that were much denser with up to 90 units but this appears to be a good mix of units for this project. Commissioner Stevens asked if there was a possibility for some commercial in the project, for instance, office condominiums or limited retail. Mr. Pacheco described the research that had been completed in order to identify whether or not retail would be viable on this site. They spoke with restaurants and hotels and neither group was interested in the site, due to its distance from Highway 169 and from Interstate 94. Commissioner Offerman stated that he would prefer the site remain commercial. He felt that even if the market is soft, it would be inappropriate for the City to give up prime commercial property along Highway 10. He stated that if it were to be residential, he would like to see higher density and units with more vertical height versus one level. Commissioner Stevens stated he would like to see the amenities located farther away from Highway 10 to the interior of the site where it would be quieter and more private. Staff reviewed the transportation improvements that will need to occur in relation to this project. A frontage road will need to be constructed along Highway 10 connecting the frontage road in Big Lake Township to the Waco Street/Business Center Drive intersection to the east. Commissioner Westgaard stated that even though there is no demand for commercial, it does not mean that we should change our priorities. He agreed that the frontage along Highway 10 should remain commercial. Commissioner Lemke stated that he did not have an issue with the residential development. He noted that the City changes its priorities when it rezoned the site south of Home Depot for Tractor Supply and the furniture store. Director of Planning McPherson noted that perhaps there was a compromise position in that the bulk of the site could be residential with higher density adjacent to Highway 10 and Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2005 Page 4 5.11. Consider Concept Plan for 175th Avenue Area Senior Planner Scott Harlicker reviewed the concept plan for the subject area which included a 7 -acre mixed use component which could include commercial, office and residential use, apartments, and townhomes. Mr. Harlicker discussed density of the site, possible access points, and location of a proposed greenway/trail. Staff recommends approval of the concept plan as presented. Commissioner Westgaard as if the concept was approved, would there be inconsistencies with current zoning and land use maps. Mr. Harlicker stated yes, since the property is currently zoned Rla and the Comprehensive Land Use Map would need to be amended to include the property in the Urban Service Area. He explained that the property would need to be rezoned to be consistent with the proposed uses. Commissioner Offerman noted that a concept plan was requested by the City Council, in response to a property owner's request to be included in the Urban Service Area. Mr. Harlicker stated that the Council has indicated they would like to see large areas be brought into the Urban Service Area, rather than by piecemeal, but that they did not quantify a specific number of acres. He stated that a group of property owners may decide to get together and develop a portion of the site. Commissioner Stevens stated that he felt the Commission has done what they were asked to do by the Council. He expressed his thanks to the residents for participating in the process. He stated that he would like to see this process done in other areas of the City, as well. Mitch Spector, representative of Denny Hecker Realty - Asked if wetland delineation has been done. Mr. Harlicker stated that some wetland area has been delineated in the southwest portion of the site, and the rest of the wetland information for the concept was obtained from the County maps. Mr. Spector stated that he felt the concept plan was marketable. He asked if staff felt the Council would be interested in looking at a proposal for approximately 20 plus acres, if some of the property owners pooled together. Chair Anderson suggested that he talk with the City Council. Mike Niziolek, representing the Parks and Recreation Commission, stated that that the trail shown on the concept appears to be in the wetlands. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the concept is not that the precise location of a trail is not that specific. Ejaz Izati, resident - Asked if a proposal would be reviewed by the Planning Commission first. Mr. Harlicker stated yes. Mr. Izati stated that he would hope the concept plan is flexible enough to allow a developer to maximize the site. He asked if staff felt the project was "doable". Mr. Harlicker stated that the developer who spoke has indicated that it may be. Chair Anderson stated that he felt the market will dictate whether or not a project is possible. He stated that it is not the City's intent to force residents to develop their property, but if the do wish to proceed, there now will be a concept plan in place. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO ACCEPT THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF 175TH AVENUE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Other Business 3l'v'JS ql~L 1 .10 Rinas 01 10N :31'9'05 1 NV'ld l~J :A8 NM~a lN3Wd013A3G31I ..........-... ..'~. ....~;- ....,.... ,rtf 1,,'''-'...... ~:~:. ... ~, "', ... ;.J \ . ...... ....... "'i,_;t'. , ~ \ ""-"..' 1" '-~,:l' " ~~ ',~ , ~... " '~' ... ~..<;, :JQ