Loading...
03-22-1982 PC MIN ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY Monday, March 22, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Pearce, Fredericksen, Kreuser, Gunkel and Chairman Tracy STAFF PRESENT: Rick Breezee, Building and Zoning Administrator 1. Meeting Called to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tracy at 7:40 p.m. 2. Agenda Supplementary information was handed out for Zack Johnson's presentation on R-3 Medium Density Residential (Agenda item #4) and for Ted Lundgren's request for a zone change from R-lb to R-3 (Agenda item #5). 3. Minutes COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CORRECT FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMITSSIONER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 4. Zack Johnson's presentation Relating to R-3/Mediurn Density Residential Mr. Johnson stated that basically staff had asked him to look at multi-family zoning in Elk River and make comments based on the work sessions held when the land use plan was being developed. He stated the result of the work sessions was a progression of low, medium, and high density residential (excluding the large agricultural areas). The high density uses, with 20-25 units per acre, were designed to be kept as close to the downto\Vll area as possible. He referred the Commissioners to the handout that breaks dO\Vll some of the land areas and types of development that were proposed to happen in Elk River. He explained no attempt was made to factor in the vacancy rate in existing buildings and that the figures do not include the PUDs in town, the one on west Highway 10, the two others located in the peat bog area, the two on 169 north of the nursing home, nor the two adjacent to 169 that either have or will have some multi-family development within them. After a thorough explanation of Exhibits A and B (see attached), the analysis and assumptions made in determining the holding capacities of the areas from a land use standpoint, Mr. Johnson concluded that the Land Use Guide Plan is a long-range plan, with the zoning map a tool to help the Planning Commission and Council work toward the intent of the long-range plan. He stated that when the Land Use Plan was adopted by the Planning Commission and the Council there was firm belief that there was a real need to conserve the outlying agricultural lands. He stated that in any de- velopment consideration, the critical question that must be asked is whether or not the City is going to be able to provide services such as water, sewer, parks--and that the City must utilize and pay for those services once construction has taken place. He added that perhaps from time to time all medium and high density areas Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1982 ,Page Two on the zoning map should be looked at and a decision made, taking into consideration technological changes and the economic environment. He said the City has much in- dustrial area without sewer and that factor should perhaps be looked at at the same time rezoning is being discussed. He stated that perhaps the areas where sewer is put in should be in the areas where new industry should develop. Chairman Tracy asked if the percentage of acreage (.3%) for high density develQp- ment as listed on Exhibit B would be a substantial amount for what appears to be a trend toward 8% medium density. Mr. Johnson replied it is hard to compare Elk River with other communities because it is 43 square miles in size with a large percentage of agricultural land or large lots. He said if you consider just the core area, where most of the development is now, that is a very reasonable percentageof high-medium density for a community the size of Elk River. Chairman Tracy asked how far around the do\~to\vn area in each direction the core area extends. Mr. Johnson replied it extends out Main Street to 169, to School Street out to Proctor, but he added it is more clearly defined according to the City's ability to provide urban services. He added that the core area is spoken of more in terms of the concept of starting at the middle of the activity and working out. Chairman Tracy remarked that he had been part of the original planning process and he questioned, based on the previous discussion and explanation of exhibits, if Mr. Johnson was implying that he believed in any way that the City's zoning in re- gard to land use is not what it should be. Mr. Johnson answered that he had a great deal of confidence in the methods used by the Planning Commission and the Council and that the conclusions they made were very valid. He stated that the Land Use Map deals with large areas of planning classifi- cations, with the long-term zoning map a tool to arrive at the desired plan. He added that the decision to build from the core out in a logical sequence has been reaffirmed by the HRA's commitment that the do\vuto\Vll area was worth saving. He stated that every city should reassess its zoning efforts every four to five years because it is impossible to predict socia-economic trends. He pointed out that the idea of single family homes on five acre lots is not valid today and thus the trend toward to\vnhouse and condominium development. He explained that these kinds of changes make readjustments in planning necessary. Commissioner Pearce stated that based on this discussion, the Lundgren area of pro- posed development is not in conflict with the Land Use Map (medium density residen- tial) but is in conflict with the Zoning Map. Mr. Johnson explained that the overall goal is to achieve an overall balance, that developments must be consistent with the things around them. He stated that if 2,300 acres of medium density is platted, it does not necessarily mean that all or any of it can be built to the maximum. Rather, it was the intent of the task force Planning Commission Minutes :tvlarch 22, 1982 , Page Three who put the Land Use Plan together to look at a proposal and see if in that gen- eral area the density is medium density, taking into consideration, for example, that density is higher in the downtown core area and lower in the outer areas. 5. Consider Ted Lundgren's Request for Zone Change from R-lb to R-3 Mr. Lundgren explained that his proposal consists of approximately 102 to\vnhouses, attached single family dwellings, 36 units of quads, and 36 apartments. He stated that the land adjacent to it is zoned R-3 and R-4 on the south, R-lb on the east, R-lb on the north, and R-2 and parkland on the west. He stated that City services of water and sewer are available and the entire project would be served by a home- o\vner's association which would take care of grass mowing, planting trees, sodding, removing dead trees, etc. He stated that two years ago, prior to adoption of the new zoning ordinance, he had brought this proposal in as a PUD and it was approved by the Council on a 5-0 vote. The Council, however, said that the l7~ acre size conflicted \nth the ordinance that requires a PUD to be 20 acres. He stated that the proposal is for very attractive, marketable homes, not subsidized housing. Chairman Tracy asked if the whole project would be built at once, or if building would take place in phases. Mr. Lundgren answered that they would begin by building the 14 attached single fam- ily homes on Highland and would move north as it would build out gradually, finally comprising between t\olO and seven subdivisions. Mr. Breezee explained that at this time the rezoning request was the only item up for consideration, as the project would be completed gradually phase by phase and each subdivision would require preliminary and final plat approval. Chairman Tracy opene'd the meeting to comments from the citizens present. Rich Pericat stated he lived immediately north of this area. He said when he pur- chased his home in 1980 he was told that land was zoned residential or parkland. He said he opposed this proposal because it would lower the value of his horne, increase the traffic on 193rd and threaten the lives of his children and other children \olho play in the nearby park. He \olondered wh'ere the \Vater run-off \vould go. He stated that the City had many other medium density areas this project could locate in and he questioned why the zoning should be changed after such a short time, es- pecially since his decision to buy here was based on that zoning remaining the same. Gary Santwire stated he o\ms two single family homes across the street from the proposed rezoning. He said he has t\vO potential buyers \\Tho are very upset about the proposed change. He stated that the people in this area O\oln one-acre sites, and that this proposal would allow three units per one acre. Mr. Santwire also stated as a developer in Elk River, he \Vas opposed to the rezoning. He read one of the four letters previously sent to the Planning Commission with regard to this proposal. He stated that the l7~ acres in question here is owned by a company in Minneapolis and if the rezoning does not go through, the applicant has the option not to pur- chase the property. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1982 Page Four Mr. Greg Johnson stated he opposed the rezoning for density reasons, that there are plenty other areas left to develop at this density in Elk River. Mr. Jim Egan stated he lives 1/2 mile northwest, in Ridgewood Estates, and that this proposal should be kept in an area already zoned for it. Mr. Richard Wooley, resident on Highland, stated he opposed the rezoning stating it would destroy the reasons he had for purchasing in that area. Mr. Harold Gramstad stated he believed this proposal would have a drastic effect on property values and increase the traffic immensely. Mr. Clem Darkenwold said this proposal does not agree with the concept of develop- ing the core area first and moving out from that, especially since the core area can both accommodate and service a proposal like this one. He added that he believed since the zoning IDap was just adopted and because of the surplus of R-3 in the core area, the plan is not in the best interests of the citizens of Elk River. Mr. Phil Halls stated he opposed for previous reasons given. Dr. Harold Johnson stated he purchased his property because it was zoned parkland and single family. He stat- ed. the proposed rezoning would cause traffic to pick up and the area would get loud. Mr. Bob Syring, 194th Avenue, stated that recognlzlng governmental bodies must serve the residents that exist, he wondered what need has been demonstrated by Mr. Lund- gren other than an economic need. Mr. Gil Darkenwold stated he spoke for six families who purchased their homes be- cause they did not believe the zoning would change. Mr. Breezee stated that Mr. Lundgren is proposing only the first phase and that there was nothing saying that in one, two, or five years, single family homes could not make up the entire proposal. He reminded the group that in planning, the trend is toward homes that are more affordable because people cannot now afford to pur- chase single family homes. Mr. Gary Santwire wondered where the City would stop rezoning once it began. He stated that one year ago, there was another proposal for a zoning change to R-3 and R-4 zoning and that application was turned do\vu. Mr. Doug Johnson stated that his property was the piece of property in discussion by Mr. Santwire; and while he does not live anywhere near this proposal, he wondered if this property is rezoned, could he come back in with his plan and expect sim- ilar approval to build. Mr. Rick Johnson stated the developer he purchased his home from made a promise that something like this would not happen; he wondered who was liable in a case like this. Mr. Ted Lundgren stated he does not see a need for this type of development, as the units will be priced at $50,000. Chairman Tracy commented that every time there is a proposal for multiple family Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1982 Page Five housing, people in the immediate area are opposed. He stated the trend seems to suggest there is a need for this, although he was not suggesting we have to have this in Elk River. Mr. Rick Foster stated that this proposal is not leap-frog zoning because the land next to it is R-3, R-4, and R-2. He stated he called the FHA to determine whether a single family attached home being surrounded by single or multiple family homes affects the property value of the home. He stated the FHA stand is that it does not. He explained that with an additional 40 residents, there probably would be more traffic, but that most would go east to 201 to 169 and that according to City plans, Highland is proposed as an 80' wide collector street. He stated that the City recently received a copy of the storm water run-off plan for this area and that plan shows a dry pond in the park and run- off would go through the School Street pond. Chairman Tracy questioned the park area on Lundgren's diagram. Mr. Breezee stated that area was City owned property for a proposed park. The City Administrator, Mr. Bob Middaugh, explained to the audience that this land was dedicated for park land before the City had a park dedication ordinance or could exercise any control over what it was getting. He stated that that partic- ular piece of park land is largely unusable. Mr. Rick Johnson stated that when they purchased, they were told the park would be developed when the area was 75% completed and the density of 'the area was brought to 75%. Chairman Tracy stated that while the Planning Commission does not hold public hearings, they like to hear comments from involved people. He told the group the Council would be considering this proposal on the third Monday in April and they could then re-address their concerns. He then closed the meeting to the Planning Commission discussion only. Chairman Tracy stated that the job of the Planning Commission is not to determine whether or not Elk River needs this type of development now, but whether it needs it for the future. He stated he did not see this proposal as in conflict with the Land Use Map. Mr. Breezee stated that based on Zack Johnson's presentation and what is allowed by the Land Use Map as medium density as far as maximum units and what can be built (12 units or less per single structure) this proposal is in compliance with the Land Use Map. Bob Middaugh explained that technically, the Land Use Map does allow R-3 in all medium density areas. According to Zack's comments, he explained, the intent was to avoid having an entire large area become R-3 and being developed to its maximum potential. He added that the Planning Commission must look carefully at where they rezone areas in order that they are compatible with surrounding uses. Commissioner Pearce asked how many acres of R-3 zoned land now exist. It was determined that excluding two R-3 developments now in planning, 35 acres of R-3 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1982 Page Six land exist that can be called realistically developable. Commissioner Gunkel stated she agreed that to\vuhouse development and quads are the trend in the market right now, but that she believed enough land is presently zoned to handle that demand for many years. She said she had taken a drive that day through the area and that the ten density units per acre is steep when considering the surrounding area is one acre lots, now sewered. She said she did not believe the zoning should be changed at this time, but if it could be shown this is needed in the future, it could be looked at then. She added that there did not seem to be an alternate plan for develop- ment and judging from the present market, she could not see that the developer would consider single family homes if he could build higher density units. Commissioner Pearce stated he believed the concept of multiple dwellings will become more and more important. He stated that when Mr. Lundgren came in be- fore, he looked on his proposal favorably, and still does. He said he was not convinced the proposal was incompatible or would reduce property value, as multiple dwellings can be very nice. He explained that the timing disturbs him now. He said they should be cautious about rezoning 17 acres, because once it is R-3, it cannot go back. He stated that including the PUD areas, there are perhaps 60-70 acres right now that could be developed in the future for multiple dwellings. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL tffiDE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM R-Ib TO R-3 BE DENIED. COMMISSIONER FREDERICKSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 6. Consider Brutger Final Plat Approval Mr~ Breezee explained that this proposal is identical to that previously ap- proved by the Planning Commission except that the drawings were done on a legal document to finalize it. He explained that previously Brutger had been required to allow a 50-foot setback for possible storm drainage, but now only 20 feet is needed. He explained this needed to be changed or Brutger could not build with- in that 30' area. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE 50 FOOT EASEMENT ON THE NORTH EDGE OF THE PROPERTY BE VACATED IN ORDER TO REESTABLISH. A 20' EASEMENT. CO~IISSIONER FREDERICKSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. COMMISSIONER PEARCE }~DE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPT THE FINAL PLAT AS PRESENTED BY THE BRUTGER COMPANY. COMMISSIONER FREDERICKSEN SEC- ONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 7. Consider Bill Murphy's Request for Zone Change from R-lc to R-2 Mr. Breezee explained that this proposal involves three lots with two family units on each. He said the property has- zero lot line and is o\mer-occupied on_ each side. He stated Mr. Murphy does not plan to rezone the area and let it set. Mr. Murphy stated the units are two-bedroom, with each having a garage; the units are bi-Ievel. He stated he had contingency purchase agreements on a couple of these units already and if the rezoning passes, he plans to build this sunnner . Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1982 Page Seven Chairman Tracy stated that at every meeting it seems a zoning change is re- quested either for a small area or a larger area. He asked Zack Johnson to de- fine spot zoning. Mr. Johnson stated that spot zoning is considered a zoning change done primarily to benefit a specific land o\vner for a use which is not compatible with surrounding uses and not done for the purpose or effect of furthering comprehensive zoning plans; so, you are dropping a spot of some use in a larger whole or group of zon- ing uses which is different. For example, an area that is all R-l with a spot of R-3 in the middle is spot zoned. He explained that zoning is supposed to be used to expand from a previously classified zone; it is supposed to add to usages as opposed to leap-froging over it. He stated different states and courts argue whether or not spot zoning is illegal or not, but zoning is held invalid if the following three test rules apply: 1) A small parcel is singled out for privileged treatment; 2) The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the proposed o'\mer's benefit; 3) The action is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). He further added that these rules apply whether the land involved is residential, commercial, or industrial. With regard to Mr. Murphy's plan, both Commissioner Pearce and Gunkel believed the proposal would upgrade the araa. Chairman Tracy stated it complied with the Land Use Map. Mr. Johnson stated the proposal would be a density change, but that R-lc and R-2 overlap, so it would be hard to determine if this was spot zoning, but he did not think so. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BILL MURPHY PROPERTY BE REZONED FROM R-lc to R-2 BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITH ZACK JOHN- SON. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 8. Review Proposed Ordinance Language Regarding Accessory Structures Mr. Breezee explained that City ordinances do not have a clear definition of the '\vord "agricultural". He stated that there is a real need to have specific defini- tions because the law states that a city can adopt stronger definitions, but can- not adopt \veaker ones. He said that the definition for "agricultural" as it stands now is so weak that it could apply to anyone with a horse and a stack of hay. He explained that the State Statutes define this work in such an explicit way there is no way for it to be mis-construed. Commissioner Pearce asked how this would affect Green Acres laws. Mr. Breezee said the City Attorney could answer that. The Commissioners asked !vir. Breezee to redefine the \vord "agricultural" and get back to them, at which time they will adopt a motion for Council approval. Commissioner Gunkel pointed out that in Item 2(g)2, R-lb should be added to read: "No metal skinned structures shall be allowed in R-la and R-lb zoned areas except \vhen used specifically for agricultural purposes..." Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1982 Page Eight After considerable discussion of Item 900.2(d) it was agreed that the words tI~vood or masonry" should be deleted to read as follo\vs: "Portable Utility structures not exceeding 120 square feet in size may be permitted in any residential or agricultural zoned area and may be constructed of metal and comply with the required setbacks. The structures must be an- chored to the ground." CO}illISSIONER GUNKEL MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AS REVISED IN- CLUSIVE OF A CLEAR DEFINITION OF THE TERM "AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES." COM:MISSIONER PEARCE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 9. Review Procedure for Conditional Use Permits Commissioner Pearce stated he believed that as long as the staff has accepted the responsibility for administering conditional. use permits, no action other than that would have to be taken since any problems would be reported by neighbors. Chairman Tracy said a time limit was a good idea, though, because it would allow for the CUP to be put in a come-up file for systematic review. I Commissioner Pearce agreed there should be regular review by City staff, but if reapplication is required, a fee would have to be charged, but at a lower rate. Chairman Tracy stated the Planning Commission should not have to review the CUP after the first time unless a problem had developed. Commissioner Pearce agreed they should not have to come before the Planning Com- mission again, but they could go back in to staff for review and renewal at a fee. Commissioner Kreuser stated every CUP is different and should be reviewed; a use that may have been fine two years ago may not be fine with the neighbors now. He stressed that CUPs must be followed up ~r people should just be left to do what they want to do. He cited that in some cases people have had a conditional use per- mit for ten years and have never been checked on. Chairman Tracy stated perhaps a fee should be charged for rene\val only if a problem developed. Staff was asked to review the process and fee schedule for condtional use permits. 10. Slide Presentation by the Building and Zoning Administrator Mr. Breezee presented to the Planning Commission members a 20-minute slide tape presentation relating to Building Safety month that will be in effect during the month of April. Planning Commission Minutes rlarch 22, 1982 Page Nine 11. Adjournment Tnere being no further business, COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0g~ Rick Breezee Building and Zoning Administrator RB : cl