The URL can be used to link to this page

8.5. & 8.6. & 8.7. SR 05-15-1995~~r ~~ ~~ ity of ~~ lk • River To: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM ITEMS 8.5., 8.6. ~ 8.7. Mayor and City Council Steven B. Ach, City Planner May 15,1995 SUBJECT: Land Use Amendment and Rezoning Request By Dennis Anderson Public Hearing Case No. LUA 95-4 and ZC 95-4 ISSUE Dennis Anderson is requesting the following: (A) Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment changing the land use from 1VIR (Medium Density Residential) to HB (Highway Business). • (B) Rezoning from Rl C (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) based on the submitted concept plan. *(C) The Conditional Use Permit request for a development plan is not being considered at this time. *This application will be reviewed if the rezoning is approved and a specific development is eminent. LOCATION Outlot `A', Brentwood subdivision (southwest corner of 197th and Highway 169). ZONING/LAND USE Rlc (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential). ATTACHMENTS • Report to the Planning Commission dated Apri125, 1995 • Letter from Brentwood resident • 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to City Council Page 2 May 15, 1995 OVERVIEW The attached report to the Planning Commission describes the background related to Outlot A, as well as staffs review of the applications requested by Dennis Anderson. Please refer to that report for a complete description of the applications. PROCEDURE Mr. Anderson's applications include a land use plan amendment and rezoning to planned unit development (PUD). Along with the rezoning application a concept plan has been submitted to assist the Planning Commission and City Council in considering the change in zoning from R1C (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). One of the benefits in considering a rezoning to planned unit development, the City Council may approve this rezoning based on the submitted concept plan and attach certain conditions to mitigate impacts upon adjacent properties which may result as part of the development. The rezoning process to a planned unit development is slightly different than a traditional rezoning. The primary difference lies within the rezoning based on a "conceptual" development plan. To mitigate impacts the development may have on surrounding properties and still allow the development to fit within a particular location, certain • conditions can be attached to the concept plan as part of the rezoning. Conditions such as the following: • Increased landscaping areas (i.e., 50' to 100' setback areas) • Maximum building size • Signage standards • Specifying types of uses • Density of development • Architectural standards for each of the buildings are just a few examples of what may be included in considering a planned unit development. If the rezoning and "concept plan" (with conditions) is approved by the City Council, the next step is for a detailed review of the proposed development. This typically occurs when an actual user for the property steps forward. This step is administered through the conditional use permit process, involving public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. If the specific development plan is consistent with the "concept plan" (as approved with the rezoning), the Council will be in a position of having to act affirmatively. The rezoning will have already granted the property owner certain rights that may be difficult to deny at this point in the process. s:council:lua95-4 Memo to City Council Page 3 May 15, 1995 . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission felt the proposed development was too intense, created a traffic problem, and had a direct impact on the surrounding residential area. These concerns, along with comments presented by residents and findings outlined in staff's memo, were the basis for denying the land use plan amendment and rezoning request. Prior to this recommendation, Commissioner Kreger suggested tabling the application and having the applicant meet with the residents to modify the proposed plan. Commissioner Kreger offered a list of suggestions in revising the plans, however, this suggestion was not supported by the Planning Commission (please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for further details). STAFF CONCLUSIONS After reviewing and giving full consideration of the land use plan amendment and rezoning, staff submits the following conclusions: • The proposed development has characteristics of a regional retail business and is therefore, too intense for this particular parcel. This type of development would better serve the community in another location where making infrastructure • improvements will create less of an impact on surrounding properties and/or necessary improvements maybe planned for sometime in the future. • The proposed rezoning and land use plan change would impact the character and integrity of surrounding residential areas. • The necessary transportation improvements, including a frontage road extending north of 193rd to the development, would be detrimental to the four single family homes along Holt and others in the general vicinity. • An alternative development for Outlot A with land use other than commercial may not require a frontage road and be more compatible with the surrounding area. • The Steering Committee has not yet identified the commercial and industrial growth areas and, therefore, this proposal may be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. • The subject properly is separated by an existing residential area from the commercial corridor south of 193rd; therefore, the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment to commercial would not be a logical extension of the regional-type commercial developments that are occurring south of 193rd Avenue. C] s:council:lua95-4 Memo to City Council Page 4 May 15, 1995 • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider one of the following: Deny the comprehensive land use plan amendment and rezoning based on the findings mentioned above. 2. Recommend the plans be revised by reducing the amount of commercial and send the applications back to the Planning Commission for consideration. 3. Approve the comprehensive land use plan amendment to HB (Highway Business) and rezoning to PUD (Planned Unit Development) based on the concept plan with certain conditions. The City Council may wish to consider the following conditions for the concept plan: The green space along Irving Street be a minimum of 40 feet wide and include a 5' to 6' berm with extensive landscaping, providing a natural buffer between the commercial project and residential area. 2. Signage for the development should be designed to minimize the possible impact on surrounding residential uses. The following guidelines should . be followed: • No wall or free-standing signage be permitted along Irving Street and 197th Avenue. • One free-standing sign be allowed for each developable lot. Free-standing signs be of a monument style with a maximum height that will be sensitive to the surrouding area and consistent with recent developments along Highway 169. 3. All loading berths/areas be screened 100% from all residential properties and public rights-of--way. 4. Storm water retention areas be constructed in location(s) that will not require the removal of trees. Furthermore, retention ponds within setbacks/landscaped areas along Holt Street should be discouraged. 5. The planned unit development include the development of only Lot 1, Block 2, and be limited to one "big box" general retail user. If a multi- - tenant strip center is considered at a later date in place of the single user, an amendment to the concept plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. s:council:lua95-4 Memo to City Council Page 5 May 15, 1995 --------------------------------- 6. No outdoor storage, displaying of merchandise, or open sales area be allowed unless made part of and incorporated into the architectural design of the building. 7. Developer be responsible for paying fair share of all required off-site improvements in order to develop the subject property. These improvements shall be outlined and made part of the developer's agreement. 8. All parking lot and building lighting be down-lit and directed away from surrounding properties. 9. No vehicle access to Lot 1, Block 2, shall be allowed from Irving Avenue. If the City Council approves the land use plan amendment and rezoning applications, staff would suggest the Council direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution and ordinance documents for Council consideration at their next meeting. • s:council:lua95-4 .. r ~~ (~ ~~y of ~, ilk • River TO: FROM: DATE: ITEMS 5.~., 5.3.&5.4. MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Steven B. Ach, City Planner~~ April 25, 1995 SUBJECT: Land Use Amendment and Rezoning Request by Dennis Anderson, Public Hearing Case No. LUA 95-4 and ZC 95-4 Request Dennis Anderson is requesting the following: (A) Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment changing the land use from MR (Medium Density Residential) to HB (Highway • Business). (B) Rezoning from R1C (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) based on the submitted concept plan. *(C) The Conditional Use Permit request for a development plan is not being considered at this time. *This application will be reviewed if the rezoning is approved and a specific development is eminent. Location Outlot A, Brentwood Subdivision, Sherburne County, MN (southwest corner of 197th and Highway 169). Attachments • Memo from City Engineer, Terry Maurer dated April 19, 1995 • Zoning and Land Use Plan Maps • Concept Plan for proposed PUD rezoning • Attachment A -Minutes from previous Planning Commission and City • Council Meetings regarding Brentwood Subdivision • Attachment B -Information submitted by Dennis Anderson 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to the Planning Commission Page 2 April 25, 1995 • Attachment C -Staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1994 • Attachment D -Planning Commission Minutes dated June 28, 1994 • Attachment E -Steering Committee Minutes dated December 1, 1994 • Attachment F -Inventory of Commercial Property • Attachment G -PUD Ordinance • Attachment H -Goals and Policies from 1988 Comprehensive Plan Bacckground Outlot A of the Brentwood Subdivision, a vacant seventeen (17) acre outlot, is currently zoned Rlc (Single Family Residential) with an underlying land use of MR (Medium Density Residential). The Brentwood Subdivision was platted in 1980 into 101 single family lots with an average lot size of approximately 2 to 2 1/2 acres. The request involves a land use amendment and rezoning from Rlc (Single. Family Residential) and MR (Medium Density Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and HB (Highway Business). History of Outlot A Research into the Brentwood Subdivision shows that very few details on the . future use of Outlot A were recorded. The minutes of the March 3, 1980, City ~'' Council meeting indicated that the future use of Outlot A was discussed. The applicant indicated at this meeting that "the plans for the use of the outlot were dependent on community demands and needs." However, the current land use and zoning designation indicate single family residential. Attached is a copy of this material along with other minutes relating to the platting of Brentwood. Overview The subject 17 acre parcel is a relatively flat with virtually no trees. The outlot is encompassed on all sides by residentially-zoned property. To the north and west, parcels are zoned Rla, which has a minimum lot size of 2 1/2 acres. To the east side of Highway 169, parcels are zoned Rte with a minimum lot size of 20, 000 square feet in size. To the south, R1c, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The primary access to the site is 197th Street and Irving Avenue via Holt coming from the south. Outlot A is the only portion of the Brentwood Subdivision which is currently planned for City services. However, this site does not have City services. available at this time. These services would have to be extended from 193rd and Jackson. Please refer to City Engineer Terry s:planning:pc:lua95-4 Memo to the Planning Commission Apri125, 1995 Page 3 Maurer's letter for additional information on traffic and utilities to serve the •,~ property. Additional Information Included in this report is a considerable amount of information the Commission should review before considering the applicant's requests. This information will not be discussed in detail; rather, may be referenced during this report. Land Use Amendment/Zonin~' The first item the Planning Commission shall consider is the land use plan amendment. The applicant's request would change the land use plan from Medium Density Residential to Highway Business. The second item the Planning Commission shall consider is the rezoning of the property from Rlc (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The applicant has submitted a concept plan illustrating how the 17 acre parcel could be developed under a PUD zoning. This plan is a "concept", however; demonstrates some of the fundamental elements to development of the site. For example, transportation, building size, buffer/landscaped areas and general utility information. When considering the rezoning requests the Planning Commission may ""tie" the concept plan to the PUD zoning. In other words, the rezoning and concept plan can be approved with conditions that will address infringement upon the surrounding residential, adversely impacting the transportation system and/or other facilities. The Planning Commission should refer to Attachment G which is the current PUD Ordinance and specifically review the Regulations section. This section outlines criteria for granting a rezoning to PUD. The Planning Commission may want to consider the following when reviewing these two applications: 1. The effect of the proposed rezoning on the comprehensive planning of the entire municipality. 2. The. changes in community characteristics that may take place .because of the projected land use plan change and rezoning. 3. The relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the present zoning map and land use plan, and whether a justification for s:planning:pc:lua95-4 Memo to the Planning Commission Apri125, 1995 ----------------------------------------------------- Page 4 change exists because of either special reasons or a change • in conditions. 4. Whether the rezoning is designed to correct an improper situation or would result merely in the granting of special privileges. 5. How can the surrounding areas be protected to establish a compatible land use between the two uses. 6. Is the proposed concept plan adequate for the proposed site and what design elements could/should be made part of the project to eliminate impacts on adjacent land uses. 7. Have times and conditions changed enough to warrant a change in the use and zoning. In order to adequately assess the change of land use and zoning for the subject property, one needs to step back and ask a few "comprehensive" questions. 1. How far north along Highway 169 should commercial extend? • 2. Should the City, through comprehensive planning efforts, guide this type of commercial to other areas of the City? 3. Can a transportation system be designed to serve this development without impacting the residential areas? 4. Would this rezoning be in conflict with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan? (Refer to Attachment H). 5. Does the City have an adequate inventory of available and future commercial opportunities without this rezoning? Concept Plan for PUD As mentioned earlier in this report, the concept plan is supposed to illustrate how the development can "fit" within a given area without causing undue hardship upon adjacent land uses and infrastructure. Staff's cursory review of the concept plans, as they relate to the PUD zoning, would include the fallowing comments: • s:planning:pc:lua95-4 Memo to the Planning Commission Page 5 Apri125, 1995 ----------------------------------------------------- • Site Plan • The subject property is somewhat separated from the surrounding residential by 197th Avenue and Irving Street. With this roadway and a large landscaped area, the opportunity exists to maximize the separation between the proposed commercial and residential land uses. By reducing the size of the building on Lot 1, Block 2, and possibly shifting the building towards Highway 169, this "buffer" area can be further enhanced. No loading dock locations are shown at this time. With a large retail business as proposed, a loading area will be necessary and quite active. Therefore, it would be recommended that all loading areas be located so they are not adjacent/visible to the homes on 194th Avenue nor from Irving Street. • The green space along Irving Street (west) and towards the south should be maximized by increasing the width, berming and extensive landscaping. This will provide a maximum buffer to the surrounding residential area. • Based on the proposed building square footages, adequate on-site parking can be provided. Streets/Storm Drainage/Utilities • Please refer to the City Engineer's letter dated 4/19/95. • The proposed retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 is in an area that is currently wooded. Rather than clearing trees to create a pond, every attempt should be made to utilize the opportunities upon the vacant land. However, buffer areas should not be compromised. to accomplish these ponding needs. Signage • Once again, to protect the surrounding residential areas, no signage should be allowed on the south or west side of the building and property. • Freestanding signage should be designed to be compatible with the building's architecture. Furthermore, the maximum height and overall area should be sensitive to the surrounding area. • s:planning:pc:lua95-4 Memo to the Planning Commission Apri125, 1995 ----------------------------------------------------- Uses Page 6 • The proposed uses appear to be a large general retail business along with a freestanding gas/service station. The general retail may be appropriate; however, outdoor storage, displays, and open outdoor areas may present a detriment upon surrounding land uses. Furthermore, limiting the hours of operation may be a consideration for development. • The gas station/convenience store may not be appropriate at its proposed location. Lights, traffic and hours of operation will directly impact the home north of 197th. Analysis The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning requested by Dennis Anderson has arguments which support the change to commercial as well as leaving the land use something other than commercial. Some of the positive results of commercial include: • The property is relatively void of any natural or major wooded areas allowing commercial development to occur without impacting these sensitive areas. • The property is within the current urban service area. • Access off of 197th which connects to Highway 169. • The property has excellent visibility from Highway 169. • Although surrounded by residential zoning, only seven homes are adjacent to or immediately across the street from the proposed development. • Commercial development contributes handsomely to the City tax base. • If the project consisted of a "major tenant' (i.e. Big Box Retailer) it would strengthen Highway 169's commercial corridor. On the other side, there are also negatives to commercial beginning with: • It is currently zoned Rlc with a residential land use, leading the residents in Brentwood and surrounding residential area to believe the property would be developed as some residential use. • Road improvements would have to made to accommodate the proposed development. Some of those improvements may impact existing residential homes and quality of life for residents. • The proposed project of approximately 120,000 square feet may be too intense for this particular property given its proximity to residential neighborhoods. • s:planning:pc:lua95-4 Memo to the Planning Commission Apri125, 1995 Page 7 Rezoning of this property may lead to other applications for commercial which will stretch commercial development further north on Highway 169. Conclusion As the City Engineer points out in his memo, the infrastructure to serve the proposed development can be accomplished. Furthermore, the commercial development could incorporate design and buffering to minimize the impact to surrounding residential areas. However, all these improvements would be done at the expense of impacting a residential area. Therefore, staff submits the following conclusions: • The development is too intense for this parcel and would better serve the community in another location. • The proposed rezoning and land use plan change would impact the character and integrity of surrounding residential areas. • The necessary transportation improvements north of 193rd to the development would be detrimental to the four single family homes along Holt. • The Steering Committee has not yet identified.. the commercial and industrial growth areas and therefore, this proposal may be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. • The rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment to commercial would not be a logical extension of the existing commercial developments south of 193rd Avenue. Recommendation It is recommended the Planning Commission recommend one of the following: (1) Deny the rezoning and comprehensive land use plan amendment based on the findings mentioned above. (2) Approve the applications with certain conditions to accomplish compatibility between the commercial and residential area; or, (3) Recommend the plans be revised to include a reduced commercial area and return to the Planning Commission at a later date for further consideration. s:planning:pc:lua95-4 I April 19, 1995 File: 230-267-11 1 I'UISI LI'11G E~1~IIEERS ~, Steve Ach City Planner 1326 Energy Park Drive 13065 Orono Parkway St. Paul, MN 55108 P.O. BOX 490 612-644-4389 Elk River, MN 55330-1900 1-800.888-2923 Fax: 612.644-9446 RE: OUTLOT A BRENTWOOD ADDITION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Dear Mr. Ach: As requested, we have reviewed the sketch plan for Outlot A of the Brentwood Addition. The plan shows a single user with a building size of 119,000 square feet. It is our understanding that this review is relative to a .rezoning request and will be rather cursory in nature. If in fact the property is rezoned, a much more detailed site plan would be submitted and at that time a more detailed review would be performed. Based on the information we have received, we offer the following comments: CIVII ENGINEERING: ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Traffic - MUNICIPAI PLANNING ouD WASTE Generally speaking, a building of this size assuming it to be some type of free sreuauRAL standing discount store will generate between $,000-10,000 vehicle trips per day. SURVEYING A vehicle coming t0 the building, and ultimately leaving the building is considered TRAFFIC two trips. During the average weekday p.m. peak hour, this type of facility would TRANSPORTATION generate 750-900 vehicle trips. The site is shown to have a direct link to the 197th Avenue and TH 169 intersection. The roadway serving the proposed building is a ELECTRICAuMECHANICAL newly constructed Holt Street On the east side of the site. There are no proposed ENGINEERING. access points onto the existing Irving Avenue on the west side of the site. Although HvA,C it is not shown, it is our understanding that it would be proposed to connect Holt POWER DISTRIBUTION Street southerly to Jackson Avenue. SCADA SYSTEM CONTROLS We believe the existing street infrastructure and proposed new construction can be established in such a manner to accommodate the amount of traffic anticipated to be generated by this type of facility. As you are aware, Jackson Avenue is already signalized at TH 169. We believe that the intersection of 197th Avenue and TH 169 could be signalized with the input of MnDOT. Obviously, if this project is to proceed forward, the developers should provide a traffic impact study, which would then be reviewed relative to specific traffic generated and the proposed infrastructure to handle it. That study should also identify the impact of the increased traffic on the adjacent residential neighborhood. OFFICES IN: MINNEAPOLIS '?RIOR LAKE ST. PAUL WASECA Mr. Steve Ach April 19, 1995 Page Two 2. Sanitary Sewer and Water • This piece of property is currently within the City's urban service district, although the remainder of the Brentwood Addition is not within the urban service district. Sanitary sewer and water to serve this site would come from Jackson Avenue at approximately the Freeport Avenue intersection. With the Elk Park Center project, sanitary sewer and trunk watermain were stubbed under Jackson Avenue at the intersection of Freeport Avenue. Since, generally speaking, the urban service area runs east and west with this particular piece of property being the northerly extreme, the route to bring sanitary sewer and water to this site is westerly thru the vacant piece of property adjacent to Jackson Avenue. The sewer water would then extend northerly around the St. Andrew cemetery to 193rd, then northerly along Holt Street to the project site. The sanitary sewer water would pass approximately 4-6 existing residential homes, and would also provide service to the vacant property just east of Jackson Avenue. Given the size of this facility, it is likely that the watermain would need to be looped to provide adequate fire flow. In order to provide for looping, a crossing under TH 169 would have to be made, and a connection to the existing watermain in the Hillside Crossing development on the east side of TFi 169. 3. Storm Drainage The sketch plan shows a fairly large retention pond at the southerly part of the project, with long narrow retention ponds running adjacent to Holt Street up to the intersection of 197th Avenue. Obviously, this type of facility would generate a substantial amount of runoff. According to City policy, sedimentation ponding would need to be established on site to control the quality of the runoff. The outlet from the storm drainage system would likely be, again, under TH 169 to the existing storm sewer facility in the Hillside Crossing development. There was additional capacity established in that drainage system for the eventual development of this .piece of property. If this project is to proceed, a detailed storm sewer analysis would need to be submitted, indicating the total amount of runoff from the site, amount capacity available in the Hillside Crossing system, and the amount ponding required on site to make the system work. We would mention initially that we are not in favor of these long narrow ponds adjacent to Holt Street. We would much prefer a large single retention pond. There is an internal storm drainage piping system shown for the parking lot. Although no storm sewer is shown on Holt Street, with the construction of the new urban street catch basins and pipe would need to be established along its length to • collect runoff from this area. Mr. Steve Ach • ; April 19, 1995 Page Three With our general knowledge of the storm sewer systems available in this area, we believe that an adequate design can be presented for this piece of property to deal with storm drainage issues for the type of development shown on the sketch plan. During our review we have not attempted to analyze parking needs, which are shown on the sketch plan. No topography is shown; therefore, no review of the proposed grading of the site has been conducted. Nor are items such as signing or landscaping shown; therefore, no review of these items has been prepared. In summary, we believe that the general traffic and utility service for this site can be dealt with adequately to support the type of commercial development shown on the sketch plan. If you have any questions regarding any of these comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Terry J. Maurer, P.E. TJM:pd 267-1910.apr • U. S. ~ - -_._ - 1~ _ ~ - ~ F~IiGl=1W,1Y -I l I ---__ - _ iI ~ BLK ~~: ,,::=b:R;1- 1 ,~ I ~I \ ~ ~ Q,/1n C~ / It sl•+tts ~ 3 rl. -- -------~---• - 1_ i t ~ 'L. 'W{S • 911. b~ 1 ~ ~ ~ r'~!"i / [ ~ -.1 v y:uts . s r'i ~11 1~1'1/~1r~jI1j x srA I I fI\ , ,~ / ~ ~ - _ _ _ BLK ]a sPAttS . f rl. n (~ ~ tl sPAars . s n. O 0 xe v'Aus . 19 n, "'-----a I ' (/ / Fr Oi•-.--_--mot]) LACES . yf1. 1 ~ t, ~ ~ ~ ]] srAas . s r 1. -~- - _~ • A • 1 ___.~~ L ___._ ~ ~ ~~ % ~ _ Ar ]3 LACES . f f 1. ~' ~.. - I _ '~] ~ . 1 \ ~_-~~~ ]3 -SPACES t-9 f i. a3 . f E I. •1 / tl SPA 1 \\ ~ \ ~i4x vc_rs • ~C 91'1, o \ \ ~ 4 ~~ J " u'+a s \ • s n, KYI M 1111 \ ~ \ 'p IL \ \ CH[EI/ SPACC \ a ~ \ ar \ a uni m vii n i a In ~•-~__ . .• .-~ " ' ~ ' 1.. 1 n ~ . ~ 111 ' I r" ...~. ....._ . .. _ .. _. ... _ t I i I ; , ,r x ~~ ~ I~ `. ( 17" '.I~, .i,•t~ I~~~ Iljj , ~i ~'' Y,1 ~~ j, ~Y, ; ~ Z „i, t li ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ \\a`' t ~i ~- $ 1 . ili; z 4: jJ~~ S ;L~ ," jlf ~~ i;~: , i~~! ,.~ „ . Ili ., 1 ~, 'i i:~! :. irl ' jl,j ,, '~I , i, ; ~i1; ~j,: ;; ~; ~. ~~ f l: - .. ~~,~ ,~ I . z `. Ali i- 0.• ~, ,1i. .~ .: :I1 ,•' !;,, 9 ~~II :~,; .;i~ r 1 e!I' S i 1~~1 2 1 ',,', ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~. , ~\ LO~A~'lflN ~A~ ~ CASE NO'S. LUA 95-4 ,~ ,~ ZC 95-4.: -.ryai~ - ~ CU 95-6 ~i..~ R'AT` p~-+ - -- --- •- =~•-1 1' Li P.O. Eax 490 • I~06~ Oro • no Par'.cxay E~~c River. y[N ~~-'~ • (6I?~-=' i-7~~0 .._~_ •} t 1 ~ 12\ ZONING MAP • Ci _ _ AgrMw+l<t+~t CawrvNton 54gN Famlty ii~W~ntW ® stns. F.nrry a.,wr+u.t l^~`J SigN F~nMty (in10~nIW (/ ~ ~ Stnpb FrNly Rwldr+eW \~\ ® 8Y+VM FneW1 Rn1d~M1M ty of ~ ~a ~11 r • lj~ ~~~~ ," ,: _ -~ r f--~-; -- R2 1Mro FM+~1f Ndd~ntld---- - © Fflptrwq CamMedat lb• F~ ~tw ty uW+t u~asc~.t R~ Townl+aw/MWt1pN FanOy RMfd«itlat i2 M.ah.n Naauw R4 hyy~ Ftmyr Rhid~ntW ,,~ Sofd YNub Faeilty Rrtiwd iJnlt DMntaprtMnt ~ MtMna Taw~t ~ © C~tr~ l.artrn,tclr ®Ntn~wl Fsemtlon © Ottfe• OMtrfet ~ CASE NO. ZC 95-4 ~ , P.O. Box 490 • 1306 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN »330 • (612) 441-720 •- - ~ - ..~- .,` _~ y_C ....: _ ;. ~-~~ , Mfl ~~~ :__.` _~ =--:_ , -. :°'1'. v" ~ a .-~ ~9 ~i C C ~'_ -~; -- ~_:-r ~r ... ~~=~~1 COII~IPREHE~IS~VE LAND USE ~fAP HR -High Density Residential p public C8 Central Business OS Open Space HB Highway Business A Agricultural Ll L'sght Industrial LR Low Density Residential -w (~ ~ MI Medium Industrial MR Medium Density Residential ~ ~ , CASE NO. LUA 95-4 a_ of ~ ~ • _ ~,~ ~1 1'' P.O. Bvx +90 ~ 1~06~ Orono Par'rway • Elk Rive: , i~iN >j3~0 • (612) =~ 1-720 e~ REGULAR SEMI-MONTHLY MEETING OF THE AT YAC H M E N T A CITY COUNCIL OF ELK RIVER HELD IN THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY March 3, 1980 Members Present: Mayor Madsen, Councilmembers, Otto, Engstrom, Toth. Members Absent: Councilman Duitsman. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Madsen. 2. Agenda Item 7D, Rail Corridor Study, and Item 7E, the affairs of the Sewer Plant, were added to the agenda. COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 3, 1980, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 3. Minutes COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 25, 1980, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMAN OTTO SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 4. Open Mike No one appeared for this item. 5. Brentwood Subdivision Final Plat approval Mr. Dennis Anderson was present to answer any questions regarding his Brentwood final plat. The City Administrator indicated a developer's agreement has been drawn with the stipulation that if the City cannot sell bonds on the bond market `~ for the street improvements the developer will put the streets into the develop- ment in a 2 phase project. .The City Administrator further indicated the developer was in the process of obtaining an easement for the north half of 201st Street. Councilman Engstrom questioned the use and-the size of the outlot. Mr. Dennis Anderson indicated the outlot was 17 acres and that the plans for the use of th_e outlot were dependent on community demands and needs. The City Administrator indicated that City staff recommended approval of the final plat on the condi- tion of the developer's agreement and the developer obtaining the easement for the north half of 201st Street. COUNCILMAN OTTO MOVED APPROVAL OF THE BRENTWOOD SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT WITH THE CONDITION OF THE EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AND THE OBTAINING OF THE NORTH HALF OF 201st STREET. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 6. Street Light Request - 7th and Irving Mr. Larry Larson, 510 7th Street, submitted a petition signed by 23 residents of the area requesting a street light at the corner of 7th and Irving. Mayor Madsen asked if there were street lights at every other intersection and further indicated it was a state aid street and could see no problem with .the installa- tion of a street light. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF A STREET LIGHT AT THE CORNER OF 7th AND IRVING. COUNCILMAN TOTH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 7. Administrator's Update _ A. Riverside Bar and Lounge taxes The City Administrator indicated he had discussed the situation of the taxes payable for 1980 with Mr. Barney Gustafson and Mr. Gustafson indicated he MEMORANDUM February 29, 1980 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Administrator SUBJECT: Brentwood Final Plat Enclosed please find a copy.of the final plat for the Brentwood Subdivision being developed by, Mr. Dennis Anderson. The Brent- wood Subdivision is approximately 257 acres and is located im- mediately north of Ridgewood East 3rd Subdivision in Elk River. The final ,plat anticipates 101 lots. The Planning Commission and the City .Council previously considered a lot size variance to accomodate the plat and to allow a range of lots from less than 2~ acres to in excess of 2z acres. On Monday, February 25, 1980, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously approved the final plat for the Brentwood Sub- division. The Planning Commission recommended no changes nor alterations in the final plat. The City staff can find no problems with the final plat and finds that the plat is in compliance with existing City regulations and ordinances. It is recommended that the Elk River City Council grant final plat approval to the Brentwood Subdivision, subject to the development of a Developer's Agreement with Mr. Dennis Anderson, which provides that the City of Elk River will bond for and install improvements to be assessed against the property or in the event that the City is unable to sell bonds, that Mr. Anderson will undertake the improvements with his own capital in a two stage approach over a period of .two years. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Robert C. Middaugh City Administrator RCM:adb • 7. Brentwood Preliminary Plat ~G • The City Administrator indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the lot size ,~ variance and the preliminary plat and found the variance would not create an adverse impact on the City's building controls and, as such, recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Councilman Toth had some questions regarding ground water travel and what impact it would have on the areas south of the develop- ment... Councilman Toth suggested these questions be investigated by the City Flanner and the City Engineer. COUNCILMAN TOTH MOVED APPROVAL OF THE BRENT- WOOD PRELIMINARY PLAT AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0. 8. William Campbell Liquor License The City Administrator reviewed Mr. Campbell's request for the Council and indicated that no problems had been encountered in the City's background investi- gation. COUNCILMAN OTTO MOVED APPROVAL OF A LIQUOR LICENSE TO BE GRANTED TO MR. WILLIAM CAMPBELL TO OPERATE CAMPBELL'S ELK BOGTL AND LOUNGE. COUNCILMAN DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0. 9. Povlitzki Liquor License Mr. Tom Libra, real estate agent for Richard and Marlene Povlitzki, was present to request tabling of the liquor license application until a special meeting requested to be held December 20, 1979. The City Administrator indicated the City had not completed its investigation into the background of Richard and Marlene Povlitzki. The City Administrator also indicated the Povlitzki's • have held liquor licenses in the City of Fridley, the City of Minneapolis, North Dakota and Las Vegas, Nevada and that all establishments had been investi- gated with the City of Fridley posing some questions. The City of Fridley experienced significant problems with the Povlitzki establishment. The City Administrator indicated questions were raised as to why the City of Fridley issued a license to the Povlitzki's for 14 years when they experienced the problems. The City Administrator also indicated the City of Minneapolis originally denied a liquor license to the Povlitzki's but Mr. Povlitzki appealed the licensing divisions decision to the City Council which reversed the denial. Mr. Tom Libra indicated it had been five years since the Pov- litzki's held a license in Fridley and since then they have held five licenses in five different locations. The City Administrator indicated that City staff could not, until further investigation, recommend approval of a liquor license to be issued to the Povlitzki's. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM MOVED APPROVAL OF TABLING THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION REQUEST BY THE POVLITZKI'S UNTIL A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE HELD DECEMBER 20, 1979 AT S:15P.M. AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL. COUNCILMAN OTTO SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED [E-0. 10. Policy for Refund of Liquor License Fees The City Administrator indicated the State Intoxicating Liquor Statute gives the municipality the option of refunding the license fees in the event a business is damaged by fire, death of the licensee or if the licensee is other- wise unable to continue or it becomes unlawful to carry on the business for reasons other than revocation of a license. The City Administrator further indicated there was no language in the Statute requiring the municipality to • refund liquor fees and that the City of Elk River was under no obligation to do so. Mayor Madsen asked what is .the policy in other communities. The City Administrator implied that other communities he was familiar with did not refund license fees. The City Administrator further indicated the League of Cities was publishing a new model ordinance for municipalities and according to their ordinance, a refund would not be permitted. P~Ir. Dick Dorsey asked if \~ ~~ ~ _@ MEMORANDUM T0: Mayor and City Council December 13, 1979 FROM: City Administrator ~'' °~" ~ ' SUBJECT: Brentwood Preliminary Plat At a special meeting of the Planning Commission held on Monday, Dec. 10, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend a lot size variance for the Brentwood Subdivision being developed by Mr. Dennis Anderson. The Planning Commission, in its review of the lot size variance request, found that a variance in this area of the City, with the conditions present, would not create an adverse impact on the City's zoning controls as established in the interim ordinance. Mr. Anderson has indicated he will make the necessary changes or arrange- ments on 201st Street in order to have part of the entire right-of-way in the Brentwood Subdivision or an appropriate easement obtained from the property to the north to allow for a 66 foot roadway. In addition, the street names would be altered so that they are less confusing. In light of these changes and the Planning Commission's recommendation to grant a lot size variance, it is recommended that the City Council grant the lot size variance and approve Mr. Anderson's final plat. Respectfully Submitted, ``:~~~- , Robert C. Middaugh City Administrator RCM:adb ~~ • ELK P,h,T~~'. ?Lrl:fi?I:?G COi'.~~'.ISSICP~ ?~'I?*G I~LD IT? TT-~ r'LK RIVE ??7?LIC LIBP.A.R`_' t?cvember 2E, 1979 iembers Present: Commissioner Driessen, Fox, tinkle, Lucas, Bracy & Zabee Also Present: ??erbert S. Adolphson 1. Call j~ieeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Fox at 7:40 p.m. 2. dinutes 'i'he minutes from the October 22, 1979 meeting were read and approved. 3• A enda Jim nolow's proposal for High~,ray r' 10 South, ~:•a.s added to the agenda. The agenda s,=as appxoved. ~~ °' 4• Brentwood Addition Preliminary Flat Dennis Anderson and Jim Klein presented the preli~a.inary slat for the Brentzrocd Addition. A profile cf Lowell Street extension to the northeast, showed it to be impracticable. The staff thought that score of the vertical ~tzrves should '`~ be lengthened to give better sight distance and safety. Also, some of the grades should be reduces?. 7`he developer is thinking of tok~houses or multi- unit dwellings for Block Q, along U.S. Highway rr169. =his would provide cheaper units and cash for the rest of the development. mho public hearing was then opened. Les f•-cGray, Vice President of Barton's wanted the Commissioners be aware that Barton's pit is north of this development on both sides of County Road x-33. Also, that they have land rights fo the north edge of Brentwood Addition. Dennis Anderson said that Jacksor. and T<orfolk Streets end at the north edge, toward 3arton's roldings. Lot sizes averages 2~ acres. They have a State mransportafion Department letter in regards to sound barriers. There would be approxirre.tely 190' of woods. mho public hearing was then closed. Zhere are two street hook-ups 5•rith r~idgewood East 3rd Addition s ;reefs, one with Proctor Street and 2 with tiS Eighway rr1E9 that would be in line with the Ryland i~ills cutlet cross overs. 1'he drainage easements are not on the plat as yet, but would rot present any problems. Also, the power-lines do not present any great problems. Several lots will have some d~relling site limitations because of it. C0'~';rISSIOP;I~~A. LUCAS ~~TOV'D ~??EOVAL OF Tz~; ?R'~'LI'~?I'?Ap-:° ??~=' L'OP T??F' 3FW:^:7'?'i00D ADI"_'IC;. CO':~1,ISSIO?*~ TF~C`~ S~COP:L~'~'I; ^?-LF ?'r:G^IO?`?. °~IOr ?ASSE?` 5-~. Child Care Cer_ter's Conditional Lse Permit Sandra Ficha ~rifh'John Gries, lawyer, Bill `Daft, and ?hilip Kankel presented her plan for the Child Care Center at L+03 I~=air. Street. She is licensed for 22 children and could errand in time to L'0 childre». `the existing building is 2 stories and the additicr. v~rould be o::e sto~~, urith 1200 square fee:. mho children ,•;ould urge fro^~ 2 to J ~i°arS e: age. =he operating hours *.,culd b'~dOFtA??DUi~1 T0: The Elk River Pl C • arming ommission F'ROId: uerbert S. Adolphson, Community Development Director The Brentwood public hearing held on November 26, 1979, was for preliminary plat and lot size approval. The legal notice was published and notices mailed to adjoining property owners. During the November 26th meeting, the lot sizes ~rere discussed. However, the motion for approval of the preliminary plat did not include the lot size variance.. The total area is 250 acres with 13.26 acres in outlots, leaving 236.74 acres for the dwelling lots. There are 101 proposed lots giving an average size of 2.34 acres. The Planning Commission needs to find: 1. That to do the topography and need to keep street grades low, some lots become less than 2.5 acres. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the lot size variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property . in this area. 4. A motion is needed to grant the variance. Respectfully Submitted, /i~ ,~~5~'~ :~erbert S. Adolphson Community Development Director cla ~G ~ • 5. Brentwood Preliminary Discussion Jim Klein appeared for Dennis Anderson regarding Brentwood development.. He explained this development would be on Highway 169 across from Hyland Hills. Commissioner Fox did not think the City Council would accept the park as proposed and also was concerned that lots 1-9 might not be buildable because of sound :barrier requirements. Commissioner Hinkle suggested getting rid of some of the cul-de-sacs. The Commission would like to see Lowell Circle .connect with Lowell Street. Jim did nat think it was possible, because of the contour of the land, to connect Lowell Circle to 196th Circle. The Commission suggested a few alternatives. Basically, the lots are of proper size. .There are 92 lots averaging~_2 acres. There are a couple lots approximately 1 acre or less and it was suggested that the minimum should be 14 acres. The Commission also would Like to see 196th Avenue and 197th Avenue straightened out a little. It was noted that variances would be needed for lot size. 6. Archie Larson turned over to the Planning Commission, old letters, maps, lists, etc., regarding parks. 7. Adjournment COMMISSIONER HOLDS MOVED THE MEETING TO BE ADJOURPJED. COIJR~'IISSIOrIER LUCAS SECONDED THE MOTION. NOTION PASSED 0. Respectfully Submitted, Herbert S. Adolphson Community Development Director AB~ca ;~ • October 4, 1994 Elk River Steering Committee 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 ATTACHMENT 6 Attached are copies of the recorded Protective Covenants for Brentwood, copies of the Brentwood map which shows the two Ridgewood East lots (in red), and a letter signed by the 1979 Mayor and Council Members stating the intent at that time for this property was future highway development. Si erely, ,l~T~~ Dennis Anderson 4 .. PROTEC?IY23 COYffiiAHTS dHD BII~.DIl~f3 tt,BSTRICTZOIiS AKffi~tiD B~I1~100D ESTATES, 3HER8URHE COIIN1? EL1C RIYHR KIPL*1F50TA , , • . 2b(~rax-~aderaoa, Inc., a Kinneaota Coxporatioa, hmreto declares that the lsereinatter set forth restrictions shall app11 Lo all lots In the plat kno~rn as Breatxood, sad xarranta and eovenante to and xitt: all :~tnre oc.~ers of . said lots that all aonveyaaces made by them shall be aub~ect !.o the follow- ing restrictions„ to nits 1. No lot, ot~rr than Ot:tlot d, shall be used except for residential ptupoaea. 2• ~ building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to amain our air lot other than a single family duelling not to excess 2-1/2 stories in height.. Arq reaideaoe constructed thereon shall have a ttiro car attached garage and be Act less than 1,250 square feet of ground floor area except for a txo..atory house, xhich shall here a minima,. of 720 aquare~ Ieet on the ground floor, and split foyers , which shall have a minimum of 90C~ square feet on the ground :floor. Prodded th t L t a o s 1-9, 81ock I~, shall not be subject to the res- trictions at this paragraph. 3. Iio Hoodoos or offensive actidty shall be carried on upon arm lot , nor shall anything be dccie thereon which as, become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. ~. Iii lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping grou:.3 for rubbish, trash arba th , g ge or o er wastes; nor shall arty forT of rubbish or waste be kept on ar~r lot beyond the main buildin constr ti g ic on period us specified in paragraph 8~ • ~ 5. Dogs, cuts or other household pets may be kept, provided they are not xep'G, bred or maintained for ar0- co:m~ercial pu^poses. No other animals may be kept on or about the premises. Sma11, apgr~priate structures to house pets `rill be alloyed. 6. tic.` trailer houses, tramel trailer, buses, trucks, caber trucks or dunk cars are alloyed on premises unless properly garaged. 7. No te~orary stricture of a~* nature, such as trailer houses, cancping truck basement t t h , , en , s ack, garage or other buildings shall be used on ~ lot at ax~y tine as a residence either temporaril c: er tl y p manen y, ~r shall a s+.ructure to to used as a residence be ^,oved in on any lot. 8. All stric*_ures shall be of neu const.ru~tion. X11 st.: uct~,; ~.~ ;;~i ~ earplrted an*! fini~hAc~ ;;ithin 12 ^ . .on~ hs of*.,al• co-.z.•r,^e .r:n _ ~ '' t: p excavation and c~ns'.ruetior. anc~ befo_•:, • : e - ~, - ~ ~ . . _ c ::. ~ ; :~i= J, usc~i ,3 a :pside~~ce. • .` i • . ~ .-7. ..Ti C~~.~. re ~ . r: F; .wr ~: ~1,.i~ . ,.. V l.:r ..~.-.. ~; . ~ ? :~ i' 4 a i ~' , . "l ~. -. - -.~:-~,~., ac.. 9. All .dritrevava aha1T-';fie ~ of .a hard. aurtace, either tar or concreta tar~~a~nd.airm~a at.;~or~~~~(I~0} ,scat, starting at the street level, s 10, atesa eovenanta.ahall automatical],y run with the lands Perpetual~J', unless an. instnuaent signed bp•a s~ority of the awnera of the lots described herainhaa beeai.recorded, agreeing to change these covenants in whole or in Pe~x . ~ . 1'k. If theta shall be .e •lolation or an at,znQt~ to riolate ar{q of thane covenants or restz3etioas, it shall be lawd'ul for arm other person or pers~.s ownfng.any real estate in this subdiTision to proseccte ~ ProCeeding at law or itl equity aga{ nat `„~ person or persons violating or atte:sptf,ng to violate at~y such covenant or restriction and wither to prevent him or them from so doing or to recover da,aages or other dues for. .such violation.- 12. Invalidation of ar~* of these covenants or restrictions by judgement or Court Order shall in noxise affect arty of the other provisions which stall remain in full force and effect. \.. .'1 .1 Denny,, anders:m Baroara v . ,1n on Signed before me a Plotary Public for Sherburne county. ZL~~- - _ - - -- - • _ - --- ~. , X - SQLD $ ~ ., . .. ~ + ~ ~ ~~ ~I'j- ~~ / X S' ~ // f • tU` • ~ , '•. ~~e"t7Lt» • _d~v~ NIY e - ~' 2' /±A• r ~ .h ~ ~V_. t •• _ ~ _ x r 2a. i°1e ~ ~'t ~ B X -• i~ ...a.X ~ 3 j( , ; 2X o___-_~~•-. 1•~7 ~. - s . •I• f X ~ f. ~ .. ~'~~ // X j r ~~ - ~ Y r' h 9, -. _ ,,/q~X - X . ,~`a .`~4,~~ .. :,:i. 7 '•? 8 ,: ~srn; .a„G"nrw.' _..... ..._,. ,. L< ~Y `-... ~...~.. ~ • ~-r_~ _.»..... _ ~.,.. _ ' /5X9: ~ I , - y •'. .~~ 3 X ~ .~-. ; -,_ I6 .~' i7 i q `~A 5 i X X ~ 7 . c_ ,p J t: ~ X 3 ti ~.:z, ,~ ~ • k ` 2/ X `.., X r`e, ~1 y~pp~' ~"`~X '* .-- 2 j' - .Ny.. .. ` ~ ? is 20 fid'~ X,`~ X y ~~ ~\0 22 z ~~ Y j `'gym _ _ r :~~ 9 X ~ e~ ~x-\ j - - ~ O `',`. . ~- / ,1 f'' ~~- `'ice ,,.r..::.:,. .-_ ~s.~-,Y...~_.,..a - - - - _ ~ ~_ //j I_ } ~ ~ A September 20, 1994 Mayor & City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 SUBJECT: Outlot A Brentwood Honorable Mayor & City Council Members: The undersigned represent to you as former representatives of the City, that the plan, intention and understanding for this pazcel was for it to be developed as Highway Business/Commercial property, when growth and services establish the need for its development. Also, it is our understanding that the proposed development responds to the statements and desires of City Staff that Highway 169 be developed as the City's commercial, retail and highway business corridor consistent with past and present developmental land use. Sincerely, Frank Madsen cam! v Dick Hinkle Arne Engstrom • .~r `~ { ( / iry of f 1 "~' ~ ~~l ~.FV~'~' TO: FROM: DATE: :NDA ITEM 5.8 ATTACHMENT C ~© O p~ MEMORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION GARY SCHMITZ, PLANNING ASSIST. JUNE 28, 1994 SUBJECT: LAND USE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY DENNIS ANDERSON, PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. LUA 94-05 AND ZC 94-06 ' REQUEST Dennis Anderson is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from MR (Medium Density Residential) to HB (Highway Business). The request also involves rezoning from Rlc (Single Family Residential) to C3 (Highway Commercial). . ~ LOCATION Outlot A, Brentwood Subdivision, Sherburne County, MN (southwest corner of 197th and Highway 169) ATTACHMENTS Location Map, Zoning Map, Land Use Map, City Council minutes dated March 3, 1980, page V13 of the existing Growth Management Plan BACKGROUND Outlot A of the Brentwood Subdivision, a vacant seventeen (17) acre outlot, is currently zoned Rlc (Single .Family Residential) with an underlying land use of MR (Medium Density Residential). The Brentwood Subdivision was platted in 1980 into 101 single family lots with an average lot size of approximately 2 to 2 1/2 acres. The request involves a rezoning and land use amendment from Rlc (Single Family Residential) and MR (Medium Density Residential) to C3 (Highway Commercial) and HB (Highway Business). P.O. Box 490 • li06~ Orono Parkway ~ Elk River, ~1N ~~330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (61%) 441-7425 J Anderson, ZC S: LUA Page 2 June 28, 1994 i, HISTORY OF OUTLOT A Research into the Brentwood Subdivision shows that very few details on the .future use of Outlot A were recorded. The minutes of the March 3, 1980, City Council meeting indicated that the future use of Outlot A was discussed. The applicant indicated at this meeting that the plans for the use of the outlot were dependent upon community plans and needs. However, the current land use designation and zoning classifications indicate that the site was planned for single family residential. Attached is a copy of these minutes. Staff could not find any further recorded information on the future intended use of the subject site. OVERVIEW The subject property is a relatively flat, treeless seventeen acre parcel. The outlot is encompassed on all sides by residentially zoned property. To the north and west, parcels are zoned RIa, .which has a minimum lot size of 2 I/2 acres. To the east, parcels are zoned Rle with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet in size. To the south, Rlc, which has a mizumum lot size of `~ 10,000 square feet. The nearest commercial property is the Hillside Commercial PUD located on the east side of Highway 169, and south of the Brentwood Subdivision. Current access to the site is limited to 19 rth Street and Irving Avenue. Outlot A is the only portion of the Brentwood Subdivision which is currently planned for City services. However, this site does not have City services available at this time. ZONING The statement of purpose of the C3 (Highway Commercial) zoning district is to recognize the need far commercial establishments on or serving with immedia a accesses to major highways. Permitted land uses should take advantage of the highway access in a manner in which other business districts are not afforded. It is important to note that this rezoning is not tied to any specific. development proposal and therefore, the Commission must consider the entire spectrum of potential uses allowed in the C3 district. The Elk Park Center and Hillside Commercial subdivision, although both are .zoned PUD, have an underlying land use of HB (Highway Business) and offer a valid comparison of the type of development that could occur on this particular site. • Staff is concerned that rezoning this. parcel to such an intensive commercial district could disrupt the residential qualities of the adjacent area. The. anderson.pc Anderson., ZC & L~ y Page 3 June 28, 1994 subject property has been zoned single famihf residential and residents in the area have purchased property with the understanding that it would develop as residential. A C3 zoning designation may be too intense of a land use to adequately blend with the surrounding low density residential TRAFFIC .Another major issue to consider before rezoning this site is traffic.. It is anticipated that the major access to this site will be from 197th Avenue, which- intersects with Highway 169. This intersection is currently not signalized and is not planned to be signalized, which will make travel to and from this site very difficult. It is also anticipated that the commercial traffic generated from this site could impact neighboring residential streets. Lack of direct access to Highway 169, coupled with the inability to utilize a frontage road concept for this site, leads to serious questions as to how commercial and residential traffic would integrate. The Elk Park Center and Hillside Commercial subdivision both have a frontage road .concept which will direct traffic away from residential areas. However, the subject site without direct access to Highway 169 will generate additional traffic to the residential streets. ~~ ~ GRQWTI~ MANAGEMENT PLAN Fs The. Growth Management Plan (adopted in 19$8) identified. the .area on the east side of Highway 169 between 193rd and. 197th as having the potential for commercial uses, however, the subject property was identified for medium density residential. One of the goals of the Growth Management Plan was to limit strip or scattered commercial operations along the City's major roadways.. The subject site is physically separated from any planned or developed commercial property and would conflict with that goal. The Growth Management Plan is currently in the process. of being updated' by the City. One of the components of this review will be to analyze the need for future highway commercial growth areas and determine if the existing supply of highway commercial property is adequate to serve the City's future needs. A second component of the study will deal with the possibilit~T of creating a neighborhood commercial zoning district designed to provide convenience and service establishments for the residential neighborhoods. Attached is a copy of page V13 of the existing Growth Management Plan in which the neighborhood commercial zoning district concept and the possible future need for this type of zoning designation is discussed. anderson.pc Anderson, ZC 8: LUA Page 4 June 28, 1994 ,~ Until these two components are fully studied, staff feels it is premature to consider amending the land use plan map and rezoning of this parcel without the benefit of this comprehensive study. RECOMMENDATION Before any rezoning or land use amendment is approved, one of two findings must be made: 1. There was an error in the original zoning designation, or 2. The times and conditions have changed such that the original designation is no longer valid. It is premature to argue either finding until the study of the Growth Management Plan is completed. Therefore, staff is recommending the land use plan amendment and rezoning request by Dennis Anderson be denied based on the following reasons: 1. The Growth Management Plan Goals and Policies state that commercial development should be located to strengthen the ~~ downtown area and strip or scattered commercial site along major roadways be avoided. 2. The proposed rezoning would allow potential intensive commercial activities immediately adjacent to existing residential areas. Without a natural buffer or physical separation, the compatibility of highway business and low density residential is questionable in this location. 3. The need for additional highway commercial within the Highway 169 corridor, as well as the possibility of a neighborhood commercial designation are .currently being studied with the updating of the City's Growth Management Plan. Therefore, a decision on the appropriateness of commercial in the subject area should be delayed until the updated comprehensive study is completed. 4. The traffic issues, such as the lack of a signalized intersection at the corner of 197th and Highway 169, and the lack of direct access to .Highway 169, along with the inability to utilize a frontage road concept for this site led to concerns as to how commercial traffic will integrate with the residential neighborhood. • anderson.pc ~ ~ •, s~ -,~. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1994 , 4. POND BE NO DEEPER THAN FOUR (4) TO FIVE (5) FEET IN DEPTH. EXCEPT !N CURRENT POND AREAS, WHERE POND DEPTH IS ESTIMATED AT S1X (b) fEET DEEP. 5. ALL EXCAVATION OR FILLING SHALL NOT DISRUPT THE OVERALL DRAINAGE PATTERNS fOR THE AREA. 6. CONTRACTOR AND PROPERTY OWNER WORK WRH THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO CONSTRUCT A .POND THAT tS BENEFICIAL TO WILDLIFE. 7. APPROVAL OF THIS RECOMMENDATION BE CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE MINNESOTA. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. $. PROJECT BE COMPLETED IN ONE (1) CONSTRUCTION SEASON. 9. HOURS OF OPERATION BE WITHIN CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS. 10. FENCING BE PLACED AROUND EXISTING OAK TREES TO PREVENT DAMAGE WHEN EXCAVATED SOIL IS SPREAD THROUGHOUT. THE APPLICANTS PROPERTY. 1 L PROPOSED ISLAND REMAIN UNEXCAVATED AREA. • ~ COMMISSIONER KREGER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Commissioner Kreger stated that due to a conflict of interest, he would abstain from discussion. and voting on the next item, Agenda Item 5.8. ;~ 5.8 ' Consider.a Land Use Amendment and Zane Change reauest'bv Dennis Anderson; Pubic Heating, Case:No. LUA 945 and ZC:94-6 Staff report presented by Gary Schmitz. Dennis Anderson requested to .amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from MR (Medium Density Residential) to HB (Highway Business). The request also involves rezoning from Rlc (Single Family Residential) to C3 (Highway Commercial). Dennis Anderson addressed the. Planning Commission regarding traffic concerns, the southern parcel he owns, and access to the subject parcel Chairman Tveite opened the public hearing. Jeff Peltier, 11965-195 Circle, Brentwood, Elk River, stated that the proposed outlot was originally designated residential and he is opposed to this type of proposal. Mike Fox, 11747-197 Avenue, Elk River, asked staff to define the term "Neighborhood Commercial." Gary Schmitz explained.. • Bob Sturgis, 11789-197 Avenue, Elk River, expressed his cancems regarding traffic; opposed to this proposal. .-~TTACHIVIENT D ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ Page 9 J ~ ~O G~ 1~ Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1994 ~1~pG°~GJ[~D Page 10 Gary Kleis, 19815 Irving Avenue, E!k River, iterated previous concerns; opposed to this proposal. Paul Ostmoe, 19b44 Irving Avenue, Elk River, stated he is opposed'to commercial development in that area and he is opposed to this. project. Dale Miller, 11745-196 Avenue, Elk River, iterated previous concerns; opposed to this proposal Ken Willicros, 19762 Brentwood Lcne, Elk River, commended. Dennis Anderson for the qua{ity of previous projects, however, he is apposed to this type of project in a residential neighborhood. Dan Schwark, 14785 Irving Avenue, Elk River, opposed to this proposal. Phil Johnson, 19400 Holt Street, Elk River, presented the Planning Commission with signatures of area residents stating they were opposed to this proposal Mr. Johnson stated he is opposed to this proposal. Doug Waletzko, 19688 Ulysses St., Elk River, stated he is apposed to this. project. Rolf Anderson, 19411 Irving Circle, Elk River, iterated previous concerns and asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration that this is a residential neighborhood. Mr. Anderson continued that this is an outlot in a residential neighborhood and the surrounding residents do not want commercial development in this location. Mr. Anderson is opposed to this proposal Sue Weiser, 11696-147 Avenue, fIk River, stated she is opposed to this project. Dennis Anderson explained his request and reason for the zone change and land use amendment. :Jeff Peltier, 11965-195 Circle, E!k River, questioned staff regarding the notice to surrounding residents. Mr. Peltier did not feel the 350 foot radius is sufficient in all cases. Peter Beck explained the notification radius is mandated by the State. Ken Lueck, 11388-198 Avenue, Elk River, iterated previous concerns; opposed to this project. Jenny Stone, 19783 Lowell Street, Elk River, iterated previous concerns; opposed to this project. There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Tveite closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MINTON RECOMMENDED DENIAL Of THE LAND USE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY DENNIS ANDERSON, PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. LUA 94-5 AND ZC 94-6, CITING STAFF'S MEMO AS FINDING OF FACT. .DENIAL IS RECOMMENDED .BASED ON CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC OPPOSITION WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS: ~ ~ • C . s '~. .Planning Commission Minutes ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 11 ,. June 28, 1994 .:.: ~~ • ~ 1. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES STATE THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE LOCATED TO .STRENGTHEN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND STRIP OR SCATTERED COMMERCIAL SITE ALONG MAJOR ROADWAYS BE AVOIDED. 2 THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW POTENTIAL INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WITHOUT A NATURAL BUFFER OR PHYSICAL SEPARATION, THE COMPATt8111TY OF HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL tS QUESTIONABLE IN THIS_LOCATION. 3. THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY COMMERCtAI WITHIN THE HIGHWAY 169 CORRIDOR, AS WELL AS THE POSSIBILITY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION ARE CURRENTLY BEING STUDIED WITH THE UPDATING OF THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. THEREFORE, A 'DfCtSION ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF COMMERCIAL IN THE SUBJECT AREA SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL THE UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE STUDY IS COMPLETED. 4. THE TRAFFIC ISSUES, SUCH AS THE LACK OF A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT THE CORNER OF 197TH AND HIGHWAY 169, AND THE LACK OF DIRECT ACCESS TO HIGHWAY 169, ALONG WITH THE INABILITY TO UTILIZE A FRONTAGE ROAD CONCEPT FOR THIS SITE LED TO CONCERNS AS TO HOW COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC WILL INTEGRATE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL . NEIGHBORHOOD. . , COMMtSStONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, Commissioner Kreger abstained. 5.9 Consider a Zone Chance Request bv'Riverside Development, Public Hearings' ..;!.::Case No'.ZC 94-07 ! ` Staff report presented by Steve Ach. Riverside Development requested a rezoning of approximately forty (40) acres from R 1 e (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). Chairman Tveite opened the public hearing. Doug Waletzko, 19688 Ulysses Street, E1kRiver, asked staff to explain the term PUD (Planned Unit Development). Ken Lueck, 11388-198 Avenue, E!k River, does not feel the rezoning request should be approved just for density purposes. Matt Timinski, 11260-198 Avenue, Elk River, expressed concerns regarding traffic and density issues. Shcron `Waletzko, 19688 Ulysses Street, EIk River, asked staff for further details regarding the back of the proposal. • There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Tveite closed the public hearing. .~- ATTACHMENT E Steering Committee Minutes Page 4 December 1, 1994 • Chair Minton questioned why the area was zoned PUD. Mary Eberley commented that it was probably due to the intent to develop the area. with caution when. considering the wetlands. Area #4 and #5 -Both within the Highway 169 growth comdar. Area #5 is part of the Hillside Estate development,. proposed for commercial development along Highway 169 .and residential to the east, under a Planned Unit Development. Area #4 covers Outlot A of Brentwood Addition owned by Dennis Anderson. Anderson made application for a land use plan change to Highway Business and rezoning to C3 (Highway Commercial). As a result of issues. in staffs report .and testimony from surrounding residents opposing the applications at the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requests. Mr. Anderson requested withdrawing the application before proceeding to the City Council until further input was received from the Steering Committee in updating the Growth Management Plan. Information was provided by Mr. Anderson for the Steering Committee's review, as well as staff' report to the Planning Commission on this issue. Dennis Anderson, local developer and resident, explained that Outlot A was set aside 15 years ago for commercial use and felt the timing was right #o .begin development. Mr. Anderson explained that he owns 2 lots in Ridgewood East which could be utl"rzed for traffic flow to the site. Ken Williams, T9762 Brentwood lane, stated that when he purchased his four lots in Brentwood 15 years ago, it was made clear to him that Outlot A was intended for some type of commercial highway business use.. He stated hat he was confident Mr. Anderson would develop the site in a manner that would be an asset to the community and not be detrimental to the value of his property. He stated that he strongly favored commercial development over multi-family housing for the site. Mr. Williams also urged the Committee to consider what happened in Brooklyn Park with the amount of high density-low income housing and not to !ef that happen in Elk River. Mr. Williams also expressed his concern that his comments were misrepresented in the Planning Commission minutes ora this matter which stated he opposed commercial development. He stated that his comments related to the fact that he understood his neighbors' concerns but that he did not oppose Mr. Anderson's proposal. The property is currently zoned R 1 c with 10,000 square foot lots with city water and sewer. Rick Foster, local developer and resident, stated that there is a high demand for highway commercial. He explained that his property on the east side of Highway 169 and Mr. Anderson's on the west side to#aled approximately 40 acres. Mr. Fos#er encouraged the Steering Committee to consider the benefits for the City, County and school. district, as commercial property .pays for itself five (5) times more than residential • Bob Sturgis, 11789 197th Avenue, Brentwood, expressed his concern that the commercial development continues to extend north up Highway 169 with no end in site. He stated his opposed to the type of commercial development located Steering Committee Minutes December 1, 1994 Page 5 on Dodge Avenue. He urged the Steering Committee to carefully consider what • the area will be like in 15 to 20 years. Mr. Sturgis also stated he is concerned. that the roads in the area proposed for commercial development by Mr. Anderson will not stand up to the traffic that will be generated. John Weicht, local developer and resident, stated that he was in favor of the C3 zoning and that the proposed commercial areas on both sides of Highway 169 could be designed to accommodate the traffic. We added that he understood that the Elk Park Center commercial development entity will be contributing in excess of $1 million in taxes a year, and the subject 40 acres east and west of Highway 169 could genera#e a comparable amount, if zoned commercial. Mr. Weicht explained that he felt the access from Highway 169 to 197th could be refigured for commercial traffic, even if it meant relocating residential property. Gale Anderson, Brentwood resident, expressed her concern that her home would be directly affected by commercial development and traffic from Outlot A. Merry Sipe, Committee Member, questioned whether or not all property owners had. access to information regarding the future development of Outlot A. Dennis Anderson, developer, referred the Committee to the first item in the protective covenants document which exempts Outlot A for residential purposes.. He noted that the covenants .are filed with every abstract for the Brentwood Development. Gate Anderson, Brentwood resident, expressed her concern that the hill on Outlot • A served as a buffer and later was mined out to make it flat. She also expressed concern how quickly the commercial zoning east of Highway 169 was done. Steve Ach explained that the zoning is PUD with a commercial land use. Pat Dwyer, Committee Member, explained that those people that purchased property after the Brentwood was platted were made aware of the potential development of Outlot A, but those purchasing prior. to the Brentwood platting would have not had that in#ormation and had no idea their residential streets may someday become part of traffic flow to a commercial development. Marly Glines, Committee Member, noted that the Ridgewood East .area was developed under the old township, and Brentwood area was platted after the consolidation. Ken Williams, 19762 Brentwood Lane, staled that he was in favor of a quality commercial development. Discussion followed regarding the proposed roads and existing roads needed to access the commercial development. Steve Ach stated that the distance from Irving Street to Highway 169 will be a critical element. Anderson stated that he felt there would be adequate stacking area on 197th for traffic moving between Irving and Highway 169. Gate Anderson requested that adequate notice be given when a proposal from • the developer, Dennis Anderson, is brought forward to the City for consideration. ,w~ Steering Committee Minutes December t, 1994 Page 6 • Jeanne Eggert, 19314 Oxford Street, stated that when she moved to the area 17 1 years ago, she assumed the Outlot A area would one day be commercial, simply because of its close proximity to Highway 169. She also expressed her concern that .the City carefully consider decreasing the amoun# of existing multi-family zoning. She cited problems in the Brooklyn Park area from the intense multi- family-low-income housing, and does not want to see that happen in Elk River. Bob Sturgis stated that he was not against commercial development but urged the Committee to push for high standards in the types of uses and appearance of the .development. Ken Williams expressed his concern for high quality development in the City. Barb Miracle, resident, questioned whether or not there pre any plans for further commercial development in the area located north of Beaudry Express at the intersection of Highway 10 and Proctor. Steve Ach stated that the property is owned by Beaudry Oil and that some interest has been expressed in developing it in the future, but that there are no specific plans at this lime. Jahn Weicht requested that the Committee consider rezoning approximately 17 acres west and north of St. Andrew's Cemetery from R 1 c and R3 to R2, or .possibly, PUD. He stated that owners of this .property were interested in developing the property with quality ($150,000+ per unit) twin homes. He also explained that a small corner of the property at Jackson and Highland would possibly be a good location for some type of office use, due to the high traffic at that intersection. • Jeanne Eggert questioned whether or not the City could control the quality of twin homes the would be built. Chair Minton stated that the City is limited to enforcing .health and safety issues, not quality and value (price) of the homes. John Weicht explained that the type of twin home he is proposing would be similar but upscale to the twin homes just north of the TLC Daycare at Proctor and County Road 1. Mr. Weicht provided further information regarding proposed roadways, extension of water and sewer, and hiking and biking trails. At this time, Chair Minton welcomed the government students from the high school in-attendance: Shawn Sanborn, Kirsten Austin and Jerry Krueger. Ken. Williams, resident, commented that he hopes that the Planning. Commission and City Council are aware of the position the City has in attracting new businesses to Elk River, in that they can control the level and quality of development that occurs. 7. Other Business Tom Harmes, resident, questioned what kind of housing inspection program was .planned. Steve Ach explained that it would be done through .the building. department, and was geared toward health and safety issues for multi-family residential. property, as well as commercial and industrial. ~.. Steering Committee Minutes Page 7 December 1, 1944 8. Future Meeting ~ The next meeting of the Steering Committee will be held Thursday, January 12, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the Southeast Planning Area. CHRIS KREGER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING. MARY EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRtED 11-0. The meeting of the Elk River Steering Committee adjourned ctt 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~`6%GC/ Debbie Kleckner Recording Secretary • • ATTACHMENT F ITI:~I N0. 4 • I INVENTORY OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY .. .TOTAL ACRES<ZOIVEQ C~MMERCfAL >' > ... .. $73~ACRES 0 C1J Central Cornmerciat - 0 C2/ Office t~strict - 0 C3! Highway Commercial.- d Planned Unit Qevelopment (Business Park) - 55 Acres 5fi Acres 622 Acres 14Q Acres • FOTAL ACRES DEVELOPED ,, 469 ACRES • TOT/~L ACRES VACANT '::. 404;;;AGRES 0 Restrictive Areas for Development..- 27 Acres TOTAL. 27 ACRES • TOTAL NET ACRES AVA[LABLE FOR DE1lELOPMEN.T 377`AGRES • HtGf-I ~4BSORPTION RATE ~ '. 377 ACRES _.... 14 AC/YR Years Worth of Commercial Property 26.9 Years ~ LOW ABSORPTION RATE ~ 377 ACRES _._.... =- 2 AC/YR Years Worth of Commercial Property 188.5 Years • Page 1 of 2 • ~- TOTAL ACRES. WITHIN CURRENT'URBAN .. SERV[CE AREA 375 ACRES 0 Developed - 227 Acres 0 Vacant - 148 Acres 0 Restricted - 10 Acres 0 .NET AVAILABLE ACRES - 138 ACRES • ;TOTAL ACRES:OUTSIDE CURRENT URBAN .. 'SERVICE AREA 499 ACRES 0 Developed - 242 Acres 0 Vacant - 257 Acres 0 Restricted - 17 Acres 0 NET AVAILABLE ACRES - 240 ACRES Page 2 of 2 • • • ~ • STEERLNG COMMITTEE ~ ~ ~ i City of Elk River i .-.. .. - New Comrnercia! ~Deve{opment - - ~ ,.. {Total:-Acres).. ~~ -.:.,.. .. ,... ..: _ - - ~_ ... .1988 1989 ~ 1990 1991 1992 1993 Totai 3.5 ~ 2 ~ 11 1.5 $ 14.2 40.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i Number of Acres Per Year 16- 14 12 10 / 8 ~ ~. '~' 6 / \ / / 4 - / ~ ~ -. ~/ 0 19$8 1989 1990 1991 1892 1993 Page 1 • e ATTACHMENT G ~~ I. Eicnaae i. Not withstanding the provisions of Section 900.22, the following requirements shall be met: a. All freestanding signage shall be of a monument style sign and have a maximum size of sixty-four (64) square feet and height of eight (8) feet. b. One (1) on-.premise business wall sign per occupancy, not to exceed two (2) square feet in sign area for each linear foot of the building frontage up to a maximum of one hundred and twenty-eight (128) square feet per occupancy is permitted. J. ~~ndards for Rer_a;t ShoBs and 5tore~ i. Freestanding retail shops and stores shall be limited to those which compliment. other uses within • the business park, provide a service to those other businesses, and shall not exceed 20,000 square feet in size. ii. Retail/wholesale sales incidental to products manufactured, assembled, or warehoused on the premises, may be permitted as an accessory use provided no more than ten percent (10%) of the building is used for retail/wholesale sales. K. HazardoLS Ma,~er'a i. Any business which involves the handling or storage of hazardous material shall provide data information sheets to the City.-for review and receive appropriate permits from applicable agencies. 16. PUD Planned Unit Development District STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The purpose of this district is to provide design and locational flexibility and variety tracts of land with adequate sewer and water systems by allowing modification of lot and building area, width, setback and other dimensional requirements. PUD's shall be developed in accordance with an overall design and an integrated development plan in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. PUD's shall be consistent with 9.3 9 e the intent and purpose of this Ordinance and shall not adversely affect the property adjacent to the land area to be developed.. 1. A. A PUD may be authorized on land in a PUD district following the issuance of a conditional use permit and subdivision approval. A PUD shall comply with the provisions of this Ordinance except as expressly modified .herein. B. Permitted conditional and accessory uses in residential and commercial districts may be allowed in a PUD if the Council determines that such uses are .compatible. C. The area of land to be included in a PUD shall be in uniform control of the applicant. D. A PUD shall be designed to form a desirable unified environment within its proposed boundaries. E. A PUD shall not cause undesirable impacts on adjacent Lands and land uses. In particular, uses in the PUD perimeter shall be compatible with adjacent uses outside the PUD. F. A PUD shall be served by adequate water and sewer systems.. G. A PUD shall not adversely affect existing or proposed parks, schools, streets or other public facilities. H. The Council may establish varied and reasonable lot area, .frontage, side yard, and setback requirements for a PUD and may authorize a density which it determines to be appropriate under the circumstances. Any permitted density shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan and not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. I. More than one principal building may be constructed on a lot within a PUD if authorized by the Council. Uses within PUD's should be constructed on individual lots having no less than eighty (80%) of the minimum area for similar uses within that district where they are permitted subject to the most stringent minimum requirements. 2. v D 9.40 A. Prior to the commencement of formal review, any person ~ may submit a PUD concept plan to the City requesting staff ~~l and Planning Commission review and advisory comment. B. The proponents of a PUD shall submit a preliminary subdivision plat and a site plan, along with an application for a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission shall review PUD proposals.:. and make recommendations to the Council based on the provisions contained herein, in the Subdivision .Ordinance, and in Section 900.42. Such preliminary plat and site .plan shall conform. to the provisions of this Ordinance to the Subdivision regulations. Such site plan shall show: • Proposed sanitary sewer and water systems,°including size, type and capacity and paving • Proposed roadways, location, type, capacity and paving • The proposed site and existing adjacent development • Size and location of building and dwelling unit density • Landscaping ~ Parking areas and. arrangement of stalls • Site and lot dimensions • Location and size of park and open space • Type of use and use density of each building, including a :relief drawing of the general building design intended for all .buildings other than single and two family units. • The proposed schedule for the development of the site • Location, type and size of signage • Statement of the reasons why the PUD will be in the public interest, consistent with the purposes and requirements hereof and those in Section 900.42 The Council shall review a PUD proposal pursuant to the provisions contained herein and in Section 90.0.42. C. If the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat and site plan are approved, the preliminary .plat and site 9.41 r J plan shall be attached to and become part of the conditional use permit. Any modification of the conditional use permit, ~ .preliminary plat or site plan must be approved by the .Planning Commission and the Council. The Council may approve the entire PUD or one or more stages of the same and ,may establish conditions respecting the approval as provided in Section 900.42. D_ If the conditional use permit is approved, the final plat shall be submitted to the City in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and the provisions of this ordinance. 17. SWF Solid Waste Fac;1;t-fir overlav Zoning District STATEMENT OF PIIRPOSE: The purpose of the Solid Waste Facility Overlay Zoning District is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by groviding a specific zoning district for the use of land for the establishment and operation of Solid Waste Facilities. Since these uses are so unique, their demands upon public services,. such as transportation, are so intense and their potential for causing harm to the environment and to the public health, safety, and general welfare is so great, a special zoning district is necessary. Solid Waste Facilities shall not be .permitted nor conditional uses in any other Zoning District. 1. IIses - The Solid Waste Facilities Overlay District is an overlay zoning district. Land zoned into the Solid Waste Facilities Overlay District will. also remain in its. original zoning district -(the Underlying Zoning District). All permitted, accessory, and conditional uses allowed in the Underlying Zoning District will continue to be allowed on land zoned into the Solid Waste Facilities Overlay District, subject to all restrictions and requirements applicable in the Underlying District. Tn addition to the uses allowed in the Underlying zoning District, there shall be allowed in the Solid Waste Facilities Overlay District the following conditional uses, subject to all requirements of the. City Code for the establishment and operation of such uses: A. Solid Waste Facilities licensed under Section 604 of the City Code . ~~;~. B. Solid Waste 604 of the City Facilities licensed under Section C. Sanitary Landf Code. ed under Section 604 of the City • • ATTACHMENT H V. COMMERCIAL • A. INTRODUCTION The City is concerned with providing a variety of commercial opportunities for retail and office use and ensuring the vitality of existing commercial centers, This will encourage a broad base of employment and business opportunities which will strengthen the economic self-sufficiency of the community. 8. GOALS 1. GOAL: Encourage .the .development of a quality community which retains a semi-rural atmosphere, wh~leprovding necessary commercial development to serve a growing residential population. POLICIES: • Guide the type and location of development to achieve an orderly develop- ment pattern consistent with the semi-rural character of the community.. ~ Provide for a Planned. Unit. Development (FUD) approach which, through the use of site design standards, allows for a mix of compatible commercial and residential development in appropnate areas. 2. GOAL:. Maintain and encourage the continuation of swell-designed employment and business opportunity in close. proximity to the community. POLICIES: • Direct future commercial development to those sites which support and strengthen the existing. downtown area. • Limit development ofstrp or scattered site commercial and industrial opera- tions along the City's major roadways. • Allow commercial expansion only in close proximity to existing services. -- •Evaluate all proposals for cammercial and industrial development to deter- . mine impact on municipal and natural systems. 3. GOAL: Preserve, maintain and/or strengthen the physical and visual qualities unique to the community. POLICIES; • Adhere to controls for the size and placement of signage and landscaping far V-t3 3. Highway 10 Southeast Sector ) The plan calls for highway commercial development along portions of Highway 10 in the southeast sector of the City (Figure 5-F). This is consistent with the existing C3 zoning designation for these commercial lands. Sewer and water utilities are not intended for this area. Therefore, all development will be subject to state and local regulationspertaining to on-site waste disposal. The Transportation Plan calls for a frontage along both sides of Highway 10. This will provide access to and from Highway 10 at a limited number of intersections. 4. Highway 169 North of School Street The plan calls for commercial development north of EIk Hills Drive along Highway 169 to 197th Avenue. It is the City's objective that such development occurs under the .guidance and control of a Planned Unit Development. S. miming It is the City's position that the marketplace will play a significant role in determining the timing of development in the designated commercial areas. 6. Neighborhood Commercial The City recognizes a possible need for future neighborhood commercial (small convenience store) development within outlying areas of the urban service district. However, exact location for such activity has not been determined. E. NECESSARY ACTIONS 1. Designation of commercial areas on the City Land Use Plan. 2. Designation of commercial areas on the City's Zoning Map, including Planned Unit Development where appropriate. 3. Extension. of sewer and water utilities to the Waco Street and Highway 10 area. 4. Promotion of the City's commercial areas by the Economic Development Authority, S. Eliminate unnecessary zones. b. Extend sewer and water, as needed, to the area east of Highway 169 between Elk Hills Road and 197th Avenue. k r r ~ ~~ ~~. ~~. ~~~ ~f. ~~~~.~~~~ ~~~ ~~ /9y~ c~ ~ ~~..~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~t~ ~~ ~./~~-- ~ ,~ m~~~ Gam,'-~`.~~-t-r'~ --~ ---~ ,^-~~-^-` j~ -- ~~ :,Fk 2 4 1g~5 • • April 20, 1995 City Council City Hall Elk River, MN 55330 Dear City Council: We are writing to voice our opinions about the proposal of a large retail store tieing constructed. in Brentwood along Highway #169. We do not want this area of Etk River to be rezoned for commercial use! We do not want city sewer and water to extend further north on Highway #169. We do not want the traffic that would came with this type of development. It seems that there is ample room elsewhere in Elk River for any additional commercial development. We are not against growth in Elk River, but we think common sense should be used in .planning new developments. Sincerely, Elk River Residents ~iy~ J ~~ • • • F'v/ % t'~: ~• ; ~ ~ 13 riAY 1995 riEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ELK RIVER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF OUTLOT "A" WE ARE TAXPAYING RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN AND AROUND OUTLOT '"A" IN THE DEVELOPMENTS OF BRENTWOOD, RIDGEWOOD EAST, AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS EAST OF HWY 169 AND DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM BRENTWOOD AND OUTLOT "A". WE ARE OPPOSED TO ANY POSSIBILE APPROVAL TO REZONE OUTLOT "A" FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL STATUS BECAUSE OF THE ADVERSE NEGATIVE EFFECTS IT ~+IOULD`HAVE ON OUR RESIDENTIAL AREA AND ON OUR PERSONAL HOMES AND PROPERTY. THIS REQUEST TO SPOT ZONE OUTLOT "A" TO COMMERCIAL STATUS LS INCONSIDERATE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA AND COMMUNITY. CAREFUL CONSIDERATIONS WERE r1ADE TO ZONE OUTLOT "A" RESIDENTIAL AT ITS INCEPTION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN HONORED FOR OVER 20 PLUS YEARS. IT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE MAJORITY-OF INVESTMENTS IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA AND IT CERTAINLY SHOULD REMAIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THERE IS NO NEED TO EXPAND COririERCIAL ZONING NORTH OF 193rd ST. THERE IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE ACREAGE FROM THE TRAILER PARK 'PO 193rd ST TO SUPPORT AND ACCOMMODATE ANY PLANNED COr1riERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE; OF AVAILABLE ACREAGE EAST ON HWY 10 AND ALSO WEST ON HWY''10. IT MAKES BETTER BUSINESS SENSE TO EXPAND WHERE THERE IS'ROOM FOR EXPANSION AND DEVELOPriENT RATHER. THAN TO ENCROACH INTO THE PRIME RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS NORTH OF 193rd ST ON HWY 169 WOULD ONLY ADD TO THE DEVASTATION OF PRIME RESIDENTIAL LAND SUCH AS OCCURRED ON THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF 193rd AND HWY 169., CAN ANYONE ADMIT THAT THE CONCRETE AND ASPHALT REPRESENTED BY SAX GROCERY STORE IS MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN THE BEAUTIFUL idOODED ACREAGE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESIDENTIAL HOMES. THIS IS A BLIGHT THAT SHOULD NOT REOCCUR. FURTHERMORE, THIS DECISION TO DEVELOP NORTH OF 193rd ST WHERE SAX IS LOCATED WAS CONTRARY TO THE RECOMriENDATIONS OF PAID CONSULTANTS. COririERCIAL DEVELOPr1ENT SHOULD NOT HAVE PRECEDENT OVER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. CITY PLANNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, BEAUTY, AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE. TO S~'ANTONLY DESTROY THIS CHARACTER BY REDUCING a WOODED AREAS TO CONCRETE AND ASPHALT, AND. TO CAST A BLIGHT, ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY riIXING THEM WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ~.-` ~s • • • IS TESTIMONY TO FAILED STEWARTSHIP OF NATURE'S GIFTS. TFiE SAFETIr OF THE COMI•iUNITY AND THE SAFETY OF A GIVEN RESIDENTIAL AREA MUST BE CONSIDERED HEAVILY. INCREASED ` TRAFFIC ALONG HWY 169 DUE TO COMMERCIAL CONGESTION INCREASES THE SAFETY HAZARDS. IS THERE ANY OF US WHO WOULD WILLINGLY RISh SAFETY IN FAVOR OF A SPOT ZONE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS`OF NO BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. t~'E HAVE WEIGHED THE IMPACT OF THIS REQUEST FROM ALL CONSIDERATIONS TO THE COMMUNITY. WE CAN FIND NO REASON TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF OUTLOT .."A" FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. IT IS NOT NEEDED; IT IS NOT NECESSARY; IT PROVIDES NO BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY; IT DOES NOT POSITIVELY ENHANCE THE IMAGE OF ELK RIVER---BUT IT DOES HAVE A DEFINATE NEGATIVE IMPACT. THIS REQUEST BEFORE THE CITY. COUNCIL MUST BE DENIED WITH THE INSISTANCE THAT THIS OUTLOT "A" BE DEVELOPED RESIDENTIALLY AS PLANNED. PLEASE REVIEtd THE ATTACHED LIST Off' REASONS WHY OUTLOT "A" SHOULD REMAIN RESIDENTIAL. ~. .r., 1 ~ \: ~ ~/ ~ h ~ ~ , ~. _ --~ ~~_~- -_ --- ~, ~ _ _ ,/~~ ~ _ _ , , U ~~ ' ~~~ ~- Z ~ ~~~' ~ ; ' \ ~ ~ ~ l 7 , ~\ ~, ~ ~~ ~~ I i ~-, -_ ~ ~ -/ ~~ ~ ~ _- . N ~~ ;I~ i ~; - ~~~ ( ~ L ~ \, L~ ` F ~ r~ ~ ~ 1 C~ x ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ t~ l X ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~- \ :1 ~ sr /. i•~ ~ ~ _ ~%j ~~ ' -~ ~ / , ~ ~ 9 ~,/ o~ - .. I ~ - - _ ~~~ _ _ -- ~ ~ ~_ ._ -_ ,; ~ ~ - ti - - - _ _ 0 1 ° ~ _ ~-- b', ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ / /{ ,` ._ .\ Pb ~. 9 y ~ -- -" ~ 1 r- i ,r ~ ~ _ ~ -~ ~ ~ )_ I - , ~ _ _ ~) ' s~F ~ ~ ~ - _ Old '~ ~) ~ ~ ~~ ~ \. ~.-~ _ ~~ ti ~, '~ ~ ~ ~ \ i ~~8- ~ `+ csr /, ~ ~ _ ~ _ _ ! i ~ ,1 ~ \ /~~ / j/ i / i - ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,o ~~ ~~ l ~. ~, i, ~ t ~ i ~ i ~~ ~ ~ i .~ x ~~ ~ ~ ., - _ , _ e ~~ ~ °e l 5673 ~ ~ (76 ~ •i<< BO ~ ( SF>?'~ o Z ~ c r 1 0 - W N A~ _ 199 N - ! 3 /2 s~ ~ W 15 _ ~~ w ~ - ~, ___.~ t ~~r: 2 .341 AQ ~~- d-6"O('~!~!)° ~ 66 c,_ r`r 3 75 ac ~ + ~ ~ 1.913 AC ~/_ ~ ~°59 !~ ,~ ;,L ~ ~p=567 fosrmml M ~ , n f 19317 'a; w'` 6 % I° o ~' • N ~ t ~ ~ N °''~~ 7 -- 66 N `~ / ~N ;~ 72 _~ , ~~g~91 i ~ ~ Cp rnt \,~ 0 , L \. \ ti w t It<,30~2~ ~N~-° 3 )'t'- i6H55 ~R°~4Ut„ rL ~ L=66 25 `v 624°W ~ ~ ,."'S~, r,a_ ~ ~ R=633.r)D~~ ~~ ~~°~ ~/BB 64 r !=y(i O ~~ o _ / _ ~ ~; I~'7~85 ~9 ~ a h ~ `~ EOSemenl . A ~ ~~ 0 l~ ~ I ~ e 2B~ ~' p`O\ 0~ D O ~ _ ~ •~ `' -- 1.654 Ac$o ~ ° ~ 24 6 ,~ ~ ~~ h0, ~oo, ~ 9~ ~ N 0 w 2.3 13 Act/- ,~, ~aQhO ~•o~ 0~ E~~~~r ; r~ ~ 19 ?66 ~~1 0 ,so ,~ ~., ~ ~ ~ p~h ~ -- °~ ~ ,,, ~~ / O ~ 00 s6, ~~~ 9h N,S 4n~,2 ~ z 2.04o A~ +/- i' ;shoo 0°° '`9X57 ; ~ ~ o / Q h ~~ ~ ~;~~ _ 'O ,ti .., i 19748/ h o ti $ h ~H1-.'k ~ ~ ~~ ~a J 5, ~ '~5 ~ Ce 19743 2.347 Ac !/-~ ~ r _..._ I v ~Y J I O _ I i NQ~,3p098 - 66 44 ~~p00 9 Oromoge , ~ 75 ~~ ° I d 0=39 ~'' n ~sn ~ ~~ ~ c, 4 ~ ~~ NB9°20'l2°W _ ~ r 2.619 AC ~/' ~o ~^ vi ~ ~ ~ -- 18473 ISO! ~o ~o,,, ti, ti ti~ '~ ., ~+ ~ ,,(~~/4~0' ~T ~ ~~ Q ~~ 1 .7 36 A~~``t~ ~ 7Eosrmenl 34330 ~ ~ 0 v ~~ ^ '~~~ ^~ ~ ~ 9718 ~~~'- ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~, V ;,317 I~ 66 C '19-6 ~ _1-r _ ~~~L 1 ,774 A C t ~ i ~ -- _ N8'J°27?l"F 3yH36 i ~ r~ ~ ~j r~ ~~~~~ 10 ~ ~ ~-5nuth Ime of S E I/4, Sec 22,TwC~ ,`~l, ~ l}.l{ ~ Ave. NN!~Nx, , f Ne9°3da~F 7 ~..~~~' r~ ~ -,~ ,,,F--3 - , ;. ~ ~ , ~ ~ `~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~`! ~'b ~,' ~~\~ ~_ North Ime of NW I/4 of NE I, i `~ Uuorter Corner between ~ v, ~ ~ N~/~OSb 'l~~'~~t ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Sees 22 and 27, Twp 33, ~~I ~ N899~ ~ ~ ~~ Rn 26 a Sherburne '~i~q.PO~s ~ - - q6 3 ,9=2.5010 , _"~a- ) ~ Q) ~~ 9 ~>o ~ ~ t-i3 r h. E7 ~ 1, ~l County Munument ~ vI 32`tlJik r ~ r ~ ~ ~„ ~ ~> ~ N ~Q• N=184.00 ) b W " ~~, la, ~ ao Y i44i!U m~t~ ~ ~t ~t~,r, ro - J,~' ~, (Iroioyr l err, i.l(-~ 76 / 6 r{ n- ~ ~~ r'r ~. 1/U-U(I ~/4~ 66 • l \ ' f OSCmf'n/ W ~ i e,//'~~ (/~ e ~ h V r r ~ '.7 r,. ~~ ~ ~~~ "~ ~~ .,,, ~~1 ~~ ~~ ~ rr ~ V n - 1.54 Ac'/- ,~ ~~; / b ,L ~~'` f 9868 ti "lSi4 ~ ",y ~ ,~ u~ T?"IF ~ b J. 19656 ~°~'~;'e ~~ ~ s ~` REASONS WHY OUTLOT "A" SHOULD. REMAIN RESIDENTIAL. 1.- CONSULTANTS, PAID BY THE CITY, RECOMMENDED THESE AREAS REMAIN RESIDENTIAL. A. THE 1988 GROWTH PLAN BY; R.L. WUORNOS & ASSOCIATES, PAGE V-1, RECOMMENDED 1, FUTURE COAIAIERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGNED TO SUPPORT DOWNTOWN AREA 2. LIMIT DEVELOPMENT OR CREATION OF STRIP COMMERCIAL OR SPOT ZONES 3. ALLOW. COMMERCIAL ONLY CLOSE TO EYISTING SERVICES 2. B. 1990 FOCUS AREA STUDY, BY BRW, INC. RECOMMENDED LIMITING HIGHWAI' COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO 193rd ST. AS THE NORTHERN MOST BOUNDARI'. THERE IS MORE THAN ADEQUATI COMMERCIAL ZONED SPACE BETWEEN THE TRAILER COURT SOUTH OF MAIN ST. (NORTHBOUND LIQUOR STORE) AND 193rd ST. TO THE NORTH. THERE IS N0 NEED TO RUSH FOR SPOT ZONING OF OUTLOT "A" NORTH OF 193rd ST. 3. ELK RIVER DOES NOT NEED A "MIRACLE MILE" ALONG HWY 169. ,• THE DISTANCE FROM THE PARK & RIDE TO 193rd ST PROVIDES AN OVER ABUNDANCE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ALONG HWY 169. THAT BEST SERVE THE COMMUNITY IN THAT CONCENTRATION. 4. ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE ON HWY 10, BOTH EAST AND WEST, WHERE SUBSTANTIAL VACANT FARM LAND IS AVAILA$LE TO SATISFY ANY SIZE DEVELOPMENT, WHERE ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT A PROBLEM, AND HIGH VISIBILITY IS .DESIRED. 5. OUTLOT "A" WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL AT ITS INCEPTION. THIS MOS~i' CERTAINLI' WAS DONE WITI-I CONSIDERATIONS GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF BRENTWOOD, WHERE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT. .AND RESIDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS WERE MADE BY HOME OWNERS -BASED UPON. THIS FACT. IF THE OUTLOT HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY ZONED COMMERCIAL, ALL PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO AND SURROUNDING OUTLOT "A" [WOULD MOST LIKELY STILL BE VACANT. NO POTENTIAL BUYER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED LOTS AND BUILT .HOMES KNOWING THAT THEIR INVESTMENT WOULD DECREASE. IT IS II~iPOR.TANT FOR THE CITY TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY VALUES RATHER. THAN TO ASSIST IN THEIR DECLINE. 6. VERBAL COMMITMENTS OR STATEMENTS, AiADE BY BOTH MR. AND MRS. ANDERSON TO BUI'ERS WITHIN THE BRENTWOOD DEVELOPMENT,. ARE CONSIDERED CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS FOR PURCHASE-AND MUST BE SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. HIS • STATEMENT THAT OUTLOT "A" WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ANll A PARK AREA .MUST BE HONORED BY HIAi FOR THE BENEFIT OF RESIDENTS [aH0 INVESTED IN HIS BRENTWOOD DEVELOPMENT. HE SOLD LOTS AND BENEFITTED BECAUSE OF HIS STATEMENT. I • 7. THE CITY MUST RECOGNIZE THAT ANY DECISIONS TO REZONE OUTLOT "A" TO COMMERCIAL ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ENTIRE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL t1REA ON BOTH.SIDES OF HWY 169.. THIS INCLUDES BRENTWOOD, RIDGEWOOD EAST, AND .THE ENTIRE AREA DIRECTLY .ACROSS HWY 169'. 8. .THE BEAUTY, U1v~IQUINESS, INTEGRETI', AND ASTHETIC VALUE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS SURROUNDING OUTLOT "A" MUST BE PRESERVED. CAREFUL PLANNING WAS EXERCISED TO OPTIriIZE THE UNIQUE ROLLING AND WOODED CHARACTER OF BRENTWOOD AND RIDGEWOOD EAST. OUTLOT "A" T~ PAR.T OF BR NTWOOD. IT IS NOT A SEPARATE PARCEL OR SEPARATE ISSUE. IS IT WISE TO IGNORE THOSE ORIGINAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS TO NOW INTRODUCE A BLIGHT TO THIS AREA IN THE FORM OF A COAIATERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, REGARDLESS OF SIZE. OUTLOT "A" WAS PLANNF'D AND ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND IT MUST REMAIN RESIDENTIAL.` 9. IT TAKES NATURE FROM 100 YEARS OR MORE TO DEVELOP A WOODED AREA OF OAKS AND MAPLES, AND NATURE DOES INDEED DO A BEAUTIFUL JOB. IT IS THE CITY COUNCILS RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESERVE THOSE TREES. IT~TAKES A DEVELOPER "(EXPLOITER) ONLY ONE DAY TO DESTROY WHAT TOOK NATURE 100 YEARS TQ ACCOMPLISH. IF OUTLOT "A" WERE REZONED COMMERCIAL, THEN THE WOODED AREA ACROSS HWY 169 WOULD ALSO BE ZONED COMMERCIAL, AND THE i~1ASS DESTRUCTION WOULD BEGIN. CAN ANYONE LOGICALLY ARGUE TO REDUCE THESE WOOIJED RESIDENTIAL HOME SITES TO ASPHALT AND CONCRETE, MERELY .FOR TIIE SAKE OF SPOT ZONING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? YOU WOULD AGREE THAT LT Iv1AKES MORE SENSE TO EXPAND COMMERCIAL ZONING TO OPEN FARM LAND ALONG ITWY 10 BOTH EAST AND t9EST OF TOWI`F, RATTIER THAN DESTROY, FOREVER, THE WOODED AREA NORTH ALONG IIWY 169. 10. OUTLOT "A" IS NOT SUITED TO COI`iMEI2CIAL DEVELOPMENT. 197th ST. WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC; IRVING ST tJAS NOT DESIGNED FOR COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC; HOLT ST WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR COtwIMERCIAL TRAFFIC; NOR WERE ANY O`T'HER S`PREETS IN BRENTWOOD OR RIDGEWOOD EAST DESIGNED FOR COMIviERCIAL TRAFFIC. YET, THESE RESIDENTIAL STREETS WOULD BE USED BY ANYONE ATTEMPTING TO ACCESS A COMMERCIAL OUTLOT "A". COUNTY RD 33, PROCTOR RD, HIGHLAND, LOWELL, HOLT, 19~ith, 198th, COUNTY RD 1, SCHOOL ST, JACKSON ST, ---ALL WOULD BE AFFECTED BY TRAFFIC TRYING TO GAIN ACCESS TO THIS AREA. THIS AFFECTS ALL RESIDENTS OF ELK RIVER, NOT JUST TITE FEW RESIDENTS WHO BORDER OUTLOT "A". 11. COMMERCIAL ZONING MEANS BIG SEMI-TRAILERS AND TRUCKS. THE GEOGRAPHY, THE LAYOU'1', THE ROADS, THE ACCESSIBILITY OF OUTLOT "A" ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO HEAVY AND FREQUENT TRUCIL TRAFFIC. MAJOR CfIANGES AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GAIN ENTRY TO TIIE OUTLOT THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT EVERY RESIDENT BORDERING THE OUTLOT. OUR CONCERNS MUST BE CONSIDERED. SAFETY BECOMES A PRIMARY ISSUE. r ~" • 12. THE INTERSECTION ON H~~1Y 169 AND 197th WOULD REQUIRE I`iAJOR CHANGES AND CONSTRUCTION TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE OUTLOT. ANOTHER STOP LIGHT AT 197th WOULD ONLY FURTHER IMPEDE TRAFFIC FLOt~~ IN BOTI{`DIRECTIONS OF HWY 169. THIS INTERSEC`1'ION t9AS NOT DESIGNED FOR COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC NOR CAN IT BE CIiANGED TO ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC WITHOUT SERIOUS, DETRIriENTAL, AND ADVERSE AFFECTS TO THE AREA, AND TO TI-IE RESIDENT TAXPAYERS. 13. THERE ARE CURRENTLY FOUR. (~I) STOP LIGHTS ALONG HWY 169; AT THE UNDERPASS, AT riAIN ST, AT SCHOOL ST, AND AT JACKSON ST. AN ADDITIONAL STOP LIGHT AT 197th WOULD FURTHER IMPEDE TRAFFIC ON HWY 169. THERE ARE FOUR (4) TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON HFdY 10 THROUGH THE NORTHTOWN COMPLEX. IT TAiiES FOREVER TO PASS THROUGII THIS AREA. TRAFFIC CRAWLS AT A SNAILS PACE IN BOTH THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON RUSH HOURS. IT CRAt~'LS AT A SNAILS PACE ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND MAJOR SiiOPPING DAYS. IS THIS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR HWY 169 THROUGH ELK RIVER. l~l. PRESERVE TI3E RESIDENTIAL AREAS NORTIi OF 193rd ST. WE DO NOT NEED THE ADDED Iv'OISE, THE Z~I-HOUR HIGH INTENSITY. LIGHTING, THE INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION, NOR THE BLIGHT ON THE AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED BY A REZONING REQUEST. 15. THE CITIZENS AND TAXPAYING RESIDENTS OF THESE RESIDENTIAL t'1REAS PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A LARGER TAX BASE THAN DOES A SINGLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE INTERESTS OF THESE TAXPAYERS Iv1UST BE RECOGNIZED AND I-IGNORED BY DENYING THIS SPOT REZONING REQUEST. FURTHERMORE, IT WOULD BE FOOLISH, HASTY, AND INAPPROPRIATE TO MAKE A REZONING CHANGE PRIOR TO GOriPLETION OF THE STEERING COi~iMITTEE AND THE PLANNING COMMITTEE STUDY. 16. ~dE RESIDENTS ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY OF ELK RIVER AND ITS FUTURE. CAREFUL CONSIDERATE PLANNING BASED UPOIvT HARD FACTS, LOGIC, NECESSITY, AND OVERALL INTERESTS MUST BE ADDRESSED IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT SOUND MEANINGFUL DECISIONS THAT BENEFIT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND NOT SINGLE OR SPECIAL INTERESTS. THE ONLY WISE AND CORRECT DECISION CONCERNING THE REZONING OF OUTLOT "A" IS TO DENY THE CHANGE IN REZONING AND INSIST IT REAfAIN RESIDENTIAL. 17. OUTLOT "A" COULD BE DEVELOPED INTO A PRIME DESIREABLE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT HAS BOTH THE ASTIiETIC APPEAL AND PRESERVING QUALITIES NECESSARY TO BLEND jtitITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WE WOULD WELCOME SUCH A CONSCIENTIOUS EFFORT FROAi THE DEVELOPER. WE BELIEVE IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLETE HIS DEVELOPMENT IN IiARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA OF BRENTtti'OOD.