Loading...
01-11-2006 PC MIN MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006 Members Present: Chair Anderson, Offerman, Lemke, Ropp, Scott, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: None Staff Present: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 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 6:47 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 2. Consider 1/10/06 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 10, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3.1. Consider December 13, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 13, 2005 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend January 17, 2006 City Council Meeting Commissioner Offerman will attend the January 17, 2006 City Council meeting. (Commissioner Lemke excused himself from the meeting at this time – 6:00 p.m.) 5.1. Request by New Century Land Development for Land Use Amendment from CC (Community Commercial) to UR (Urban Residential), Public Hearing – Case No. LU 05-05 5.2. Request by New Century Land Development for Rezoning from C3 (Highway Commercial) and R3 (Townhouse District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), Public Hearing – Case No. ZC 05-03 5.3. Request by New Century Land Development for Conditional Use Permit for Residential Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing – Case No. CU 05-17 5.4. Request by New Century Land Development for Preliminary Plat – Heritage Maples, Public Hearing – Case No. P 05-16 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker explained that at the November 212005 City Council , meeting, the Council postponed action on these items and referred them back to the Planning Commission for further review. Mr. Harlicker provided information from the staff report for each of the four issues associated with the Heritage Maples residential townhouse PUD. He reviewed the location of the proposed project, surrounding land uses, current land use and zoning, lot sizes and layout, streets/parking, landscaping, elevations, and park Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 10, 2006 --------------------------- dedication. Staff recommends approval of the requests with the conditions outlined in the staff report to the Commission dated January 10, 2006. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Victor Pacheco, representing New Century Land Development, applicant - Provided reasons which he felt supported the land use change and rezoning, including: -One of the two properties in the project is already zoned R3 -Access to the site for a commercial use is poor -Market conditions for commercial use are poor -Attempts to market the site for commercial use have failed -The property owners have been unable to find a suitable market for the property in the 10 years they have owned it. -The site is surrounded by residential uses and can only be accessed through residential streets. Commissioner Offerman stated that he agreed with the applicant that the property would not likely develop as a commercial use, since it is quite far from the core of the City. He felt the project would have value to the 55 and older market. Commissioner Scott questioned whether the site would be marketable for office use, possibly a light manufacturing use. Mr. Pacheco stated that he felt office users want to be closer to the core of the downtown. He noted that he did not speak with any office users and felt that market is depressed right now. He felt that light industrial development is likely to happen further west on Highway 10. Commissioner Stevens felt that office condos are becoming popular. He felt that if the market comes back, and this property is developed as residential, they will have lost an opportunity. Commissioner Westgaard stated that the current access is through residential developments. If it were possible to access the site from Waco, light industrial would be more likely. Commissioner Offerman stated that he concurred with Mr. Pacheco’s comments and did not see a problem with a 55 and over residential development. He felt the land owner has a right to develop the property and stated he would support the request. Mr. Pacheco stated that the PUD concept allows a creative way to lay out a very difficult piece of property for development. He stated that this development will be the first thing when motorists enter Elk River city limits. He stated that the development will be an attractive single level living development to serve the needs of active older adults. Mr. Pacheco stated that he has had over 30 meetings with the City staff, boards and commissioners on this project, and has also invested a good deal of time and money. He noted that the City Engineer did not feel it was necessary to attend this evening’s meeting, as they have addressed most of his concerns. He stated that the neighboring residents preferred to see a residential use for the site, rather than commercial. He stated that they will respect the City’s concerns for the wetland buffer. Commissioner Scott asked if the applicant considered a 2 or 3 story building, such as condominiums. Mr. Pacheco stated that the farther a property is from the metro area, the less interest there is in condominiums. He stated that they did not see a 2-3 story design as being marketable, and that a one-level townhome project was more likely to succeed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 10, 2006 --------------------------- Commissioner Scott asked if the square footage of the units was available. Mr. Pacheco stated he did not have that information available at this time. Chair Anderson asked if the exterior building materials meet the R3 standards. Mr. Harlicker stated that the project includes the required mix of materials, but that he did not have the exact percentages available. Mr. Pacheco stated that they will meet the R3 standards and that this could be included in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Offerman felt that the wetland enhancements and rain gardens were amenities, since the applicant could have done ponds. Also, the applicant is constructing the frontage road at their cost, and is extending it into Big Lake Township. Also, the sidewalks are amenities. Mr. Pacheco stated that a plaza with ornamental trees and pavers will be included, in addition to paying the required park dedication fees. Commissioner Stevens asked what the distance was between the units. Mr. Pacheco stated that there is 30 feet between the actual living spaces. Mr. Harlicker noted that a 5-foot garage side yard setback is required for most urban lots. Mr. Pacheco stated that he felt they have addressed each of the staff’s concerns and that any small issues could be dealt with administratively. Chair Anderson asked how many buildings encroach the wetland buffer. Mr. Harlicker stated that one building is slightly into the buffer setback. Commissioner Scott asked if the buildings inside the loop could be pulled up further north to get the one building to the south out of the setback. Mr. Pacheco stated that would not be possible due to the location of the electrical easement. Commissioner Offerman stated that he did not feel the risk of encroachment into the wetlands would be an issue, since the lawn maintenance would be done by a professional service. Commissioner Stevens stated that he would like to have seen at least of portion of the site remain for commercial use. He stated that he also would like to have seen units 13 and 28 removed to allow more space in the center island, although it appears the developer has done the best he could. He stated that he understood this was a tough site to deal with. Commissioner Scott stated that he was leaning toward approval, because of the type of project proposed, and given the fact there is so much residential surrounding the site. He noted that he did feel that at some point in the future, the site may have been marketed for commercial. Commissioner Offerman stated that he was in favor of approval. He stated that the Planning staff’s and City Engineer’s concerns have been addressed. He felt the applicant has presented a good case as to why the site is not viable for commercial development. He did not feel that they were giving up a major opportunity. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he agreed with most of Commissioner Offerman’s comments. He questioned whether the four easterly units encroached in the wetland setbacks. He agreed this was a challenging parcel to address. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he had no other concerns that would prevent support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 10, 2006 --------------------------- Chair Anderson stated he appreciated Mr. Pacheco working with the City. He stated that the challenges of the site, the setbacks and easements required the applicant to be very creative. He felt this development would have less impact on the wetlands than the West Oaks development. He stated that he was disappointed that even one of the building pads was allowed in the wetland buffer. He stated that he did not feel the City should give up on a better use for the site and felt a commercial use could work someday. Chair Anderson also stated he did not see the PUD working in the City’s favor. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIOENR ROPP TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY NEW CENTURY LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO UR (URBAN RESIDENTIAL), CASE NO. LU 05-05, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1.THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. 2.THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE BECAUSE IT IS ACCESSED FROM LOCAL STREETS THAT SERVICE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Chair Anderson and Commissioner Stevens opposed. ---------------------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY NEW CENTURY LAND DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM C3 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) AND R3 (TOWNHOMES) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CASE NO. ZC 05-03, BASED ON THE FOLLWING FINDINGS: 1.THE PROPOSED PUD ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED LAND USE OF URBAN RESIDENTIAL. 2.THE PROPOSED PUD ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND TOWNHOUSE ZONING. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Chair Anderson and Commissioner Stevens opposed. ------------------------------ MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HERITAGE MAPLES, A 52-UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, CASE NO. P 05-16 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT APPROVAL PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 10, 2006 --------------------------- 2.SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE BE PAID IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 3.THE LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL COVER WETLAND MITIGATION. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE IN PLACE OVER THE WETLAND AND THE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS. 4.RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS SHALL BE RECORDED ON THE WETLAND AND THE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS. 5.A THREE YEAR MONITORING REPORT ON THE WETLAND MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. 6.THE CITY ENGINEER’S COMMENTS BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLANS. 7.STREET LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER UTILITIES. 8.A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COSTS OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 9.UPON COMPLETING ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVING THEM ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, A WARRANTY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 25% OF THE IMPROVEMENT COSTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. 10.A SEALCOAT FEE IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 11.A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 12.A DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 13.ALL GRADING BE CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 14.ALL MAILBOXES BE CLUSTERED. 15.A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN BE APPROVED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 16.ANY TREES OFF SITE OR ON SITE, NEAR THE LIMIT OF GRADING THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED, SHALL BE FENCED WITH A SNOW FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE TO PREVENT GRADING, COMPACTION, OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, DEBRIS OR MATERIALS. STAFF SHALL INSPECT FENCING PRIOR TO GRADING COMMENCING. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 10, 2006 --------------------------- 17.WATER ACCESSIBILTY FEES IN THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE CITY BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 18.ANY ITEM OR CONDITION FOUND THAT INDICATES THE SITE IS LIKELY TO YIELD INFORMATION IMPORTANT TO PRE-HISTORY OR HISTORY SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CITY IMMEDIATELY. FURTHER, THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO STOP WORK AUTHORIZED IN ITS APPROVAL UNTIL THE SITE IS APPROPRIATELY INVESTIGATED AND WORK IS AUTHORIZED. 19.THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE CITY ON AN OAK WILT SUPPREESION PROGRAM. THIS PROGRAM SHALL BE APPROVED AND IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY TREE REMOVAL. 20.ALL COMMENTS CONTAINED IN REBECCA HAUG’S MEMOS DATED 9/13/05 AND 9/29/05 SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 21.PARK DEDICATION FEE IN THE AMOUNT APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL SHALL BE PAID FOR THE 52 UNITS. 22.THE APPLICANT SHALL BUILD THE FRONTAGE ROAD FROM BIG LAKE TOWNSHIP TO HIS EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AND PAY A FEE OF $750 PER DWELLING UNIT TOWARD COST OF LEADING ROAD OVER TO WACO STREET. 23.THE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE FOR RESIDENTS 55 AND OLDER. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Chair Anderson and Commissioner Stevens opposed. ------------------------------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY NEW CENTURY LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 05-17, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2.THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BE REVISED TO INCLUDE 30 OVERSTORY TREES BE PLANTED ALONG THE SERVICE ROAD. 3.THE WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE TEP PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ON SITE. 4.THE TOWNHOUSE ELEVATIONS SHALL, AT A MINIMUM, COMPLY WITH THE R3 DESIGN STANDARDS. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Chair Anderson and Commissioner Stevens opposed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 10, 2006 --------------------------- 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on December 19, 2005 City Council Meeting Commissioner Ropp provided an update on the December 19, 2005 City Council meeting. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary