Loading...
09-13-2005 HR - JOINTWORKSHOP MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION & JOINT MEETING WITH THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 Planning Commission Members Present: Chair Anderson, Lemke, Offerman, Ropp, Scott and Stevens Members Absent: Commissioner Westgaard Heritage Preservation Commission Members Present: Lance Lindberg, Chair; Commissioners Lundberg, Kragness, Nadeau Housing & Redevelopment Authority Members Present: Stewart Wilson, Chair; Members Toth, Leiser, Kuester and Motin Staff Present: Heidi Steinmetz, Assistant Director of Economic Development; Pat Klaers, City Administrator; Scott Clark, Community Development Director; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary Also Present: Jeff Gongoll, EDA President, Pat Dwyer EDA Vice-President, David Callister, Ehlers & Associates Call Meeting To Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Planning Commission Chair Dana Anderson. 2. North Downtown Discussion HRA Chair Stewart Wilson reviewed the redevelopment concept for the North Downtown area as outlined in the drawing presented in the packet to the group. Chair Wilson described each of the areas and explained why the HRA recommended the particular uses. These uses included retail, service, mixed use, townhomes, and single family rehabilitation. Chair Wilson noted that the HRA has not been active in housing redevelopment in the past, but they feel there is potential for it in the areas which have been designated. Commissioner Motin stated that he felt the service area north of Main Street should be a residential/mixed use due to the lack of parking. Planning Commissioner Stevens asked why there has been no interest in redevelopment of the River Lumber Valley property and some of the surrounding sites. Chair Wilson stated that the issue has been timing, since the HRA has had a "full plate" with the Downtown Revitalization Project. Commissioner Stevens stated that to his knowledge, the property still has not sold and asked if the property could be considered. Chair Wilson stated that this Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 2 area will probably be the first to be considered, after getting feedback from the other conunissions and boards. HPC Commissioner Kragness asked what is the mission or direction of the HRA for this area. Chair Wilson stated that the HRA began looking at the condition of the former Eagles, NAPA, and Standard Lumber buildings, and wanted to explore the possibility of a redevelopment plan for this area. The HRA broadened this vision beyond the west to include the east side of Jackson, taking into consideration the traffic and how this area could be better utilized. HPC Corrunissioner Lindberg asked how far east the residential area would be impacted. Chair Wilson stated that the HRA is only looking at the residential along Jackson for possible change, and that they are proposing the existing residential further east for residential rehabilitation. HRA Commissioner Toth stated that there are major utilities in the alley east of Jackson that would have to be taken into account. He felt that they need to keep an eye on this area, and that it could depreciate in value if left to deteriorate. He supported the mixed use option, with single family housing east of Irving Avenue and commercial uses west of Irving. HRA Commissioner Motin stated that both housing and commercial uses could co-exist. HPC Commissioner Lindberg stated that this type of use may not be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. EDA Chair Gongoll asked if Jackson Avenue was wide enough for three lanes or if it is proposed to be widened. Staff felt that the roadway was wide enough to accommodate the three lane configuration. Dave Callister of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. -Reviewed the process by which the market feasibility information was obtained. He stated that it was good to do a market check while in the planning stages of this type of proposal. Mr. Canister reviewed the issues raised by the developers as common themes including: o Redevelopment must compliment, not compete with the downtown retail. o Land assembly will be biggest challenge. o Land acquisition cost would be difficult without city assistance. o Phase I is most likely the former Arrow Building Center site. o Housing near railroad has issues that would need to be addressed. o Commuter rail station would be beneficial. o Area east of Jackson and north of 5th Street should remain residential, possible increased densities (twinhomes, townhomes, row homes). o Commercial activity should be destination-based. o Redevelopment should increase housing density to support downtown area. o Redevelopment should be oriented to take advantage of Lions Park amenities. o Service-related businesses along Main Street make sense and will expand on its own. o Single family rehabilitation areas make sense - need a vehicle/program to proceed, and will enhance and stabilize overall marketability of the area. Mr. Canister stated that each area needs to be looked at, regarding the total development costs, and whether it is feasible to proceed. If there are financial gaps, city assistance maybe needed, and if not, development will be market-driven. Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 3 Planning Commissioner Stevens asked if the developers were aware of the traffic issues. Mr. Callister stated that they were given traffic counts and also visited the site. Comnssioner Stevens asked for clarification on developer comments for the narrow strip along the east side of Jackson Avenue. Mr. Canister stated that they recommended the area remain single family residential, but with increased density. Planning Commissioner Offerman asked if the developers were involved in residential or commercial development. Mr. Callister stated that two of the developers were involved in both commercial and residential and the third developer did residential development. Commissioner Offerman felt that the commercial developers would be willing to come in when they see the residential rehabilitation become a reality. HPC Commissioner Clifford Lundberg asked what is meant by mixed use. Mr. Callister stated that examples would include aretail/office use on a first floor and housing above, a home/studio, or the uses could be detached. He noted that these uses would be lower volume and would not generate a lot of traffic. Commissioner Toth asked where the developers were from that participated in the market study. Mr. Callister stated they were from the metropolitan area, but were very familiar with Elk River. Senior Planner Scott Harlicker provided background information on the new Old Town land use designation and described the boundaries of the district. He noted that a wide variety mix of uses are included in this area such as retaiUservice, single family, and multi- family. Mr. Harlicker explained the boundaries of the study area. He stated the only uses not allowed in the Old Town zoning district which are part of the study area are the Light Industrial and Highway Commercial. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the other uses within the study area; four different commercial districts, four different residential districts, and four PUD's, comparing the land uses and zoning to the proposed uses in the redevelopment district. He stated that there are some areas where the current zoning does not reflect the proposed uses of the concept plan. Mr. Harlicker provided information on form based zoning. He explained that form based zoning does not deal directly with types of uses, but is regulated based on the structures, layout of streets, buildings, setbacks, heights, and densities. The concept of form based zoning concerns what the building and neighborhood will look like, as opposed to the specific use. The types of uses are regulated by the building construction type and its location on the lot. Commissioner Stevens stated that the Planning Commission looked at form based zoning in the past and felt that the study area was an area where it might fit. He felt the form based zoning concept would allow them to regulate what the City wants on a particular site, how they want it to look, and how they want it used. HPC Commissioner Kragness stated he had a positive reaction when reading through the form based zoning information and that it makes sense. He asked how the zoning would be accomplished. Mr. Harlicker stated that each area proposed to be designed would need to go through the proper process. HRA Commissioner Louise Kuester stated that the form based concept with would give the area a more integrated feel and work together. Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Harlicker noted that the form based zoning would not have to apply everywhere and there maybe some places where it would not fit. HRA Chair Wilson asked if staff was aware of some areas where form based zoning has been used. Mr. Harlicker stated that St. Paul, Minnesota is the closest area he is aware of. Planning Commissioner Offennan added that Ramsey Town Square incorporates form based zoning. HRA Commissioner Kuester asked if the City decided consider some form based zoning areas, is there enough information available to proceed. Commissioner Stevens stated that have looked at quite a bit of information over the past year, but they are not experts. He felt the idea is intriguing, in that the end result is what the City wants, instead of what the developer wants to give the City. Chair Wilson asked how receptive developers would be in marketing this concept. Mr. Harlicker stated that there are places all over the United States that have incorporated some type of form based zoning. Some areas are simply corridors; in others such as Saratoga Springs in New York the entire zoning code is form based zoning. Petaluma, California has neighborhoodss with form based zoning, and there are counties and towns in Kentucky that have adopted form based zoning. He summarized that there is mix of how the form based zoning is incorporated in various areas throughout the country. HRA Commissioner Kuester asked if there are workshops to learn more about the concept. Community Development Director Scott Clark noted that PICP has a 90-minute CD Rom on this subject that the City could obtain. HRA Chair Wilson stated that he also would be interested in learning more. EDA President Gongoll asked how the zoning would be incorporated. Mr. Harlicker stated that a formal written document would need to be adopted and the zoning map would need to be modified, as it would for any other type of change. Planning Chair Anderson stated that he feels it would be similar to a more regimented PUD. He felt the challenge would be to find the right developer who would understand the concept. He stated that the City would need to clearly define what they are looking for as an end result. He felt some of the areas under consideration would be a lend themselves well to form based zoning. Chair Anderson stated that there are definite challenges such as the highway, railroad, and existing institutional uses, and flow back and forth between this area and the downtown area south of the railroad. HRA Commissioner Kuester stated that she felt the concept was similar to cluster development, in that the adjacent uses would need to be taken into consideration. Planning Chair Anderson stated that he felt a complete plan was needed, so that it could be determined where each element would fit. Commissioner Kuester felt that there would be developers looking for this sort of challenge. Discussion followed the location of the retail service area and its proximity to Elk River Machine. HPC Commissioner Kragness asked at what the process will be, and at what point the Heritage Preservation Commission would be able to provide input. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt that the various commissions and boards are able to provide comment. HRA Chair Wilson stated that the next step would be for the HRA to decide if they are willing to adopt the plan. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to gather input from the Planning Commission and HPC to see if the plan is possible, and if so, to Platuvng Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 6 It was the consensus that Mr. Harlicker will research information on form based zoning and that each of the commissions select a couple of members to be part of the discussion group. Neighborhood Meeting with Residents East of County Road 40 Planner Chris Leeseberg stated that once staff began looking at concepts for development of this area, they realized that more information is needed. He stated that the greatest obstacle for the site is access. He stated that Sherburne County agreed upon having quarter-mile access points and explained their approximate locations between County Roads 12 and 13. Staff also looked at possible road connections with existing developments and Anoka County development to the east. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed possible utility connections. He stated that until it is known what is going to happen with the Foster and Holzem properties, there will not be city services to the neighborhood east of County Road 40. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the County Road 40 realignment project will be constructed as a rural section, similar to the eastern section of County Road 12 before the Anoka County line. A resident asked if the Foster property was not developed for another 10 years, would it be possible to extend services to their area. Mr. Leeseberg explained how this could possibly happen, but questioned if it would be economically feasible to do so. Commissioner Offerman asked if the rural design construction of County Road 40 was absolute, and if City had any options to build it to an urban section. City Administrator Pat Klaers stated that there were virtually no options. He explained that the City approached the County with a proposal but it did not get approved and they were told it was too late; that the design had already been approved. The City's obligation is now to provide the right of way and letters will be sent to the affected property owners. Mr. Klaers stated that the road will function similar to the area east of 175th Avenue. A resident asked when the roadway would be installed. Mr. Klaers stated it would be built next year (2006). The resident asked who will maintain the section left by the realignment. He stated that he was told the road would be abandoned and neither the City nor the County would maintain it. Mr. Klaers stated that he would need to contact the City Engineer for this question. A resident asked how he would get onto the County road. Mr. Klaers stated that existing driveways will remain and that the County would have an obligation to ensure they have access. Commissioner Lemke asked if both the rural and urban section design would have been two lanes. Mr. Klaers stated yes, and explained that the urban section would have included curb and gutter and storm drainage, versus ditches. He explained that the transition area on County Road 12 going east by Trott Brook Farms is a good example of the difference between an urban and rural section. Commissioner Lemke asked if less right of way is needed and if a trail could be constructed on a urban road. Mr. Klaers stated yes, and explained that there would be less actual road surface in a rural section because of the surface. Commissioner Lemke questioned if the City needs to provide municipal consent and if they would give it. Mr. Klaers stated he stated he was not able to discuss the issue. He noted that the City really needs to have the road blacktopped. Commissioner Motin stated that even though the City does not support the rural design, the layout and safety of Plantung Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 7 the road is improved by the realignment. With an urban design, more accesses could have been allowed. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the County felt the speeds would be lower with a rural design. Commissioner Motin stated that the City may still construct a detached trail along the roadway. Mr. Klaers noted that speeds maybe lower, given the density of the area. Commissioner Offerman stated that beginning at Twin Lakes Road, County Road 12 is four lanes, then goes down to three lanes, and then down to two lanes. He stated that County Road 40 will be only two lanes all the way, and there will be no opportunity for even a turn lane. Mr. Leeseberg stated that he believed the right of way would be wide enough to allow for turn lanes and/or bypass lanes. A resident asked how the road was being paid for. Mr. Klaers explained that a Federal grant will fund a portion of the project; the County will fund a portion, and based on the County's cost-sharing policy the City will be obligated to pay an amount which has not yet been identified. He noted that the Federal grant portion is approximately $750,000. A resident as if the right-of-way would remain the same (75 feet). Mr. Klaers stated that it was his understanding that 100 feet of right-of-way will be required. Discussion followed regarding turn lanes and who would pay for them. Mr. Klaers stated that he has not seen the road design. Mr. Harlicker stated that the County maybe working with the developer to enhance the intersection at County Road 40 and Twin Lakes Road. A resident asked if there was a master plan for the area. Mr. Harlicker stated no. Mr. Klaers noted that the City Council has expressed a desire that the eastern area south of the Holzem site work together and not be piecemeal. Councilmember Moain concurred. Mr. Harlicker stated that the County requirements for quarter-mile access policy will necessitate that the property owners work together in development of their property. Mr. Klaers added that the timing of the utilities will provide timing for that planning, and that the Council hopes to decide within six months whether or not the area will be included in the Urban Service Area. A resident asked how the reconstruction of County Road 40 without extending utilities will impact development. Mr. Klaers stated that the impact is unknown. Discussion followed regarding reconstruction of County Road 40 as a rural design, future development of the eastern area and the need for and east-west corridor. Commissioner Lemke asked if County Road 40 would have the same capacity as a rural or urban design. Mr. Klaers stated yes, and that the County is aware of plans for the area and ultimately what could happen on the County road, and that they are responsible for safe travel on the County roads. Chair Anderson asked that more information be provided regarding the wetland, utilities, and road right of way. Mr. Leeseberg stated that staff would try to obtain information regarding utilities and road design for a workshop in a couple months, but that wetland information would take some time. Chair Stevens asked if there were any A or B Natural Resource Inventory areas on this site. Mr. Leeseberg stated that he will research that information. He noted that whether this area comes into the Urban Service Area as 1-acre, 2 1/z acre, or any other size lots, the access requirements of the County will remain the same. Commissioner Stevens stated that the issue of access will force the issue of how much of the property is developed at one time. Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 8 A resident asked if the Council would consider bringing this area into the Urban Service Area when they have no idea of when Foster property will be developed. Commissioner Motin stated that it is his understanding that they would not expand urban services east of the Foster property until the Foster property is platted. A resident asked if urban services will be provided to the Holzem property. Commissioner Motin stated that has not been decided yet. The resident stated that the offer of a school should not be the driving factor in allowing urban services to be extended. Commissioner Motin stated that if the property is brought into the Urban Service Area, he is in favor of not allowing any more lots that if the property was developed as R1d. A resident asked what the procedure was for determin;ng wetlands, and felt that what the City determines as wetlands maybe different from the property owners feel are wetlands. Mr. Harlicker stated that there are specific guidelines used including soil type, vegetation, presence of water, etc. The resident stated that he felt the residents are being held hostage in development of their property until Mr. Foster decides to develop his property. Mr. Harlicker stated that the Cit}~s goal is orderly development of the City and not to allow "leap frog" development. Further discussion followed regarding development of the Foster property and aneast-west connection. The residents also discussed traffic safety issues in accessing County Road 12. Chair Anderson stated that residents would be notified when more information is available. 4. Consider Natural Resources Inventory Task Force Recommendations Comrissioner Stevens reviewed the six recommendations as outlined in the staff report dated August 30, 2005 and provided detail on each of them. Commissioner Motin asked for clarification on the Transfer of Development Rights Program. Commissioners Stevens and Offerman explained the process. Commissioner Offerman noted that there is definite "receiving and sending" criteria for the development rights. Commissioner Motin stated that he liked the idea, but was concerned how they would be used. Commissioner Offerrnan stated that that the program is being well-used in other areas of the state and the country. Various scenarios using the program were discussed. Commissioner Stevens stated that the rights cannot be banked. Commissioner Offerman stated that the goal is to preserve natural resources. Commissioner Stevens stated that the A & B areas of the NRI are the areas they would most like to see preserved. Discussion followed regarding the question for property owners would face; should they sell their development rights or keep them and develop their property themselves. Further discussion followed regarding what would be the most a developer could obtain from the program. Commissioner Offerman stated the Task Force looked at a number of development scenarios and the actual number of additional lots a developer could get was not actually that large. Commissioner Stevens noted that they looked a number of models including Clusago County and Faribault. Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Scott stated that since both "ends" of the transfer would be negotiated at the same time, no one should end up getting "stuck". He felt that the incentive to invest in this process would be to achieve higher density. Draft Wetland Buffer Ordinance Commissioner Stevens explained the setback requirements of the wetland buffer. He stated that the difficult art of the ordinance would be enforcement. Commissioner Lemke felt that most people will understand it and do the right thing. Commissioner Stevens stated that the biggest issue is "lawn creep", and that the enforcement will generally be complaint-driven. Commissioner Stevens noted that the ordinance will apply to new developments, not existing. Discussion followed regarding the purpose of the buffer. Corxunissioner Offerman stated that this ordinance was drafted by Rebecca Haug, Environmental Technician, and was included in the NRI Task Force's recommendations, since it was related. Discussion followed regarding signing of the buffer zone and enforcement. Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance Commissioner Stevens briefly explained the history of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Commission discussed various components of the ordinance. Commissioner Stevens stated that after reviewing this draft, he felt there were some things missing that were supposed to have been included. Commissioner Stevens stated that the intent of the ordinance was to preserve the native species in the area, and to encourage re-forestation of oaks, birch, sweet maples, etc. He noted that the Task Force felt the language on page 8 was too restrictive, regarding single family property owners rights. Commissioner Lemke stated that sometimes it is necessary to cut down trees in order to save trees. He questioned the right of the City to dictate how a property owner should take care of his trees. Discussion followed regarding rights of a property owner on this issue. Commissioner Stevens stated that he felt more work needs to be done on the Tree Preservation Ordinance and that it is far to restrictive for the homeowner. He also felt that a "m;n;,,,um standard lot size" needs to be established. It was the consensus of the Commission that more work is needed on the draft ordinances and that the NRI reconvene to further discuss the Transfer of Development Rights Program and the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting September 13, 2005 Page 10 Staff suggested that the references to architectural themes be eliminated, since it is nearly impossible to distinguish what is or is not an architectural theme. The Commission concurred that the following language from the NRI recommendations be removed: o Creating an architectural theme through the use of architecture, architectural details, or landscaping (3$ bonus versus 5%). o An additional 5% bonus maybe given to projects determined by the Planning Commission to be unique in their design, concept, or expressing great creativity. Commissioner Stevens requested that the staff review all new plats for any A or B NRI Classification sites. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. RespecG~tf/~ally submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary