The URL can be used to link to this page

11.1 SR 05-06-2024The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity Request for Action To City Council Item Number 11.1 Meeting Date May 6, 2024 Prepared By Chris Leeseberg, Senior Planner Item Description Concept Review: Rueter Walton - Proposed Apartments Reviewed by: Zack Carlton Cal Portner Tina Allard Action Requested Review the conceptual apartment project and provide the applicant with informal, non-binding, feedback regarding council’s support for a residential apartment complex on the subject parcel. Background/Discussion The applicant has submitted conceptual plans for a 96-unit residential apartment building with three stories, each around 37,000 square feet, and detached garages. The proposal positions the apartment closer to the north and west sides of the property to increase distance from the existing residential neighborhood to the east on Carson Circle. The location of the detached garages is to help further screen the parking lot. Our ordinance requires 2½ parking spaces per dwelling unit, one space of which must be completely enclosed, requiring a total of 240 stalls with 96 of them enclosed. The applicant is proposing 184 stalls with 30 of them enclosed. Required Proposed Difference 240 Total 184 Total 77% 96 Enclosed 30 Enclosed 31% In December 2022, the city amended the land use designation from Traditional Single-Family Residential to Highway Business to facilitate the construction of a mini-storage facility for the current property owner. An apartment project would require a land use amendment back to residential (Multifamily). The applicant will be requesting financial assistance from the state, which requires a resolution of support from the City Council. The resolution of support does not obligate the city to provide any TIF (Tax Increment Financing) or Abatement. The financial support would be administered by the state and would not impact the taxable value of the property. Page 205 of 254 Planning Commission The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the project, in general, was good but believed it was too dense for the subject parcel and suggested the parcel should be maintained for commercial use. The commission also received comments from the public, which focused on land use and zoning requirements, traffic, and safety. The commission shared some of their concerns as they related to density and location. Staff have also received three letters of objection to an apartment complex on the subject parcel, which are attached for review. The applicant has also submitted an updated plan which addresses some of the comments made during the concept review. Adjustments include clarification of the setback standards, emergency vehicle access, snow storage, and parking stall design. If, after receiving comments from the City Council, the applicant decides to move forward, they will be required to thoroughly develop site, architectural, and engineering plans. The plans would be evaluated against the ordinance and the design variations requested through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. A PUD does allow for deviations from zoning/ordinance requirements, enabling developers to construct projects that may not be possible under traditional zoning regulations. Financial Impact None Mission/Policy/Goal Support the growth and development of the community. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Building Exhibits 4. Public Comments 5. Handout Page 206 of 254 Page 207 of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ð IWð IWð %5 8QLW IWð IWð 8QLW IWð IWð IWð %5 8QLW IWð IWð 8QLW IWð IWð IWð *UDQGWRWDO IWð 3$5.,1* 7\SH &RXQW *DUDJH6WDOOV *DUDJH6WDOOV$'$ 6XUIDFH6WDOOV 6XUIDFH6WDOOV$'$ 6XUIDFH6WDOOV3URRIRI3DUNLQJ *5266$5($727$/ /HYHO $UHD /HYHO IWð /HYHO IWð /HYHO IWð *UDQGWRWDO IWð 6'6LWH3ODQ 2 1 Page 208 of 254 NDDV ZLOVRQ DUFKLWHFWV 5HXWHU:DOWRQ'HYHORSPHQW (ON5LYHU$SDUWPHQWV 3 STORY APARTMENT 93 TOTAL UNITS 3 STORY APARTMENT 93 TOTAL UNITS PARKING GARAGE SURFACE PARKING 19646 CARSON CR. NW 11452 197TH AVE NW GARAGE ~25'-0"~30'-0"OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT 42'-6"OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT 42'-6"16'-0"OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT LIVING AREA 440'-0" - BUILDING SEPERATION 80'-0" - BUILDING SEPERATION 1 - SITE SECTION CUT LOT LINE 25'-0" 6' HEIGHT PRIVACY FENCE 6' HEIGHT PRIVACY FENCE 270'-0" - LOT LINE 2 - SITE SECTION CUT Page 209 of 254 NDDV ZLOVRQ DUFKLWHFWV 5HXWHU:DOWRQ'HYHORSPHQW (ON5LYHU$SDUWPHQWV Page 210 of 254 NDDV ZLOVRQ DUFKLWHFWV 5HXWHU:DOWRQ'HYHORSPHQW (ON5LYHU$SDUWPHQWV Page 211 of 254 NDDV ZLOVRQ DUFKLWHFWV 5HXWHU:DOWRQ'HYHORSPHQW (ON5LYHU$SDUWPHQWV Page 212 of 254 Page 213 of 254 19587 Carson St NW Elk River, MN 55330 Page 214 of 254 Page 215 of 254 Page 216 of 254 Bruce A. Smith Jr. 19685 Carson Cir NW Elk River, MN 55330 April 29, 2024 Mayor John J. Dietz and Council Members Elk River City Hall 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: May 6th, 2024, City Council Work Session Reuter Walton Apartment Concept Review Dear Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen of Elk River to express my opposition to Reuter Walton’s proposed apartment concept plan at 19645 Evans Street NW. At the recent April 23rd planning commission work session several concerns were voiced by the citizens most closely affected by this proposed project. Amongst them we heard concerns about storm water control, grade disturbance, trash management, snow removal, traffic impact, increased crime, line of site, emergency vehicle access… etc. All these items are especially important; however, Reuter Walton will have an explanation for each if they take this project to the next stage of planning and design. It is my hope Reuter Walton will not pursue this project any further if they do not receive your support at the May 6th City Council work session. In the sections to follow I will lay out how this concept conflicts with our city’s comprehensive plan; as well as explain each ordinance variance requiring city approval if Reuter Walton pursues this project as conceptualized. It is my opinion that these variances should be all the information needed to show this project is conceptually unsound, does not fit our city’s comprehensive plan, and should not receive your support at the May 6th City Council work session. City of Elk River, Minnesota Code of Ordinance Section 30-1006 Principal Structure: (Exhibit A to this packet) 1. Set Back Variance: Section 30-1006 outlines perimeter setback requirements. Specifically in situations immediately adjacent to major collector or arterial streets, the ordinance states setbacks for these roadways should be thirty feet with an additional twenty feet to provide a landscape buffer. The northwest corner of the proposed site is at the intersection of 197th Ave. and Evans Ave.; these roadways are considered major collectors and arterial streets. The current concept plan shows only a 30-foot set back at the closest point to Evans, and even less at the closest point to 197th. The only way to modify the proposed concept to fit within the ordinance setback requirement is to reduce the size of the building; subsequently, reducing the number of units. At the April 23rd planning commission work session Reuter Walton confirmed they would be requesting variance approval for this, saying that reducing the number of units would not be financially feasible. Page 217 of 254 2. Lot Size Variance: Section 30-1006 outlines dimensional regulations related to principal structures. City ordinance classifies the proposed concept as “R-4 Apartment Sewered.” Per the ordinance, minimum lot requirements for this type of structure are based on the number of one-, two- and three or more-bedroom units within the structure. The table below shows the calculated site square footage requirements for the proposed structure. Based on the proposed units in their concept plan our city ordinance would require Reuter Walton to build this structure on a parcel twice the size they are proposing. At the April 23rd planning commission work session Reuter Walton confirmed they would be requesting variance approval for this, saying that reducing the number of units would not be financially feasible. City of Elk River, Minnesota Code of Ordinance Section 30-892 Size of Parking Spaces and Isles: (Exhibit B to this packet) 3. Size of Parking Space Variance: Section 30-892 states that the minimum size of a parking space with a 90-degree parking angle should be nine feet wide and twenty feet long with a 24- foot-wide aisle. On March 28th Reuter Walton hosted a community outreach meeting to discuss this project. At that meeting the size of parking spaces was discussed; in their plan Reuter Walton proposes nine feet wide and eighteen feet long parking spaces, two feet shorter than required. Section 30-892 does allow for up to a two -foot reduction in length for curb overhang; however, based on their proposed plan, 104 of their open space parking spots will be end to end with no curb overhang. If Reuter Walton plans to pursue keeping their proposed parking space size, they will need variance approval. City of Elk River, Minnesota Code of Ordinance Section 30-903 Minimum parking spaces: (Exhibit C to this packet) 4. Minimum Number of Parking Space Variance: Section 30-903 subsection (2) Dwellings, states that multiple family dwellings must have 2½ parking spaces per dwelling unit, of which one space must be completely enclosed. The proposed concept has ninety-six total units; this would require a total of 240 parking spaces of which ninety-six should be fully enclosed. 1 bedroom 29 3,000 87,000 2 bedroom 37 3,500 129,500 3 bedroom 30 4,000 120,000 Total Square Feet Required 336,500 Square Feet in one Acre 43,560 Total Acres Required 7.72 Total Acres of Proposed Site 3.96 Lot Size Shortfall (3.76) # of Bedrooms # of Units Sq/Ft Requirement Total Sq/Ft Page 218 of 254 The concept plan has only 184 proposed parking spaces, of which only thirty are fully enclosed. In years past the city has approved parking variances down to two paces per unit; however, in each of those scenarios the applicant was able to provide proof of concept that parking could be expanded if the approved variance proved problematic. In Reuter Walton’s proposed concept, they have less than two spaces per unit with no available area on the proposed site for proof-of-concept parking expansion. Furthermore, they are proposing less than a third of the required enclosed parking. At the April 23rd planning commission work session Reuter Walton confirmed they would be requesting variance approval for this, saying that increasing the number of parking spaces, specifically enclosed parking spaces, would not be financially feasible. City of Elk River Comprehensive Plan 5. Conflict with the Elk River Parks Master Plan: (Exhibit D to this packet) Chapter 5, initiative three of the 2015 Elk River Parks Master Plan lays out the strategy to strengthen trail connections between all city parks and public areas. Specifically prioritizing efforts on closing trail gaps to several parks, including the Highlands Park lands next to this proposed concept. The current parks plan shows a proposed trail across the north border of Reuter Walton’s site. If the setback variance discussed in item number one of this packet is approved, it would conflict with the goals of the parks department, and the overall comprehensive plan for the City of Elk River. 6. Zoning Change: Our family has owned our current home for twenty years, for most of those years the proposed site for this project was zoned single family residential. In recent years, the city council rezoned it to highway business use to accommodate a proposed storage facility project. There was no opposition to that project because everyone in the immediate vicinity felt it was an effective use of the site. For Reuter Walton to build their proposed project they would also need a zoning change to high density multifamily residential. At no point has our city’s comprehensive plan ever considered this area for high density multifamily residential zoning; therefore, we should not rezone it as such now. To summarize... If the council gives Reuter Walton their support of this concept and Reuter Walton pursues the project as conceptualized, to get final approval from the city council they will need a variance for setback, a variance for lot size, a variance for parking space quantities, a variance for parking space types, and a variance for parking space size. It has been the standard of the Elk River city council and planning commission to deny residents the smallest of variances because they do not want to “create a precedent.” These five variances are by no means insignificant, approving any one of them will only invite future developers to try to do the same thing. Furthermore, if all these variances are approved, and the city council rezones the proposed property, they would be undermining the goals of the Elk River Parks Department as well as the over goals of the comprehensive plan. I implore you to take all these facts into consideration and not provide support for the proposed concept. Page 219 of 254 To show there is growing opposition to this project, enclosed with this packet you will also find a copy of a petition signed by nearly 250 residents from the surrounding area. I thank you for taking the time to review my concerns and look forward to attending the May 6th meeting. Warmest Regards, Bruce A. Smith Jr. Concerned Resident ENCLOSURE Page 220 of 254 Sec. 30-1006. - Principal structures. Principal structures shall comply with the following dimensional regulations: Building Setbacks Minimum Lot Requirements Front (feet) Side (feet) Garage Side (feet) Rear (feet) Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Height R-1a: Nonsewered 2½ acres 160′ width 35 20 20 30 25%3 oors or 40′ R-1b: Nonsewered 1 acre 160′ width 35 10 5 25 25%3 oors or 40′ Note: Interior side yard setback from future lot line 10 feet. Sewered 12,000 sq. ft. 80′ width 100′ width corner lot 135′ depth 35 10 5 25 25%3 oors or 40′ R-1c: Sewered 11,000 sq. ft. 80′ width 100′ width corner lot 130′ depth 30 10 5 20 25%3 oors or 40′ Exhibit A Page 221 of 254 Nonsewered 10 acres 300′ width 30 10 5 20 25%3 oors or 40′ R-1d: Sewered 14,000 sq. ft. 90′ width 110′ width corner lot 140′ depth 35 10 5 30 25%3 oors or 40′ Nonsewered 10 acres 300′ width 35 10 5 30 25%3 oors or 40′ R-2a: Single-family Duplex 6,000 sq. ft. 60′ width 100′ width on corner lots 30 10 10 25%3 oors or 40′ Duplex sewered 6,000 sq. ft. 60′ width 30 10 10 10 30%3 oors or 40′ R-2b: Single-family Duplex 6,000 sq. ft. 60′ width 100′ width on corner lots 30 10 10 3 oors or 40′ Townhouse sewered 5,500 sq. ft. 20′ width 30 10 10 10 30%3 oors or 40′ R-3: 1 1 Page 222 of 254 Single-family 12,000 sq. ft. 80′ width 100′ width on corner lots 30 10 5 30 Duplexes 6,000 sq. ft. 60′ width 30 10 10 3 oors or 40′ Triplex, quadraminimum, townhome or condominimum dwellings R-4: Single-Family 10,000 sq. ft. 80′ width 100′ width on corner lot 30 10 10 25%3 oors or 40′ Duplex 6,000 sq. ft. 60′ width 30 10 10 3 oors or 40′ Townhouse and other multifamily (not apartments) sewered 4,000 sq. ft. 20′ width 30 10 25 30%3 oors or 40′ Apartment sewered 2,500 sq. ft. per unit (eciency) 30 10 25 40%4 oors or 50′ 4 2 3 Page 223 of 254 3,000 sq. ft. per unit (1 bedroom) 30 10 25 40%4 oors or 50′ 3,500 sq. ft. per unit (2 bedrooms) 30 10 25 40%4 oors or 50′ 4,000 sq. ft. per unit (3 or more bedrooms) 30 10 25 40%4 oors or 50′ Four lots per 40-acre maximum, with 2½-acre minimum and one curb cut. Side and rear setbacks are increased to 30 feet where the lot abuts a single-family residential zone. Multifamily lot size may be reduced by 400 square feet for every tuck-under or underground garage. Development standards for triplex, quadraminimum, townhome, or condominium dwellings are as follows: (1) Lot area: 20,000 square feet for triplex or quadraminium dwellings. Townhome or condominium unit lots shall have sufficient area to include within the individual lot the living areas (including bay or bow windows), a garage, decks, patios, or porches of the individual dwelling units. (2) Lot Width: Base lot width: 100 feet for triplex or quadraminium dwellings. Townhome or condominium unit: 28 feet for end dwellings; 24 feet for internal dwellings located in buildings containing more than four units. (3) Setbacks, yard: 30 feet at the perihery of the development parcel for yards bordering major collector or arterial streets, an additional 20 feet of setback is required to provide a landscaped buffer yard. (4) Setbacks, building. Setbacks between buildings shall be 25 feet or one-half the sum of the building heights of the two adjoining buildings, whichever is greater. 1 2 3 4 Page 224 of 254 Buildings shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the back of the curbline of private drives, guest parking areas and public rights-of-way. (Code 1982, § 900.18(1); Ord. No. 07-03, § 1, 4-16-2007) Page 225 of 254 Sec. 30-892. - Size of parking spaces and aisles. Each parking space and drive aisle shall comply with city standards as set forth in the following table. All loading spaces shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of each use and shall provide adequate space for storage and maneuvering of the vehicles they are designed to serve. _____ STANDARD VEHICLE Parking Angle Stall Width Including Striping (feet) Stall Length (feet) Aisle Width (feet) 90°9 20 24 60°9 23 15 45°9 27 12 VEHICLES FOR HANDICAPPED Parking Angle Stall Width Including Striping (feet) Stall Length (feet) Aisle Width (feet) 90°8 20 24 60°8 23 15 45°8 27 12 The stall length can be reduced by the amount of the curb overhang up to a maximum of two feet. (Code 1982, § 900.24(1)) _____ Exhibit B Page 226 of 254 (1) a. b. (2) a. b. c. d. e. (3) (4) a. b. c. (5) a. b. c. Sec. 30-903. - Minimum number of parking spaces. On-site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. The minimum number of required on-site parking spaces for the following uses shall be as follows: Assembly/churches. Assembly or exhibition hall, auditorium, theater or sports arena: one parking space for each three seats, based upon design capacity. Church or funeral parlor: one parking space for each three seats, based on the design capacity of the main seating area. Dwellings. Multiple-family dwelling, including attached townhouses over two units and townhomes: 2½ parking spaces per dwelling unit, one space of which must be completely enclosed. Nursing home: one space for every four patients or residents, based on the maximum capacity of the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building management. Senior citizen housing: one parking space per unit, plus one space for each employee who is not a resident of the building. Single-family dwelling: one enclosed parking space plus two off-street spaces. No garage shall be converted into living space unless other acceptable on-site parking space is provided. Two-family dwelling: two spaces per dwelling unit. Hospitals. one parking space for each two hospital beds, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. Offices. Bank: one space per 200 square feet of floor area, plus room to stack two vehicles per drive-through lane. Office building: one parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area. Medical or dental clinic: one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Public buildings. Municipal or county administration building: one parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area. Community center: adequate parking shall be provided based on the uses contained within the community center and as required in this subdivision. Exhibit C Page 227 of 254 (6) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. (7) (8) a. b. c. (9) a. Public library, museum, art gallery, post office or other public service building: one parking space for every 300 square feet of floor area. Recreation. General standards: one parking space per four expected patrons at capacity. Archery or golf driving range: one parking space per tee or target, plus one parking space per employee on the largest work shift. Athletic club or fitness center: one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Bowling alley: five parking spaces for each bowling lane. Golf course, golf clubhouse or country club: 30 spaces per each nine holes plus one parking space for each 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structure. Miniature golf: 1½ parking spaces per hole, plus one space per employee on the largest work shift. Private swimming facility: one parking space per 75 square feet of gross water area, plus one parking space per employee on the largest shift. Public swimming pool: 20 parking spaces, plus one space for each 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structure. Skating rink, ice or roller: one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area, plus one parking space per employee on the largest work shift. Tennis, racquetball, or handball court: four parking spaces per court, plus one parking space per employee on the largest work shift. Research. Research, experimental or testing station: one parking space for each employee on the major shift or one parking space for each 500 square feet of floor area within the building, whichever is greater. Restaurants/bars. Class II restaurant: one parking space for each 40 square feet of indoor or outdoor customer area, but not less than six spaces, plus room to stack a minimum of five vehicles per drive-through lane. Class I restaurant: one parking space for each 100 square feet of indoor or outdoor customer area, or one parking space for each four seats plus five additional spaces, whichever is greater. Nightclub, tavern or bar: one parking space for every 50 square feet of floor area. Sales/service. Automobile repair service station: one parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area. Page 228 of 254 b. c. d. e. f. g. (10) a. b. c. (11) a. b. c. Auto sales, trailer sales, marine and boat sales, implement sales, garden supply store, or building materials sales: one parking space for each 500 square feet of floor area. Open sales or rental lots shall also provide one parking space for each 5,000 square feet of land which is to be used for sales and display area. Convenience store: at least one parking space per 200 square feet of floor area, but not less than six spaces. Furniture store, appliance store, wholesale, and furniture and appliance repairs: one parking space for each 500 square feet of floor area up to 6,000 square feet, and then one space for each additional 800 square feet of floor area, but not less than six spaces. Retail store: one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Supermarket or discount house: at least one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Veterinarian clinic: one parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area. Schools. Day care, nursery or preschool: one parking space per teacher or employee, plus one space per 12 individuals receiving care. Public elementary school or junior high school or similar private school: two parking spaces for each classroom. Senior high school: one parking space for each classroom plus one parking space for each three students, based upon design capacity. Warehouse/manufacturing. Storage or warehouse establishments: one parking space for each two employees on the major shift or one parking space for each 2,000 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater, plus one space for each company motor vehicle when customarily kept on the premises. These requirements shall not apply to ministorage buildings. Manufacturing, fabricating, general industrial: six stalls plus one off-street parking space for each 500 square feet of floor area. Ministorage or self-storage facilities: one parking stall for each 400 square feet of office space or four stalls, whichever is greater. (Code 1982, § 900.24(12); Ord. No. 14-15, § 1, 11-17-2014) Page 229 of 254 55 City of Elk River - Parks and Recreation Master Plan v gt T a C e t Trails are the most desired feature in park systems nationally, and Elk River is no exception. The historic Elk River neighborhoods and commercial areas lack trails, and connecting them can be difficult due to road and right-of-way dimensions, lack of public land ownership, and barriers such as railroads and highways. Development patterns have brought trails to new neighborhoods, but many remain unconnected to the larger trail network. The Great Northern Trail is a remarkable asset for the community and can become the trail “spine” connecting neighborhoods, schools, parks, and downtown. Trail loops are highly desired in parks as they are an activity for all ages and provide an accessible way to get active. Recommendations 1. Create a connected trail network by closing gaps between existing trails. Strategies: • Provide pedestrian-bike crossings of Highway 169 at one-half to one mile intervals. Provide grade separated crossings where feasible. • Create a north/south spine east of Highway 169 from Main Street to 221st that links the Highway 169 crossings. These connections could be completed or supplemented through the linking of the natural greenway system. • Close trail gaps linking the pedestrian overpass at 189th Avenue to the school campus complex. • Prioritize efforts on closing trail gaps to schools, downtown, transit, and the following parks: ▶ Woodland Trails Park ▶ Hillside Park ▶Orono Park ▶ Dave Anderson Athletic Complex ▶ Youth Athletic Complex ▶ Lion John Weicht Park ▶ River’s Edge Commons • Provide trail access along south side of Hwy 10 from Proctor to Orono Park when the Hwy 10 bridge is replaced, currently scheduled by MnDOT for 2017. Be sure to include a trail with the new bridge and consider a trail under the bridge to connect both sides of the lake. • Link the school complex and Lion John Weicht Park to Main Street on Proctor and/or Jackson. • Ensure safe walking and biking routes to schools. • Other connections: ▶Twinlakes Estates and Trott Brook Farms neighborhoods to Twin Lakes Elementary ▶ Trail in Birch Meadow Park Exhibit D Page 230 of 254 Page 231 of 254 Page 232 of 254 We urge local authorities to reconsider this project's location or explore alternative solutions like rehabilitation programs or rent subsidies which have proven effective elsewhere without disrupting existing communities as per studies by The Brookings Institution. Please sign this petition if you share these concerns about preserving Elk River's character while still addressing affordable housing needs responsibly. Your signature can make a difference! Share this petition in person or use the QR code for your own material. Download QR Code Page 233 of 254 Page 234 of 254 Page 235 of 254 Page 236 of 254 Page 237 of 254 Page 238 of 254 Page 239 of 254 Page 240 of 254 Page 241 of 254 Page 242 of 254 Page 243 of 254 Page 244 of 254 Page 245 of 254 Concept ReviewWaltonRueter Background Proposed garages help further screen the parking lotIncrease distance from existing residentialPositioned closer to the north and west sqftWill consist of 3 stories, each around 37,000 unit residential apartment project -Proposed 96If favorable, many questions and details to followRequesting feedback on the city's interest of an apartment Parking 96 Enclosed30 Enclosed31%240 Total184 Total77%RequiredProposed Difference 1 space completely enclosed 2½ parking spaces per dwelling unit Ordinance Land Use residential (Multifamily)Apartment project would require a land use amendment to storage facility -Facilitate construction of a miniCity initiated amendmentOverlooked with 2021 updateHighway BusinessTraditional SF Residential to -Amended Commercial-Zoned PUD not the zoning–in December 2022 Land UseCity amended  Background TIF (Tax Increment Financing) or AbatementResolution of support does not obligate the city to provide any Requires a resolution of support from the CCRequesting financial assistance from the state Planning Commission Suggested parcel be maintained as commercialBut too dense for the subject parcel project, in general, was good -Consensus  Planning Commission Staff have received three letters of objectionCommission shared some of their concernsProperty valueSafetyTrafficZoning requirementsLand useReceived comments from the public, which focused on Action Requested PUD if deviations requestedStraight R4 zoningan application is receivedDevelopment/designs standards will be reviewed/required, if the subject parcel?Is the city interested in entertaining an apartment project on high level look–This is a concept review  Action Requested on the subject parcelregarding council’s support for a residential apartment complex binding, feedback -Provide the applicant with informal, non Public Comment Likely will be a PUDDoes not meet R4 districtDensity Public Comment functional classification in comp plan)Not a major collector or arterial street (based on provide a landscaped buffer yardarterial streets, an additional 20 feet of setback is required to development parcel for yards bordering major collector or ) Setbacks, yard: 30 feet at the periphery of the 3(4under or underground garage-every tuckMultifamily lot size may be reduced by 400 square feet for 33 Apartment seweredSetbacks Public Comment Parking stall sizecommercial–Zoned PUD Zone changed Public Comment Park trailsite storm water retention-Lack of onEmergency vehicle access