The URL can be used to link to this page

6.4. & 6.5. SR 04-16-2001City of River MEMORANDUM Item # 6.4&6.5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Michele McPherso~,~irector of Planning April 16, 2001 Case No.'s LU 01-01 and ZC 01-01 Request by Hoyt Partners to Change the Land Use from Medium Density Residential to Light Industrial, and to Change the Zoning from Rla, Single Family Residential to BP, Business Park for Certain Property Request Stewart Wilson, representing Hoyt Partners, L.L.P., requests that the following applications be considered for Outlot F of the Elk Path Business Center: 1. A land use amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Light Industrial. 2. A zone change to change the zoning from Rla, Single Family Residential to BP, Business Park. Sherburne County is interested in purchasing the property for future expansion purposes (see attached letter). Location The subject parcel is approximately 18 acres and is located south of the Sherburne County Government Center and west of Sandpiper Estates. Attachments · Location map · December 21,2000 letter from Hoyt Partners · December 21,2000 letter from Bruce Anderson and Brian Benson, Sherburne County · December 30, 2000 letter from Rick and Caroline Koch in opposition to the request · January 23, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone (763) 441-7420 · Fax (763) 441-7425 Memo to Mayor & City Council/LU 01-01 & ZC 01-01 March 19, 2001 Page 2 · Resolution No. 01- , Approving the Land Use Amendment · Ordinance No. 01-__, Approving the Zone Change Definitions - Government Buildings and Facilities and Government Offices · Conditional Uses- R1 Single Family Districts · Allowed Uses - Business Park District May 18, 1998 Staff report regarding ordinance amendment to amend Definition of Government Offices to include jails · October 20, 1997 City Council minutes · October 20, 1997 staff report regarding land use and rezoning amendment for the change from Medium Density Residential to Light Industrial and from Rlc Single Family Residential to BP Business Park · January 18, 1994 staff report establishing Business Park District 1990 Focus Area A Study · 1988 Growth Management Plan History In order to understand the overall ramifications of this request, the following history is provided for the Commission's understanding: In 1988, the City completed a Growth Management Plan in order to plan the City's long-term growth. As part of this plan, areas were identified for residential, commercial, and industrial developments. As can be noted on the attached potential industrial site assessment map, the area encompassed by the Elk Path Business Center was identified as having high potential for industrial development. As a follow-up to the 1988 Growth Management Plan, the City completed a Focus Area Study in 1990. Focus Area A, the analysis of which is attached, included the area identified as Elk Path Business Center. Focus Area A was approximately 582 acres in size and was bounded by the Elk River on the north, Lake Orono on the east, the Mississippi River on the south and the western City limits. Within Focus Area A, a large component included future industrial development, including the Elk Path Business Center and areas to the east including the parcel of the Softpak development. As a result of the 1990 Focus Area Study, a portion of what is now Elk Path Business Center was rezoned to Business Park with an underlying land use designation of Light Industrial. The portion adjacent to County Road No. 30 was zoned and guided for residential development. In order to set the stage for high quality development, the City established a new zoning district entitled, "Business Park" in 1994. The Business Park Zoning District was intended to provide opportunities for higher quality industrial development whose primary focus would be to increase job generation and to utilize higher quality building materials in construction. S:\PLANNING\MICHMC\CCREPRTS\LU01-01 .DOC Memo to Mayor & City Council/LU 01-01 & ZC 01-01 March 19, 2001 Page 3 In 1997, the City initiated a land use amendment and zone change to change the area that had previously been identified as residential to Business Park with a Light Industrial land use designation. This was in response to the City completing the Economic Strategic Plan. Attached for the Commission is the staff report and the City Council minutes for that request. As the Commission could anticipate, the single-family property owners located in Sandpiper Estates and Riverview Heights were strongly opposed to Business Park zoning adjacent to their development. As a result of neighborhood opposition and a desire of the property owner at that time to allow some residential development, an area (now Outlot F) was created which remained guided and zoned for residential development. In 1998, the City amended the definition of government offices to include jails in response to the County jail expansions. At the time the County Courthouse was originally constructed, the jail facility was truly an incidental function to the office and courthouse operations (government offices are a permitted use in the Business Park Zoning District). Since that time, as the Commission is well aware, the jail has become a distinct operation from the normal County Courthouse activities. Analysis When considering the land use amendment and the rezoning from residential to industrial/business park, the City must give consideration to existing conditions within the area directly and indirectly affected by the proposal, the conservation of property values, the use to which the property affected is being devoted at the time, and relevant provisions, if any, in the land use plan (Comprehensive Plan). Comprehensive Plan Impacts Since 1988, the City has identified the area of Elk Path Business Center as an area that it wished to develop for industrial/business park purposes. In 1997, as a result of the concern on the part of adjacent residents, this desire did not come entirely to fruition. The letter submitted by the applicant, as well Sherburne County representatives, indicate that their desire at this time is to allow the land to remain vacant but to have the ability to hold the land for future County development needs. Changing the land use designation and the zoning at this time is not mandatory, based on the desired use indicated by the County. Under the current land use designation and zoning, government facilities would be allowed as a conditional use within the Rlc Zoning District. Affect on Adiacent Properties Based on information provided by the applicant and County representatives, impact to adjacent properties would be minimal at this time. However, a change in land use and zoning to industrial and business park would allow a variety of S:\PLANNING\MICHMC\CCREPRTS\LU01-01.DOC Memo to Mayor & City Council/LU 01-01 & ZC 01-01 March 19, 2001 Page 4 uses, including manufacturing and an expansion of the government offices, including the jail at some point in the future. Minnesota Statute does not require future plans or site plans for consideration of a rezoning request. If the land were to be guided industrial and zoned for business park uses, the County could elect to sell the property for industrial uses in the future, if it determines that the land is unnecessary. While the adjacent residents may fear that the County is purchasing this property for additional jail expansions, the jail as a use has fewer impacts than a manufacturing facility, which may have delivery trucks or run third shifts creating noise or other impacts. At this time, it is unknown what the County may build on the property. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this request on January 23, 2001 (minutes attached). At that hearing, representatives from Hoyt Partners and the County spoke regarding the request. A number of property owners from Sandpiper Estates also testified as to the impact of the County's jail facility on their property. Brian Benson, County Administrator testified that the County does not intend to expand the jail and that the purpose of the land purchase is to ensure future expansion space for unknown needs. The Planning Commission expressed concern with the use of the land for a jail expansion. However, they agreed that County administrative offices would provide a good buffer between the existing single-family residences and future business park activities to the west. They unanimously recommended denial of the request but directed staff to revise the ordinance to allow County offices in the single-family districts. Recommendation The City Council is being asked to consider a request that may have unknown future impacts. The recommendation to change the land use and zoning designations of the property are consistent with the City's stated goals since 1988. The County, however, could operate a "park-like" setting under the current zoning designation and request a land use and zone change when it decides the exact use for this property. If the City Council finds that amending the land use plan to light industrial and the zoning to Business Park is consistent with the City's goals of increasing job creation opportunities, strengthening its industrial base, and that this zoning is compatible with the adjacent residential zoning, then a motion to approve the attached resolution is appropriate. S:\PLANNING~'VllCHMC\CCREPRTS\LU01-01 .DOC 189TN 188TN 187TH 185"tH 1 ,1B2ND 180TM L_AK[ $£COND City of LOCATION River MAP LU01.01 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 Elk River, kiN 55330 CASE: ZC01-01 HOYT PARTNERS, LLP P.O. BOX 277 ELK RIVER, MN 55330 December 21, 2000 Michele McPherson, Director of Planning City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Zone Change Application Dear Michele: Enclosed is an application to change the zoning for Outlot F, Elk Path Business Center. We are requesting to change the zoning from Rla - Single Family to Business Park. This request is driven by the fact that Sherburne County wishes to purchase this property. Please see the enclosed letter from Sherburne County signed by Bruce Anderson, Sheriff and Brian Bensen, County Administrator. Also, the recent response of residents of Elk River Crossing to the business park development has caused me to re-think our zoning. Even though the residents of Elk River Crossing, a multi-family development, knew the property across the street was zoned business park, they still opposed this type of development. I don't want to see the City face that same issue again with a single family neighborhood when Elk Path Business Center begins to develop. It also seems that a governmental use of Outlot F would provide a compatible buffer between the existing single family neighborhood to the east and the future business park to the west. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any further information. Sincerely yours, Enclosures December 21, 2000 Sherbu~ SHERIFF lq BRUCE M. ANDERSON L_ City Council Planning and Zoning Commission City of Elk River City Hall P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO BUSINESS PARK On December 19, 2000, we approached the Sherburne County Board of Commissioners regarding the purchase of 18 acres of land owned by Stewart Wilson. This land is located immediately behind the Sherburne County Government Center. The board approved development of a purchase agreement for this land and a zoning change. No bonding would be necessary for this purchase, as funding will be through the Sheriff's Department. As you know, for some years Sherburne County has been the fastest growing county in the State of Minnesota. This fast rate of growth is expected to continue for at least the next seven years. When our county government was offering services from two different locations, Sherburne ckizens were very fi:ustrated and confused. Without adequate land available adjacent to the government center for future growth, county services could again be split, possibly even as far as the Becker area. As background, when Mr. Wilson was approached a few years ago about the possibility of this purchase, he was not expecting to sell in the immediate future. As the area has become built up around the government center, he made the decision to sell all the land he owns surrounding this complex. This land will be sold to someone, and purchase by county government will ensure we will not be locked in without adequate space for future needs. As we do not foresee building in the immediate future, our plans are to landscape this land and provide an asphalt walkway and fence around the entire 18 acres. We will provide a beautiful park setting with picnic tables to accommodate government center employees and the public. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ~ '~UNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ,80 Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330-4609 Area Toll Free Numbers: Etk River - (763) 241-2500 Fax - (763) 441-7303 Other- 1-800-433-5245 City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission page two It is our vision to provide a government center complex that will make the citizens of the city of Elk River proud and at the same time provide for county government services into the future. We would be happy to meet with your staff to answer any further questions. Sincerely, Sher~mce M. Anderson December 30, 2000 VIA US MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY City Hail/Elk River Planning Commission 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Dear Planning Commission: The purpose of this letter is to ask that you .do not recommend the rezoning of ttxe property directly behind the Slxerbume County, Government Center from single-family residential to business park. The residents of Elk River in that area had voiced their opinion against the rezoning of that property previously approximately ! ½ to 2 years ago and were successful in leaving it single-family residential. The most important opinion was that business park does not belong that close to a residential area. That is still the case and should not be recommended for a rezoning. We respectfully ask you to consider this request when this issue comes up before the Commission in January. Smcerely, Rick and Caroline Koch 18176 Ogden Street NW CC~ all homeowners Elk Rive:: City Council/City Hall. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 2 3.1. Consider 12/12/01 Plannin,q Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 12, 2000, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0- 1. Commissioner Baker abstained. 3.2. Consider 12/27/01 Planninq Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 27, 2000, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planninq Commission Representative to Attend February 2001 City Council Meetinq Commissioner Chambers will attend the February 20, 2001, City Council meeting. 5.1 .a. 5.1 .b. Request by Hoyt Partners for Land Use Plan Amendment/MR to LI), Public Hearin.q - Case No. LU 01-01 Request by Hoyt Partners of Zone Chanqe (Rlc to BP), Public Hearin.q - Case No. ZC 01-01 Staff report by Michele McPherson. Stewart Wilson, representing Hoyt Partners, L.L.P. requests a land use amendment and rezoning for Outlot F of Elk Path Business Center. The property is approximately 18 acres in size and is located south of the Sherburne County Government Center, west of Sandpiper Estates and north of Riverview Heights. Hoyt Partners requests a land use amendment fo change the land use designation form Medium Density Residential to Light Industrial; and a rezoning from R1c (Single Family Residential) to BP (Business Park). Sherburne County has entered into a purchase agreement with Hoyt Partners to purchase the property for possible future development. The County has no immediate plans for the site other than to landscape the area, provide picnic tables and walking paths for County government workers, and potentially the general public. Michele McPherson reviewed the history of this area as follows: In 1988, the Growth Management Plan identified this area as having a high potential for industrial development. The 1990 Focus Area Study (582 acres in western Elk River) identified areas for residential, commercial and industrial development. Some of these changes were implemented and some were later revised. A portion of the Hoyt Partners property was zoned and guided single family residential and the remainder was guided for industrial and business park. The Business Park zoning district was created in 1994, which established higher quality building standards and encourage quality job creation opportunities within the City. In 1997, the City of Elk River initiated an ordinance amendment for this area, to change the land use from Single Family to entirely Business Park, in response to the Economic Strategic Plan. As a result of opposition from the Sandpiper Estates and Riverview Heights residential neighborhoods, a compromise resulted in Outlot F remaining Single Family Residential. In 1998, the City initiated an ordinance amendment which included jails in the definition of government offices. Ms. McPherson noted that at that time, the jail use was incidental to the County Government Center, but since then, the County jail has become similar in size to Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 3 the administrative use. The applicant is requesting that the Commission consider changing the use of Outlot F from residential to business park. Ms. McPherson noted that it has been the goal of the City to expand its industrial base and its opportunities for ]ob creation, and to provide an opportunity for City E)f Elk River to become a live-work community. If the Commission agrees that this goal is important, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of the request. However, based on the County's desires at this time, the zoning could remain residential until the County decides to develop the site. Ms. McPherson stated that the City does not know at this time how the County may develop the site if it were rezoned to Business Park, and that impacts on the adjacent properties need to be considered. Chair Mesich asked where the sewer and water is currently located. Ms. McPherson stated that sanitary sewer crosses the property. Terry Maurer stated that the water is available on the east side of this site. Ms. McPherson explained that utilities were installed across the center of Elk Path Business Center with the extension of Business Center Drive. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on previous zoning and land use designation of the site. Ms. McPherson reviewed details of the history of the site. Commissioner Ropp asked if the property to the west is developed. Ms. McPherson stated that the property is currently vacant and the Pinewood Golf Course has an agreement with the propedy owner to use a portion of the site adjacent to Waco Street as a driving range. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Stewart Wilson, 17975 Troy Street, Elk River, property owner, explained that he is presenting this request due to a strong interest by Sherburne County in purchasing the property. Given the opposition of the residents in Country Crossing to the development of business park in that area, he questioned whether R 1 c was appropriate for this site, since the property to the west will eventually be developed as business park. He felt that a governmental use of Outlot F would be compatible with the existing single family neighborhood to the east, and also would be an enhancement to the development of the business park to the west. He stated that he has received numerous requests to purchase the property for residential development, but that he has held off because he was not sure that residential use was compatible with business park to the west. Chair Mesich asked why the County has not considered expanding to the east or west, rather than south. Mr. Wilson stated that the County representatives could better answer the question. Chair Mesich agreed that a County use would be a good buffer for the residential, but that there are no guarantees and the land could be sold in the future and developed as business park. Mr. Wilson stated that he could not speak on behalf of the County, but that he did not believe the County was in the business of buying property and selling it for profit. Brian Benson, Sherburne County Administrator, explained that approximately 25- 30 years ago, the citizens of Sherburne County voted to have Elk River remain the County seat. The County outgrew their downtown site and in 1980, the first phase of the government center building was completed, and since then two additions Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 4 have been built. Mr. Benson stated that, due to past discussions with City representatives, the County was under the impression that the City felt the Highway 10 frantage property was better suited for commercial/industrial purposes, and that expansion of the Caunty offices would be better suited south of their existing site. He agreed that the County does not need the visibility Highway 10 provides, if they were to expand. Mr. Benson stated that they are looking at acquiring land for future expansion at this time, due to the rising costs and demand for land. He noted that they have no plans at this time to expand, but the way the County is growing, they need to plan for the future. Mr. Benson explained that the County would first expand up one level on the northwest portion of the building, but then they would be out of vertical space to expand and they would not have any additional area for parking. Mr. Benson stated that it has been the ongoing desire of past and present County Commission Boards to keep all County services on one campus. He stated that if the surrounding property were agricultural, they would purchase outlot F and continue to have the property farmed. But since the surrounding property is zoned business park, they would have the area landscaped and create and walking path and a lunch area for the County employees. Mr. Benson stated that the jail is serving the taxpayers well, and that the County has no desire or need for any additional jail space. Chair Mesich asked where the prisoners would go when the jail is filled. Mr. Benson explained that first and foremost obligation of the jail is to serve the County. The County was able to build and finance the jail with some federal assistance by housing federal prisoners, but as the County's need for jail space increases, they will be able to utilize the additional space and will not need to expand the jail. Chair Mesich asked if the County has pursued purchasing the property to the east and west. Mr. Benson stated that he has spoken with Mr. Gagne (property owner to the east) about one year ago, and that when they spoke with the Wilson's regarding the property to the west, they were not interested and the piece immediately adjacent to the County's property has since been sold. Chair Mesich asked if the would have any assurances that the County would use the property themselves and it would not be sold for business park use. Mr. Benson stated that he cannot guarantee what a future County Board may decide to do. Mr. Benson stated that there are currently 450 County employees at this time and they are continuing to grow and provide additional jobs for the area. He noted that they are considering moving the Public Works offices to Becket, along with their maintenance facility. He stated that the County's purpose in acquiring this property is for the ability to expand their office space in the future. Ms. McPherson asked why the County wishes to rezone the property at this time, rather than in the future, when they have a plan for development of the property. Mr. Benson felt it would be bad policy to acquire property that is zoned improPerly and then to come back and request a rezoning when they are ready to expand. He stated that the County would be coming to then with any development plans anyway, and they would be willing to comply with any special conditions that may be appropriate at that time. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Baker asked if the County would have to move the County seat from that location, if they ran out of space. Mr. Benson stated that the County seat would not be moved, but that the offices would have to be split up and some would move to another location. Commissioner Baker asked if purchasing the property to the west were an option to the County. Mr. Benson stated that it was his understanding this property was sold. Ms. McPherson stated that the only piece of this property which as been "spoken for" is the piece north of Business Center Drive and that the property to the west is platted as one large lot and is already guided and zoned for business park development. She noted the City has not received any proposal to subdivide the property. Trunk utilities traverse the property east-west at the same location of the south boundary of Sherbume County's property. Steward Wilson stated that when he spoke to Sherburne County staff prior to Mr. Benson being the County Administrator, the County was not interested in purchasing highway frontage property because of the additional expense and because they did not need highway frontage. Because of that, the County has never pursued purchasing any of his highway frontage property or the property immediately to the west of the County. Commissioner Baker asked what the process would be for the County to purchase a portion of the property to the west. Ms. McPherson stated that the property would need to be platted in the same manner as any other plat. Nicole Bahr, 18222 Ogden Street, resident of Sandpiper Estates, stated that she would be living directly across the street from the proposed business park. She stated that she has been through the jail expansion issue and that the residents were told it would be an office expansion. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the fencing installed by the County. She stated that the 80 percent opacity means "at the fence" and that the fence does nothing far their view of the jail when looking out the window from inside their homes. She asked that the Commission consider the impacts on the residents. Ms. Bahr stated that the County is concerned about keeping their offices together in one location, but that children are being bussed all over because the schools cannot be kept in one location. Caroline Koch, 19176 Ogden Street, stated that she sent a letter to the Commissioners and City Council. Ms. McPherson noted that the letter was in the Commissioner's packets. Stated that her property faces the jail and she feels it is ugly. She does not feel the City needs so much business park; that it takes away from the residential beautification of Elk River. ,She stated she is saddened that Mr. Wilson did not sell his property for residential when he was given the opportunity. She asked the Commission to consider the residents living there who have children. She felt that the $oftpak building is an eyesore and she feat sorry for the people living in the townhomes across from $oftpak. Chair Mesich questioned if it would be fair to potential residents living in Outlot F (if the zoning remained residentiall to be next to a business park. Ms. Koch stated that these residents would already know it was zoned business park when they bought their property. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 6 John Weicht, 13330 Island View Drive, stated that it was his understanding that the County could expand their use under the current zoning, with a conditional use permit. Mr. McPherson reviewed the ordinance definitions for government buildings and government offices. Commissioner Pederson stated he did not feel it makes sense to allow a public works facility as a conditional use in a residential neighborhood, and yet governmental offices are not allowed. Patty Patterson, 18268 Ogden Street, stated that her backyard abuts the jail. She stated that she is aware that the jail is generating a lot of money and she could not understand why they can not have a better barrier to protect their view. She stated that they tried to sell their property once, but they were unable to. Ms. Patterson stated that they built their house with the intention of staying there a long time. She stated that they do not feel like they are in the country anymore. Jim Sletten, 18137 Ogden Street, expressed his disappointment with the landscaping that was done when the jail expansion was completed. He felt there was a much better barrier for the residential homes by Softpak and questioned why something like this wasn't done for the residents living next to the jail. He did not feel the County made an attempt to provide an adequate means of visual protection. He stated that he did not want to see another County building constructed without a proper buffer. Chair Mesich questioned why the jail expansion was not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated that if a proposal is a permitted use, the application is reviewed administratively. The County did come before the Board of Adjustments regarding reducing the amount of landscaping, but the application was withdrawn. Ben Anderson, 13710 183,d Avenue, stated that he wanted to see this property used in the best way for the whole community. He questioned why Outlot F was left residential. He stated that the newspaper report quoted Sheriff Bruce Anderson stating that the County wanted this area set aside for possible future expansion of the prison and that it was a good money-making situation. He stated that he was concerned that money not be the bottom line in the City's motivation regarding the best use of this land. He supported using the property to compliment what is already going on in the government facility, to keep people from going back in to the prisons or from going in at all. Linda Anderson, 18287 Ogden Street, stated that before moving to Elk River, they lived near a business park and dealt with the noise and trucks coming and going. She stated that they have already had to accept the Softpak development and stated that they did not want to see Outlot F developed into business park. She felt that residential also provides tax base with increasing property values. Ms. Anderson stated that she and her husband commute to the Twin Cities for their jobs and that they like to come home to the peace and quiet of their neighborhood. Chair Mesich asked the County to address the landscaping issue. Planning Commission Minutes Janua~ 23,2001 Page 7 Brian Benson, Sherburne County Administrator, explained that the County had asked for reduction in the amount of landscaping of the jail expansion for security purposes. He stated that after hearing the residents, the application was withdraw. Mr. Benson stated that if the County were to acquire Outlot F, the first thing that would be done is to install a berm and trees along the property adjacent to Sandpiper Estates. Roy Thorp, 13789 183rd Avenue NW, asked that the County meet with the residents to go over the County's plans for the property and also, to hear the residents' concerns. Nicole Bahr asked if the County purchases property, can the City require that the County make an agreement in writing as to the landscaping and screening. Chair Mesich stated that those requirements are written in the zoning code. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Baker stated that he does not believe the County has any ulterior motives in purchasing this property. He felt that a significant amount of time has gone into zoning the land as it is. He suggested that the County explore other options for acquiring land for expansion before asking the City to rezone Outlot F. Commissioner Pederson suggested recommending an ordinance amendment which would allow city and county offices in an R1 district, as a conditional use. He felt that by doing this, there would be somewhat of a guarantee that the County would build an office building. Also, the current ordinance to allow correctional facilities or jails as conditional uses would need to be changed, as welt. Chair Mesich and Commissioner Chambers agreed with Commissioner Pederson's suggestion. Commissioner Pederson asked how long an ordinance amendment would take. Ms. McPherson stated that the Planning Commission could consider an amendment at their February meeting and the request would go to the City Council in March. Commissioner Pederson stated he did not feel residential zoning was appropriate for Outlot F. He felt they would be dealing with the same issues as they did with the Softpak issue. Commissioner Pederson stated that he felt the use of the property as County offices would be more compatible with the residential and a good transition from business park. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY HOYT PARTNERS LLP FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR OUTLOT F, ELK PATH BUSINESS CENTER, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, CASE NO. LU 01-01, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE PROPERTY PROVIDES A GOOD BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUSINESS PARK/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TO THE WEST AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE EAST. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW GOVERNMENT OFFICES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH WOULD PERMIT THIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 8 3. PREVIOUS REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THIS SITE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT RESIDENTIAL IS THE BEST USE OF THIS PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY HOYT PARTNERS LLP TO REZONE OUTLOT F, ELK PATH BUSINESS CENTER, FROM R1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO BP BUSINESS PARK, CASE NO. ZC 01-01, BASED ON FINDINGS GIVEN FOR DENIAL OF THE LAND USE AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5..2. Ms. McPherson noted that this issue will be discussed at the Planning Commission workshop on February 13, 2001, with input from Stewart Wilson of Hoyt Partners and Sherburne County representatives. A recess was called at this time (8:00 p.m.) The Commission reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Request by T & W Investments, LLC for Conditional Use Permit for Automotive Use - Houles Addition, Public Hearin.q - Case No. CU 01-02 Staff report by Michele McPherson. T & W Investments, LLC, requests that a conditional use permit be approved to allow a 70' x 90' (6,300 sq. ft.) expansion of an automotive use at 10908 171st Avenue NW, in the 11 Light Industrial District. Ms. McPherson reviewed issues associated with parking, curb and gutter, fire lane, signage, and building materials. The applicant is willing to relocate the dumpster from the fire lane, as per the City Engineer's recommendation, and the enclosure will be constructed to match the building exterior. The City Engineer also recommends that the length of the building be shortened by 10 feet, in order to accommodate the fire lane without infringing on the retention pond. Ms. McPherson stated that the building will be constructed of rock-face block and will be painted a "buff" color with a red stripe near the top of the building, as previously approved. Staff will insure that the landscaping meets the requirements for size and number of trees. Staff recommends approval of the request with a reduction in the size of the building from 6,300 sq. ft. to 5,600 sq. ft. and the conditions listed in the staff report. City Engineer Terry Maurer explained that several compromises have already been made due to site constraints. If this had been a larger site, 4:1 slopes would have been required for the pond and relatively flat 10 foot wide area for the fire lane. Due to the constraints, 3:1 slopes have been allowed with the condition that the pond be fenced. As the building is currently laid out, approximately 5-7 ft. of the fire lane would be into the 3:1 slope and therefore, he is recommending that the building be "shortened up". The applicant is proposing to add retaining walls, but Mr. Maurer felt that would cause more extensive flooding. He did not feel any further compromises can be made and he felt that the applicants may be trying to put too much on the site. Chair Mesich asked if the trench drain would be reviewed by the Chief Building Official. Mr. Maurer stated that the review and inspection of these types of issues CITY OF ELK RIVER RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM MR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) Case No. LU 01-01 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.355, Subdivision 2, prescribes the procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 23, 2001, and recommended denial regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment request for the property generally described as: Outlot F, Elk Path Business Center and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment request and finds the following: The proposed changes are in general conformance to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land use change is consistent with the City's goals of increasing job creation opportunities, strengthening its industrial base, and is compatible with the adjacent residential zoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River that the Land Use Plan be amended to change the property as described above from Medium Density Residential to Light Industrial. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 19th day of March, 2001. ATTEST: Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk S:\PLANNING\RESOLUTI\LU01-01.doc ORDINANCE 01 - CITY OF ELK RIVER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ELK RIVER ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTIES AS DESCRIBED CASE NO. ZC 01-01 The City Council of the City of Elk River does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The duly adopted Zoning Map of the City of Elk River is hereby amended to rezone the properties described as: Outlot F, Elk Path Business Center Section 2. The rezoning is being approved based on the following findings: 1. THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 2. THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GOALS OF INCREASING JOB OPPORTUNITIES, STRENGTHENING ITS INDUSTRIAL BASE. 3. THE REZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after the date of its publication. Passed and adopted this 19th day of March, 2001, by the City Council of the City of Elk River. ATTEST: Stephanie A. Klinzing, Mayor Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk s:\planning\ordinanc\zcOl-Ol.doc Definitions FENCE: A partition, structure, wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, visual or physical barrier or enclos GARAGE, PRIVATE: An accessory building se!f-prope~!ed vehicles and tools incidental to a conforming u premises. ge of maintained as GA_RAGE, PUBLIC: except those defined as a private garage us~ storage or care of self-propelled vehicles or where vehicles are equipped for operation or repair or pt for remuneration, hire, or sale. GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: Any building, structure, or facility for the purpose of a facility serving certain governmental functions. These uses are intended to include uses that are supportive of governmental functions such as public works facilities, correctional facilities, and waste handling or processing facilities. These uses are intended to be distinguished from "governmental offices' and "essential services." GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES: Any facility, building, and structure for the purpose of providing governmental services to the general public. Uses intended are generally compatible with office and residential uses and include city offices, county offices, courthouses, jails operated on the same site and as part of a city or county courthouse, libraries, and post offices. These uses are intended for the direct provision of governmental services to the public as distinguished from governmental buildings and facilities. GROUP HOME, RESIDENTIAL: A building or structure where persons reside for purposes of rehabilitation, treatment, or specia[ care. Such persons may be orphaned, suffer chemical or impairment, or suffer social maladjustment or depend( GROUP HOME, RESIDENT: A person residing in a purpose of receiving rehabilitation, home for the or special care. HOME OCCUPATION: Any gainful or profession customarily conducted entirely w a dwelling principally by members 0f a family residi g in which use is clearly incidental and secondary use cf the dwelling for residential purposes an not change the character thereof. There are two t home Occupations; "Permitted Home Occupations" .ch are processed administratively following a certain criteria and "Conditional Home Occupations", which do not the specific criteria for a permitted home occupation ar !uire'a public hearing pursuant to ~he procedures and ?ds of a conditional use permit. 9.6 Conditional Uses - R1 Districts x. Feedlots in R-la xii. Commercial kennels in R-la xiii. Private kennels in R-la R-2a - Townhouse iv. Private recreational facilities Conditional Uses i. Conditional home occupations ii. Fairground facilities iii. Golf courses and Country Clubs iv. Governmental buildings and facilities v. Temporary mobile homes consistent with Section 900.20 vi. Institutional uses vii. Licensed daycare facilities in institutional buildings viii.Agricultural uses in R-la (less than 5 acre lot size) ix. Agricultural uses in R-lb, R-lc, R-ld, and R-le (5 acre minimum lot size) STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: This District is intended to create "townhouse" iow density housing areas as a transition bet~ee~ single family housing and higher density residentia/ A. Permitted Uses ~ i. Single family dw/ ii. Two fam/ng iii. Lic~B~ da~~ies for 12 or fewer Subsection 13 iv. Public parks playgrounds and open space 924 Permitted Uses - Business Park be unique to the principal use of the prcpert and %he ownership of the property and the principal use. Any condiSional use pe: granted under this Section shall automatically expire if the pril ,1 use of ~he property changes or the owne of either the property or the principa of the property changes. xiii. Temporary s xix. Governm gs and facilities xx. storage Ail uses allowed as a conditional use in the I1 zone 16. B-P Business Park STATEMENT OF PLrRPOSE: The Business Park District is established to encourage a planned, integrated environment for certain industrial, office, and commercial uses which are compatible with, and compliment each other as well as the surrounding land uses. The underlying land use designation within the districZ may vary, either light industrial or highway business. Development within the Business Park district will correspond with the land use designation. Industrial and office uses allowed where the land use designation is light industrial, and commercial uses allowed where the land use designation is highway business. It is the intent of this ordinance that development reflects common themes using compatible architectural design and consistency in signage, landscaping, and lighting. It is also the intent to encourage businesses which generate a high number of jobs per square foot rather than predominately warehouse type uses. A. Permitted Uses Permitted uses· allowed when the underlying land use is light industrial: a. Light Manufacturing b. Research and development laboratories c. Government, business, and professional offices d. Mail order operations 9.40 Conditional Uses - Business Park m o Co e. Telecommunication operations ii. Permitted uses allowed when the underlying land use is highway business: a. Health athletic clubs b. Personal service establishments c. Financial institutions Accessory Uses: i. Off-street parking lots or facilities ii. Private recreational facilities iii. Public shelters and essential services Conditional Uses: i. Conditional uses allowed when the underlying land use is light industrial: a. Any permitted use which involves more than 30% warehouse space b. Vocational, technical and trade schools c. Multiple buildings on a lot e. Above ground storage tanks ii. Conditional uses allowed when the underlying land use is highway business: a. Hotels and motels b. Licensed day care facilities c. Retail shops and stores which complimen5 and serve the Business Park subject to the standards set forth in 2(j) below. do Motor vehicle specialty service stations Multiple buildings on a lot Multiple tenant buildings Restaurants (Class I) 9.41 MEMORANDUM Item # Mayor and City Council FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistant May 18, 1998 ~ Request by the City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment, Public Hearing Case No. OA 98-1 Request Consider a request by the City of Elk River to amend the definition of government offices to include jails. Attachments · Ordinance No. 98- · Current definition of governmental offices · Proposed definition Overview When the county office complex was originally constructed the jail facility was an incidental function to the office and courthouse operations. Since that time the jail has expanded and become more than just an incidental aspect of the total operation of the facility. Because of this expansion it became necessary to examine the issue of where do jails fit within the context of the zoning ordinance. The zoning code has two definitions that cover government facilities, they are "Government Buildings and Facilities" and "Governmental Offices". Government buildings and facilities include more intense governmental uses such as public works facilities, correctional facilities, and waste handling or processing. Governmental offices include less intense uses such as city and county offices, libraries and post offices. One use that is missing from these definitions are jails. There is no provision for allowing jails under either definition. A jail is different from a correctional facility. Jails are short~ term holding facilities for people awaiting trial, pending sentencing or serving county jail 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to Mayor and City Cou, OA 98-1 May 18, 1998 Page 2 time. It is different from a correctional facility because correctional facilities are for prisoners serving out sentences for state or federal crimes. These are long term facilities and include such prisons as Stillwater, St. Cloud, Lino Lakes or Pipestone. The issue is under which definition, governmental offices or governmental buildings and facilities, should jails be included. Since jails are a short term holding facility that functions as part of the county court system, it is important that it be including as part of the same definition that includes the county court and office complex. That definition is governmental offices. If jails were included under the definition of governmental building or facility it would not be permitted at the present location of the county office complex. Governmental buildings and facilities are not an allowed uses in the BP (Business Park) district, which is what the county complex is zoned. However, governmental offices are allowed as a permitted use in the BP district. Plann~n~ Commission Meetin~ At the Planning Commission meeting held on April 28th no one spoke at the pubhc hearing. The Commission discussion includin, g a definition for jail and whether jails should be allowed as a permitted use or a conditional use. They were concerned about public input in the review process. Public hearings are not required for permitted uses but are with conditional uses. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance with the inclusion of a separate definition for jail. The proposed definition for jail is the same as the one provided in state statutes. The Commission also passed a motion asking the Council to consider initiating a future ordinance amendment to include jails as a conditional use and not as a permitted use. Recommendation It is recommended the City Council approve Ordinance No.98-__ amending the definition of governmental offices to include jarls and establishing a definition for jails. k\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\oa98-1c¢.doc City Council Minutes October 20, 1997 Page 4 4.9. 5. 6.1,6.2 County Attorney Discussion on Upcominq Leqislation Reqardinq Personal Property Tax Kathy Heaney, Assistant Sherburne County Attorney gave the council a brief history of pending legislation pertaining to the elimination of personal property tax. She stated that the County could potentially lose 37 percent of its property tax base and the city could lose over 1/2 million dollars of its personal property fax base under this legislation. Ms. Heaney requested the City Council and Staff fo talk to legislators and request them to retain personal property fax. She also requested the council to consider a motion identifying that elimination of personal property tax is not appropriate. It was the consensus of the City Council fo have Kathy Heaney present a draft resolution for council consideration. Open Mike No one appeared for this issue. Request by the City of Elk River for an Amendment to the Land Use Map and Rezoninq, Public Heorina Case No. LU 97-1 and ZC 97-3 Paul Steinman, Director of Economic Development, reviewed the strategic plan process. He indicated that the purpose of the strategic plan is to establish the framework for economic and industrial growth of the city. He stated that eight parcels of land totaling approximately 440 acres have been identified for potential rezoning for industrial development. Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistant, indicated that the City of Elk River is requesting an amendment fo the land use mop for certain property to change from medium density residential fo light industrial. The City is also requesting a zone change of approximately 60 acres from single family residential to business park. The property is located at the north east corner of Waco Street and Mississippi Road. Scott Harlicker indicated that during the planning commission's review of this item residents brought forth issues of concern which included traffic, compatibility with adjacent residential uses and crime. He indicated that the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend denial of the land use amendments and rezoning to business park. City Planner Steve Ach indicated that the staff held a meeting for surrounding residents to discuss the concerns of the residents. He indicated that in an attempt to address these concerns, staff has prepared three different scenarios for consideration regarding the future development of the property if it is rezoned to business park. Steve Ach stated that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to review these scenarios at their meeting. Following his review of the three scenarios he indicated that staff recommends Scenario #3 which allows for the business park to be located on the west end of the property and residential development on the east to buffer existing residents of Sandpiper Estates. He indicated that all scenarios route the industrial traffic to Waco Street or Highway 10. He further stated fhaf it is staff's opinion that Scenario 3 best addresses the concerns of the Sandpiper Estates residents. City Council Minutes October 20. 1997 Page 5 Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. Steve Stewart - 18290 Oqden Street - indicated his opposition to the land use and rezoning. He stated his concerns of the possibility of manufacturing hazardous materials in the area and the noise created from industrial uses. Carl Blomquist - Riverview Hei.qhts, Naples Street - indicated his opposition and stated his concerns regarding pollutants and contamination of the groundwater from industrial development. Jim Sutton, 18137 Oqden Street - indicated his opposition and concern that property values will diminish. He further indicated his concern that the aquifer could become contaminated from a hazardous spill. Nicole Bar - Oqden Street -- indicated her opposition and concern that the business park will be close to her back yard and that it will affect her children and daycare business. Tim Ebner - 17994 Union Street - indicated his opposition and stated that there are many reasons why the property should not be rezoned; the property is surrounded on 3 sides by residential zoning; the property is located within one block of the Mississippi River and next to a golf course; traffic, noise, and pollution and the effect it will have on the quality of life. Elizabeth McMullan - Oqden Street - indicated her opposition and stated that she is representing the kids in the neighborhood. She stated that she moved from Bloomington to get away from pollution and noise and does not want to have to deal with it again due to the rezoning. Troy DeMars 14220 182nd Avenue - indicated his opposition and questioned what types of business would be allowed in the business park. Jon Lavalle - 18020 Union Street - indicated his opposition and stated he enjoys the view he currently has when he is outdoors. Bob Saxon - 18044 Union Street - indicated his opposition and stated that the current zoning for the area is adequate. Bruce Lindeman - Pinewood - indicated his opposition. Stewart Wilson. 17975 Troy Street - stated that he is the property owner. He spoke about the concerns of the city and the neighbors. He stated that he visited business parks in other areas that were well designed and complimented the areas in which they are located. He indicated that a business park should be planned to ensure orderly and aesthetic development. Stewart Wilson indicated he did not support changing the entire parcel to business park, however he indicated his support of scenario 3. Jeremy Schoffield - 13038 Mississippi Road - indicated his opposition and suggested the creation of a nature area through a cooperative venture. City Council Minutes October 20, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Ebner - 17994 Union - - indicated her opposition and stated that'she has made a major investment in her home. She indicated that she is familiar with business parks and assured the residents that the problems they perceive are real. Diane Dusek - 18198 Oqden St- indicated her opposition. Natalie Gall. 15283 County Road 3~ - indicated her opposition and stated her concern of hours of business, the increased traffic, and the proximity of the development to river. Georqe Zabee - 329 Morton Street -stated that he has lived in Elk River for 30+ years and has watched the city change. He indicated that the City [s in need of an industrial tax base. He stated that he is in favor of the zone change. There being no one else to address the issue, Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing. Mayor Duitsman stated that the city is in need of industrial development. He further stated that if the proposed property were developed residentially, the city would realize $346,000 in taxes and $1.2 million in taxes if developed as business park. He stated that the City Council must make the determination of rezoning now in order to attract businesses and in order to provide jobs for the residents. Mayor Duitsman indicated that the council is looking at the tax base and quality of life issue. He further stated that this decision impacts all Elk River citizens not just those in attendance tonight. Mayor Duitsman stated that he supports the rezoning to business park using scenario #3. Councilmember Farber questioned how industrial business would affect the aquifer. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that he did not feel there would be any contamination issues to the residents as the waste would be routed to the wastewater treatment plant. Councitmember Holmgren stated that a mistake was made in the past by not requiring Sandpiper Estates to connect to city sewer and water. He further stated that he felt all of the property in that area should I:)e zoned business park. Councilmember Holmgren indicated that Industrial land is scarce and that an industrial tax base is a necessity. He stated that he [s in favor of the zone change to business park. Councilmember Thompson indicated that he concurred with Councilmember Holmgren. He further stated that Elk River is a fast growing community and that the tax base needs to be increased through industrial development. Councilmember Farber indicated that this will impact neighbors, however, a business park in any location would have an impact on surrounding residents. He stated that the city is in need of the industrial based property and indicated his support of the zone change with scenario #3. City Council Minutes October 20, 1997 Page 7 Councilmember Oietz indicated that this must be done for the benefit of city. He stated that the city must provide more industrial land and streets with sewer and water to compete with other communities. He indicated his support of the zone change. COUNClLMEMBER THOMPSON MOVED TO RECESS. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The Council recessed at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Duitsman reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. MAYOR DUITSMAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-108 AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM MR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) LU 97-1 AS DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 33, Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North, along the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to a point distant 1,320.00 feet South of the intersection of said East line with the Southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 10, as measured along said East line; thence West, at right angles to said East line, a distance of 310.00 feet; thence Southwesterly to the intersection of a line drawn parallel with and distant 1,160.00 feet West of said East line, with a line drawn parallel with and distant 175.00 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South, parallel with said East line, a distance of 175.00 feet to said South line; thence East, along said South line, to the point of beginning. COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COUNClLMEMBER FARBER MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 97-21 AMENDING THE CiTY OF ELK RIVER ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM RlC (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZC 97-3 AS DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 33, Range 26, Sherburne County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North, along the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to a point distant 1,320.00 feet South of the intersection of said East line with the Southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 10, as measured along said East line; thence West, at right angles to said East line, a distance of 310.00 feet; thence Southwesterly to the intersection of a line drawn parallel with and distant 1,160.00 feet West of said East line, with a line drawn parallel with and distant 175.00 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South, parallel with said East line, a distance of 175.00 City Council Minutes October 20, 1997 Page 8 6.3. feet to said South line; thence East, along said South line, to the point of beginning. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Request by Metro Gravel for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearinq, Case No. CU 97-26 Scott Harlicker indicated that Metro Gravel has requested o conditional use permit for a second principle structure at 15683 Jarvis St. in the Ar-Man Commercial Park. Scott Harlicker reviewed the issues of this request as presented in the staff report. He indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. There.being no one for or against the matter, Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing COUNClLMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY METRO GRAVEL FOR A SECOND PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AT 15683 JARVIS STREET LOCATED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT STORED OUTSIDE MUST BE KEPT WITHIN THE ENCLOSED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA. THE PARKING AND DRIVE AREA SHALL BE PAVED TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND TO THE CONCRETE FUELING AREA. THE PERIMETER OF THE PAVED AREA SHALL INCLUDE CONCRETE CURB AND GU'FI'ER. 3. NO PAVEMENT OR GRAVEL SHALL BE WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANY PROPERTY LINE. THE DUMPSTER SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A TRASH ENCLOSURE. THE EXTERIOR OF THE ENCLOSURE WILL MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING AND SHOULD BE LOCATED EITHER BEHIND THE EXISTING BUILDING OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING. ALL THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CUP APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 13, 1989 AND AMENDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. 25% OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE SHALL CONSIST OF MATERIAL LISTED ON THE APPROVED MATERIALS LIST OUTLINED IN THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. THE SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PAVING AND CURB AND GUTTER COMPLETED BY JULY 1, 1998 2. LANDSCAPING COMPLETED BY JULY 1, 1999 COUNClLMEMBER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Item# 6.1. & 6.2. · Council Mayor and City ,/ Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistan~ October 20, 1997 SUBJECT: Request by the City of Elk River for an Amendment to the Land Use Map and Rezoning, Public Hearing Case No.'s LU 97-1 and ZC 97-3 Request Consider an amendment to the land use map and corresponding rezoning of Certain property from MR (Medium Density Residential) to LI (Light Industrial) and Rlc (Single Family Residential) to BP (Business Park). Location The property is located at the north east corner of Waco Street and Mississippi Road (County Rd. 30) Zoning/Land Use Rlc (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential) Attachments · Location map · Land use map · List of uses allowed in the Business Park district Resolution No. 97- · Ordinance No. 97- Overview The property is approximately 60 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Waco Street and Mississippi Road. It is undeveloped with approximately 1/2 mile frontage on Mississippi Road and approximately 1/4 mile frontage on Waco Street. The east half of the property 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 ° TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to the Mayor and City ( ,cillZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 2 is flat and is row crops; the west half is gently rolling; a portion is used by the Pinewood Golf Course as a driving range the remainder is row crops. There is a wooded tic[ge that runs north to south that splits the property. The property is currently zoned Rlc (Single Family Residential) and has a land use designation of MR (Medium Density Residential). The adjacent zoning and land use designations are as follows: North - BP (Business Park); LI (Light Industrial) South- Rld (Single Family Residential); MR (Medium Density Residential) East -Rlb (Single Family Residential); MR (1VIedium Density Residential) West - Rlc (Single Family Residential); MR (Medium Density Residential) Adjacent land uses include Sandpiper Estates, a single family residential development, to the east; land uses on the south side include Mississippi Road, property that is wooded and undeveloped and Riverview Heights, a single family residential development; Waco Street and Pinewood Golf Course to the west, and undeveloped property and the Sherburne County Government Center to the north. Background The property directly to the north was rezoned to BP in 1994 as part of implementing the business park concept identified in the 1990 Focus Area Study, to reflect the underlying hght industrial land use designation and to prepare for anticipated development expected when municipal services are extended to the area. On May 19,1997 the City Council adopted an Economic Development Strategic Plan. The City initiated this rezoning request in order to implement some of the goals and priorities identified in that plan. One of the major issues identified in the economic development plan was to increase the city's industrial base. This area was identified as an area that was suitable for the type of development allowed in the BP (Business Park) zone. Attached is a list of the uses allowed in the BP district. The BP district allows a variety of uses, both commercial and industrial in nature. The BP district is intended to allow for commercial type uses, such as hotels/motels, retail sales oriented uses and class I restaurants, in areas where the underlying land use classification is commercial. This will typically occur at intersections such as Waco and Highway 10 and Joplin and Highway 10. Industrial type uses, such as hght manufacturing and research and development laboratories, would be allowed in areas that have an underlying land use classification of light industrial. In this case, the f:kshrdoc\planningX, scott\zc97-3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City ~ .~cil~ZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 3 underlying land use classification is light industrial, therefore, the uses allowed on this property will be office, research and development, and light manufacturing type uses. Expansion of industrial base The proposed land use amendment and rezoning would reflect goals and policies identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the recently adopted Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's policies regarding industrial development includes encouraging industrial expansion in close proximity to existing services and locating it next to an adequate transportation network; the proposed land use amendment and rezoning accomplishes this. The Economic Development Strategic Plan also identified expansion of the industrial base as one of it's major issues and goals. This area was one of the $ areas identified in that plan as suitable for industrial development. In identifying this area as being suitable for industrial development, the Strategic Planning Committee identified a number of criteria, those criteria were outlined in a report to the Committee dated January 13, 1997 and listed below: Area 1 - Proposed Business Park Zoning, 65 acres Bordered by business park property on the north and residential properties on the south, east, and west side. Contiguous to 70 acre Business Park on north Meets topographical constraints for development, i.e. fiat, no wetlands, etc. Appropriate buffer by berming and landscaping may be provided on south and east sides of property. Waco Street and County Road 30 provide a physical separation to residential areas. Transportation challenges regarding businesses accessing the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. May not be convenience for distribution type of business. Single owner. Previous concern of property owner regarding how Business Park fits with surrounding area. Planned signalized intersection at V~aco Street and Highway 10. Good access to St. Cloud and west markets. Sewer and water may be extended to serve area. f:kshrdoc\planningkscottkzc97-3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City October 20, 1997 Page 4 Issues cil/ZC 97-3 Traffic One of the affects of a business park in this location would be an increase in truck traffic. However, with proper design the traffic generated by this business park would be directed north towards Highway 10 through an internal road network. Business park traffic would not exit or enter from County Road 30 or through Sandpiper Estates. Comp atibilit¥ The uses allowed in the business park district would be compatible with the existing land uses and the types of uses that are allowed on the adjacent properties to the north. However, the development of a business park adjacent to residential will have to include thoughtful design, effective berming, landscaping and buffering, as well as the implementation of performance standards to transition from an industrial to residential land use. It should also be noted that the types of industrial uses allowed in the business park district are sometimes referred to as "clean industries" such as research and development facilities, telecommunication operations, light manufacturing, as well as governmental, business and professional offices. Staff spoke with the Police Department regarding the potential for increased crime in business parks. They indicated that there is not a history of an increase in criminal activity associated with industrial parks. They also indicated that business parks can be designed for increased security and ease of surveillance. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission considered this request at their July 22, 1997 meeting and again at their August 26, 1997 meeting. At the July 22nd meeting, 6 residents spoke out against the rezoning; they felt that a business park would not be compatible with the adjacent residential developments, would increase traffic and increase criminal activity. After hstening to comments from the public, the Commission tabled the item at the request of the owner of the property under consideration for rezoning. He was unable to be at the July 22nd meeting and wanted a chance to comment on the proposed rezoning. f:\shrdocXplanningkscott\zc97- 3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City CouncilfZC 97-3 October 20, 1997 Page 5 At the August 26th public hearing 11 residents spoke out against the rezoning. Their opposition was based on the same issues that were brought up at the July 22nd meeting, incompatibility with the residential development, traffic and crime. The owner of the property, Stewart Wilson, indicated that he was not opposed to the rezoning. However, he felt that the eastern portion of his property, adjacent to Sandpiper Estates, should remain residential. This residential property would serve as a buffer between Sandpiper Estates and the business park. The future residents of this residential property would know prior to purchasing property that the adjacent property to the west was zoned for a business park. The Planning Commission voted 5:2 to deny the request for a the land use amendment and rezoning. Those that voted to deny the request felt that it was inappropriate considering the nearby residential development. Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff prepared several different development scenarios. The development scenarios included how the property might develop under the proposed rezoning, how it might develop under the existing residential zoning and how it might develop if part of the property was rezoned and a portion left as residential. These scenarios will be presented at the Council meeting. It should be noted the Planning Commission did not have the benefit to review the development scenarios. The illustrations may have provided additional information.for the .......... Commission to make a recommendation either in favor or opposition to the apphcation. Recommendation The Council has the option of approving the rezoning as originally proposed or selecting a rezoning based on the development scenarios prepared by staff. Should the Council decide to approve the land use amendment and rezoning, the following resolution, ordinance and findings are offered in support of that determination: Resolution No. 97- findings: amending the Land Use Plan based on the following A) B) THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USEDESIGNATION IS ADJACENT TO OTHER PROPERTY WITH A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COULD BE ACCESSED FROM HIGHWAY 10, WHICH CAN PROVIDE FOR THE ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS REQUIRED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUATION OF WELL DESIGNED EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE COMMUNITY. f:\shrdoc\planning\scott\zc97-3cc.doc Memo to the Mayor and City October 20, 1997 Page 6 .~cilfZC 97-3 C) THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING SERVICES. Ordinance No. 97 rezoning certain property from Rlc (Single Family Residential) to BP (Business Park) based on the following: THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OF LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL). THE REZONING WOULD RESULT IN LESS TRAFFIC GENERATED ON MISSISSIPPI ROAD THAN WOULD BE GENERATED UNDER THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING. TIMES AND CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED TO WARRANT AN EXTENSION OF BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS AREA. THE REZONING IS NEEDED TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES AND TO PRESERVE FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND IS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EXISTING SERVICES. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN HAS IDENTIFIED THIS AREA AS SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED UNDER BP ZONING. THE PROPOSED BP ZONED PROPERTY CAN BE ACCESSED FROM HIGHWAY 10, WHICH CAN MEET THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT. f..\shrdoc\planning\scottkzc97-3cc-doc TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ITE~ R. 1 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL STEVEN B. AC , C TY PLANNER, JAAUJARY 18, 1994 CODE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING BUSINESS PARK ZONING ORDINANCE ISSUE Consider a request to amend the zoning ordinance establishing Business Park zoning district and ordinance. a ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 94- Planning Commission Report dated 12/28/93 BACKGROUND In 1990, a Focus Area Study was completed by BRW, Inc., which identified four areas of Elk River and provided an in-depth analysis of future land use opportunities. One of the areas identified encompassed an area lying west of City Hall and Orono Park extending to the City's western limits between Highway 10 and County Road #30. The major land use element discussed for this area was the creation of a business park. In order to implement the concept of a business park, an ordinance has to be established. Therefore, staff has prepared the attached business park ordinance which sets forth standards and guidelines to ensure that all development within the park maintains an attractive "business park" image. This ordinance has been reviewed by the Business Park Task Force and the Planning Commission at both a workshop and a regular public hearing. Comments from both groups, as well as information from the Focus Area Study analysis have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The City Attorney and myself have also reviewed the ordinance for interpretation conflicts and contents to make sure the ordinance's structure maintains its integrity and the intent of the business park is met. Attached is the report to the Planning Commission which provides additional background information as well as a brief description of each section of the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously proposed ordinance establishing a recommended approving the business park district and P.O. Box 490 · 13065 Orono Parkway · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) ~41-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 ordinance. There were no comments from the public on this at the Planning Commission meeting. item RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council either accept as drafted, or make modifications and approve the Business Park Ordinance. Elk River City Council Me, January 18, 1994 Planning Commission Representative Louise Planning Commission recommended approval. Kuester indicated that the' Vice Mayor Farber opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Vice Mayor Farber closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO-YEAR RENEWAL OF THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY LICENSE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CU-87-02) FOR UNITED POWER ASSOCIATION WITH THE STIPULATION THAT MORE RESTRICTIVE STATE OR FEDERAL EMISSION STANDARDS ARE AUTOMATICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY'S PERMITS. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 8.1. Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment Estab!ishinq a Business Park (B-P) Zoning District by the City of Elk River/Public Hearing City Planner Steven Ach explained that in 1990, a Focus Area Study was completed which provided an in-depth study of future land use opportunities. A land use that was discussed was the creation of a business park. An ordinance must be established in order to implement the concept of a business park. He further indicated that the proposed "Business Park" Zoning Ordinance has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Business Park Task Force. Vice Mayor Farber opened the public hearing. Louise Kuester indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. She also relayed a concern that the Planning Commission had regarding certain items being accomplished "at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator." This issue was discussed and it was the consensus that no change be made to the ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 94-2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 900.12 OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER CODE OF ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS PARK ZONING ORDINANCE. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CAARIED 4-0. 8.2. Consider Preliminary Plat to divide approximately ten acres into one commercial lot and one out!or along with a conditional use permit to operate a motor vehicle station and convenience store SuperAmerica/Public Hearing/Case No. P-92-7 & CU-92-16 Steven Ach indicated that SuperAmerica is requesting a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 12 acres into 1 commercial lot and 1 out!or at the southeast corner of Highway 169 and 193rd Avenue. The division would create one lot approximately one acre in size for SuperAmerica with the balance of the property retained as an outlot for future development. SuperAmerica is planning to install temporary utility lines with the intention of hooking up to the trunk sanitary sewer when it is extended from School Street and Freeport. If the trunk line is installed prior to the construction of SuperAmerica, they would then hook directly to the trunk line. FOCUS AREA "A" ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS Focus Area A, approximately 582 acres in size, is located in the south- western portion of the City of Elk River and is bounded generally by the Elk River on the north, Orono Lake on the east, the Mississippi River on the south, and the western City limits on the west. The location of Focus Area A (along with Areas B, C, and D) is illustrated by Figure 1. The physical, institutional, legal, and economic features which are essen- tial to consider in planning the future use and development of Focus' Area A are described below. Figure 2, Analysis of Conditions: Area A, refer- ences graphically some of these conditions. The following section of this report stunmarizes the major issues which result from this analysis. PHYSICAL FEATURES Roads and Public Rights-of-Way The major roads in Area A are listed and described below. US Highway 10 bisects Area A and is a four-lane divided roadway with a grassy median and rural-section shoulders. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) desires to keep the number of new intersections and driveways along this road to a re,-monable minimum for traffic safety and flow purposes. Any new intersections would have to be approved by that agency. · County Road 30 runs roughly parallel to TH 10 but along the southern side of Area B. This road is two lanes in width. 17 Orono Road is a local street which is part of the City's Munidpal State-Aid roadway system. It connects County Road 30 to TH 10. The City recently agreed to allow Domenic Gaspodor to realign a portion of this road at his own cost to create slightly larger lots along the shore of Lake Orono. Waco Street is a local roadway which runs north-south from County Road 30 to the Elk River. The 1988 Growth Management Plan recommends that Waco Street be extended across the Elk River. The Growth Management Plan designates County Road 30, Waco Street, and Orono Road as collector' streets and recommends a new industrial collector loop between TH I0 and Waco Street. The Western Area Feasibility Study recommends that portion of County Road 30 and Orono Road be resuffaced or rebuilt in conjunction with the extension of sewer and water into Area A. Existing Development Area A is mostly undeveloped although there are several significant urban developments. These include the new Sherbume County government center, the 116 single-family housing units existing south of County Road 30, the approximate 20 single-family housing units north of TH 10, and several businesses along TH I0. There is an unrecorded plat for 19 single-family houses north of. County Road 30 which has not and is not expected to be developed. Al1 residential and non-residential devel- opment in Area A is served by on-site sewer systems and private wells. (See Utilities, below. ) Utilities The availability and cost of delivering sanitary sewer and water service to Area A is the greatest problem confronting development here. Sanitary sewer service exists only to the intersection of County Road 30 and Orono Road on the south and to just east of the Elk River on the north. The existing system of water lines extends only to the eastern edge of the Elk River on both the north and south sides of Area A, ,and consists of only si,x-inch pipes. 18 City of iver Focus Area Studies 19 Area Locations 0 1000 2000 ~*OOO FT NORTH F~gure 1 The Western Area Feasibility Study (Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc., January 1989) included preliminary plans for sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and road improvements throughout Area A and used as its basis for development the land use plan included in the 1988 City of Elk River Growth Management Plan. This feasibility recommended the roi- lowing: Interceptor sanitary sewer, lift station, and forcemam: Extend an 18-inch line along County Road 30 to a lift station on the south side of County Road 30 between Denver and Concord Streets. A 12-inch forcemam would carry sewage from there to a point just east of the Elk River where it would flow by gravity to the treat- ment plant. The extension of interceptor sanitary sewer across the Elk River and along TH 10 was considered but rejected. Lateral sanitary sewers: Extend a 10-inch line up Concord Street and Orono Road, a 12-inch line up the center of the study area, and a 10-inch line up Waco Street. · Trunk water lines: Loop the service along all collector roads in the study area. Stormwater Drainage System: Convey runoff via swales, ditches, and pipes to a ponding area located in the floodplain along the Mississippi River for preliminary treatment prior to release into the river. Road System: The only major new road needed is an industrial loop from TH 10 to Waco Street. Some surface improvements are needed to portions of County Road 30 and Or°no Road. The feasibility study estimated that the assessment per typical single-family residential lot for interceptor, trunk ,and lateral sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water lines, and all street improvements would amount to approximately $I 1,350. This is judged to be within the realm of economic acceptability, although final costs could v,-u'y. Nine of the eleven major property owners in the feasibility study area petitioned for the preparation of preliminary feasibility reports for their individual properties, indicating a high degree of interest in land development. t [ 20 I I 21 £s Municipal State Aid roadway funds could be used for a portion of the cost of Main Street and Orono Road. The Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission should be asked to assist in funding the proposed water improvements including the elevated tower, well, and treatment. There were a number of unresolved economic questions about these pro- jects: Should the 345 existing platted lots in the study area be required to hook up to City services? If so, should they be assessed some portion of the trunk costs? Should this assessment be levied now or held until these areas hook up to City services? How much should be assessed to public lands (government center and County Fairgrounds)? o Most land areas are protected from assessment for City services by the state's "Green Acres" law. This status would have to be removed prior to proceeding with an improve- ment project. (See also 'Green Acres Program" in the Legal, Institutional, and Economic section below.) All properties in the study .area have paid a previous inter- ceptor assessment. Any new assessment project would need to provide credit for this former assessment amount. Will ii be feasible to use tax increment f'mancing for any portion of these projects? Topography Topography does not represent an impediment to development of this vicinity; however, by the same token there are no attractive hills for residential development. The area is generally fiat with a slight pitch toward the river. The only significant topograhic relief is south of County Road 30 where the land slopes gently upward, then falls quickly toward the river's edge. 22 [ [ E Vegetation There are very few stands of mature trees in Area A except along the rivers which would be an attractive feature for "upper-bracket" housing development. Soils Soil conditions are conducive to urban development in Area A as there is a high percentage of sand and there are no wetlands outside the fiver courses. Wetlands and Drainage There are no wetlands in Area A other than the two rivers. While these would be an inpediment to development, they would ,also be attractive to the housing market. Parks and Trails There is one park in Focus Area A. Orono Park is approximately 17 acres in size and has facilities including a beach, softball field, volleyball court, children's playgound equipment, and horseshoe classified as a Community Park. The Sherbume County Fairgrounds (twenty acres in size) are located south of Orono Road. The County is interested in moving the fairgrounds out of Elk River to a site more central to the County. There is interest on the part of some City officials in creating a larger softball and baseball complex to replace the fields available in Orono Park and the County Fairgrounds. The Mississippi River flood fringe in Area A was one location suggested for this complex. The 1988 City of Elk River Growth Management Plan called for a new Neighborhood Park in Focus Area A. The Growth Management Plan also recommended the development of bicyclist trails along County Road 30 from Waco Street to downtown; 23 along the length of Waco Street; along Orono Road; along the Mississippi River from the downtown to what is now called Focus Area A; and from the Mississippi River to Orono Park. Views and Vistas Attractive views are provided across the Elk River and Lake Orono, especially from Orono Park and when crossing the river on Highway 10. Views to the Mississippi River are hindered by the lack of public access to the river edge. LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND ECONOMIC FEATURES City Land Use Plan The Elk River Growth Management Plan addressed Area A and recom- mended the following: · Medium-density housing for all undeveloped tracts south of County Road 30 down to the Mississippi River floodplain; for all land north of County Road 30 to a line approximately half the dis- tance between County Road 30 and Highway 10; and for all the property north of Highway 10. Medium-density housing includes lots with public sewer and water service and not smaller than one-third acre in size. This may also include duplexes and townhouses. · High-density housin[ along the south side of Highway 10 from the Elk River to Naples Street except for the location of existing busi- Highway businesses along the south side of Highway l0 from Naples Street to the Sherburne County Government Center, on both sides of Waco Street at Highway 10, and where they presently exist along the south side of the highway. · The Sherbume County Government Center (public). 24 [ [ [ Light industry, from the Sherbume County Government Center to the western City limits except for the commercial node at Waco Street. Floodplain protection along the Elk River and the Mississippi River. The floodplain extends north from the Mississippi River to nearly County Road 30 near Denver Street. Also, a portion of the penin- sula which protrudes into the Elk River is in the floodplain. Zoning Zoning in Area A includes C2, Office District, for the Sherbume County Government Center, Planned Unit District surrounding the Government Center down to County Road 30, R1-C south and southwest of the Farigrounds, south of County Road 30, and north of Highway 10, and Floodplain along the Elk and Mississippi Rivers. Land immediately west of Orono Park is zoned R3, Townhouse/ Multiple-Family Residential. There is C3, Highway Commercial, zoning wherever businesses already exist along Highway 10, as well as along Highway 10 west of Waco Street. River Edge Controls There are several zoning controls affecting the Mississippi River and the Elk River (including Lake Orono). Floodplain Zoning District: This zoning district is divided into a Floodway District and a Flood Fringe District. There is very little development allowed within the Floodway District, as it would impede the course of flood waters and raise the level of floods. Agriculture, parks, parking lots, lawns, and play areas are permitted. The Flood Fringe District is that area which is not in the water- course of channel of a flood but subject to inundation by backwaters. Limited development is allowed provided it is pr.o- tected from flood waters. Permitted uses include anything allowed 25 in the Floodway District plus residences, provided that the lowest elevation is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. · Shoreland Ordinance: This local ordinance applies to the two rivers, which are classified as General Development waters by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Allowable land uses include any permitted by the underlying zoning. The geographic extent of the Shoreland Ordinance is 300 feet from a fiver. Lot regulations are as follows: Abutting Water Edge Sewered Lots 15,000 Unsewered Lots 20,000 Not Abutting Water All Lots 10,000 * Ordinary High Water line Minimum Area Minimum Minimum Bldg. Width Setback from OHW* 70' 50' 100' 75' 75' There are also controls on the removal of vegetation, grading, erosion, and mount of impervious surface along the river from the protection of water quality and general aesthetics. · Wild and Scenic River Ordinance: The purpose of the Mississippi Wild and Scenic River Manage- ment Ordinance is to maintain the appearance of agricultural open space and/or Iow-density housing and to protect the ecologi- cal, scenic, cultural, historic, and aesthetic qualities of the fiver valley. This is a local ordinance required by the State of Min- nesota. The Mississippi River through Elk River is classified as Recreational by the DNR. Allowable land uses are those per- mitred by the underly/ng zoning. The land development controls address vegetative removal, erosion, building set- backs, signs, and similar site planning matters. 26 [ [ E Anticipated Pace of Land Development Hou~ng: As indicated by the previous chapter which analyzed residential and non-residential development in Elk River, the housing market is very strong. Approximately another 10,000 people are expected to reside in Elk River by the Year 2000 bringing the total to 20,000. It is expected that Focus Area A can attract a high percentage of the anticipated residential growth in Elk River is properly planned because there are very few lots available with sanitary sewer service in 1989, only relatively minor extension of existing laterals is possible, and the Growth Management Plan recommended that Area A be the first stage in a major program of sanitary sewer extensions. The pace of sewered single-family housing development in Area A is forecast to be approximately 60 acres per year from 1990 to 1992 and approximately 30 to 44 acres per year from 1993 through 1996 for a total of 314 acres. Approximately 10 acres of attached housing is fore- cast to be developed in Area A each year from 1995 through 2000. The total of the attached and detached forecasts is 338 acres through the Year 2000 for Area A. Industry: Elk River Industrial Park has only 14 acres of land left for development, and the City's Economic Development Director anticipates that the indus- trial park will be fully developed by 1992. It is believed that some prospective industrial developments have been lost from Elk River Industrial Park because of the low quality of some existing buildings there and also because of the poor visibility and access to that location. Thus, a new industrial development location with public sewer and water service is, therefore, felt to be needed immediately. The City's Director of Economic Development estimates that the need for industrial land will continue to be at least five to ten acres per year on the average with possibilities for greater demands from time to time. It is assumed that there will be an annual demand for eight acres of industrial 27 1,-md in Area A, mostly for manufacturing md warehousing facilties with small office components. Some pure office space will also be needed in Elk River, but this is not expected to be a major element in Area A. Total Land Demand Forecast to Year 2000: The above forecast of residential demand amounts to approximately 338 acres through the end of the century. Combined with the forecast annual industrial absorption of five to eight acres per year, the 20 acres devoted to the Sherburne County Government Center, this means that Area A may be approximately three-quarters developed by the Year 2000. (Assumes fairgrounds are relocated.) This also means that it will not be easy to quickly extend utilities all the way to west of the County offices for industrial or commercial develop- ment along Highway 10. If the City is going to follow the 1988 Land Use Plan from the Growth Management Study, it may have to extend utilities across land well in advance of market demand. Alternatively, it could search for an alternative site for industrial expansion for the 1992 to 1998 time period while Area A grows from southeast to northwest. City Road System Plan The Growth Management Study recommended a new industrial collector road loop from Highway 10 to-Waco Street. Other collector roads needed to serve this area are already in place with Waco Street, County Road 30, and Orono Road. Land Ownership and Parcelization More than ninety percent of Area A is owned by only eleven parties, including Sherburne County and the City of Elk River. Green Acres Program All of the private, undeveloped property in Area A (except for the Gagne and Gospodor parcels -- approximately 81 acres) is enrolled in the State's "Green Acres" program, under which special assessments ,and 28 non-agricultural property taxes are deferred. A parcel can be taken out of the progr,'un at any time, but the owner then has to pay the taxes ,and assessments deferred over the preceding three years. This program is not as restrictive as the Minnesota Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Orono Road Reali~Iunent Mr. Domenic Gaspodor has reached an agreement with the City of Elk River that he move a portion of Orono Road slightly away from his property along Lake Orono at his cost and obtain the vacated portion of right-of-way for residential platting and development. Sandpiper Estates Sandpiper Estates is a platted subdivision of 19 unsewered lots for detached housing on 27 acres of land located north of County Road 30 near the middle of Area A. The roads have been graded and private util- ities installed. It was initially assumed that this plat would be vacated and redesigned for sewered development. The owner has indicated (January 1990) that he has lost patience waiting for the extension of sewer and intends to proceed with sale and development of lots. An ear- lier agreement provided for future resubdivision of the lots when utilities become available, although the resultant design will not be very attractive. This prospect further complicates the difficulty of extending utilities across Area A. 29 FOCUS AREA "A" ISSUES The major issues or points of debate involving Focus Area A are listed below: 1. EXTENSION OF UTILITIES Providing sanitary sewer and water service is the greatest problem · confronting the development of Area A. · Will residential development occur at a sufficiently rapid pace in Area A that the high cost of extending sewer and water from some distance can be quickly assessed and repaid so as to not incur excessive carrying costs? · Can services be extended to the vicinity of Highway 10 soon enough to meet the forecast demand for industrial land'?. · Can the City afford to "carry" the cost of utility extensions for industrial development if utilities are extended across land well in advance of market demand'?. To what extent can other funding sources such as tax increment Financing be used to help in this regard? · What will be the policy of the City relative to certain utilities assessment questions: Will credit be given for prior assessments ? Will public lands be assessed7 [ Will parcels protected by the "Green Acres" law be made available to be assessed in a timely manner7 30 Will previously developed parcels be required to hook up to services when they are made available? Will other funding sources such as tax increment financing or Municipal State Aid road funds be avail- able to offset assessment costs? PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER There is very little public recreational access available to the Mississippi River in Elk River. There is a need for additional ball- fields and interest in a walkway along the river. Can these be accommodated in the floodplain of the river? LAND USE PATTERN Is the land use plan of the 1988 Growth Management Plan valid? How much land should be reserved for long-ierm industrial-office development versus being developed for housing in the near future? Should the City try to hold out part of Area A for high-quality office and office-showroom development when it appears that those portions of the industrial market will be quite soft in Elk River (and vicinity) for the foreseeable future? · . Will the County Fairgrounds remain? · How should the Mississippi River floodplain be used? · Should there be another park on the Elk River7 · How much, if any, land should be devoted to attached housing? 31 HOW' TO MAKE THE AREA MORE ATTRACTIVE TO TH2E HOUSING MARKET The lack of trees and hills in Area A, especially when compared to the rest of the City, does not make this vicinity highly desirable to the housing market. What should be done to improve its marketa- bility? o INDUS~ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS What standards of site planning and building design should be applied to industrial development in Area A? Should ,any industry built in Area A have higher standards than Elk River Industrial Park? ALLOWING ADDITIONAL UNSEWERED DEVELOPMENT What should be done to discourage additional unsewered residential or non-residential development in Area A prior to the advent of public sewer and water services? HOW TO PRESERVE PARK AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE What is the best way to preserve park and recreation open space that may be planned as part of this study? 32 [ AREA "A" GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOAL A DEVELOP A LAND USE PLAN THAT ENCOURAGES ORDERLY GROWTH AND CONTROLS CONFLICTS BETWEEN NEW AND EXISTING USES. Objectives A-I: Establish a hierarchy of potential land uses based on intensity as measured by building mass and traffic generation. A-2: USe the roadway network to unite similar land uses and corporate incompatible uses. Do not combine traffic from incompatible land uses on collector or local roadways. A-3: Develop zoning regulations that locate the most truck and traffic generating uses near Highway 10. A-4: Identify land uses that complement the Sherbume County Government Center. A-5: Provide site design and architectural guidelines to help the City require a satisfactorily high quality of development. A-6: Where unavoidable conflicts occur, provide adequate buffering between land uses. A-7: Identify and preserve historic natural and architectural landmarks. 33 A-8: Take better advantage of the Mississippi River for public recreation. GOAL B TAKE ADVANTAGE OF STATE HIGHWAY MARKETABLE SITE AMENITY. 10 AS A Objectives B-I' Locate users with the highest need for visibility nearest to Highway 10. B-2: Create a business park environment that enhances the image of Elk River. B-3: Create an entry theme for the commercial area to further establish its identity and site image. B-4: Preserve natural features as site amenities and reduce utilities costs associated with site drainage. B-5: Locate high density residential uses near the highway corridors, and lower density uses near the Mississippi River. GOAL C IMPROVE SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION. Objectives Develop a hierarchy of roadways that distribute commercial traffic onto Highway 10, and residential traffic onto County Road 30, Orono Road, and Waco Street. C-2: Take advantage of Highway 10 as a state and regional transporta- tion corridor. 34 [ C-3: Examine alternative right-of-way alignments to Orono Road. C-4: Develop site entry locations that are safe, minimize congestion and enh,'mce site image and identity. Keep traffic from incompatibl'e land uses separate to the extent feasible. GOAL D MAINTAIN THE NATURAL CHARA~RISTICS OF THE AREA BY PRESERVING TO TI--IE EXTENT FEASIBLE ELEMENTS OF THE LANDSC~E THAT ARE DESIRABLE. Objectives D- 1: Where po'ssible preserve major area of vegetation. D-2: Develop drainage systems that are harmonious with the site topography, using on-site drainage where appropriate. D-3: Establish an open space link between the Mississippi River Corridor and Lake Orono through the fairgrounds property. GOAL E RESPOND TO THE PRESENT AND PROJECTED REAL ESTATE MARKET IN ELK RIVER. Objectives E-I' Define land use areas in response to market absorption rates forecast in this document. assessment and 35 E-2: Create a plan that can be built in' phases according to projected market absorption rates and availability of sewer and water lines. E-3: Identify sites that may develop as commercial in the near future. E-4: Identify future uses which may be advantageously located near the Sherbume County Government Center. GOAL F MAXIMIZE THE RETURN ON CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. 9bjectives F-l: F-2: Provide infrastructure which is needed to accommodate and pro- mote development including roadway, storm water management, water and sewer installation. Create value while investing in infrastructure by doing it in a way that creates additional amenity or improves site character. For example, install landscaping and urban design elements with roadway improvements, or create storm water holding ponds and drainage ways which also serve as open space amenity. F-3: Plan for usable public open space in the redevelopment of the Sherbume County Fairgrounds that relates to the Lake Orono Park site. 36 FOCUS AREA "A" LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN Four alternative layouts for the l,'md use and circulation patterns within Focus Area A were reviewed by the City Planning Commission and the favored design is described below and illustrated by Figure 3. The Land Use and Circulation Plan for Focus Area A contains the fol- lowing approximate acreages:' Single-family housing: Multiple-family housing: Commercial: 285 35 26 Business park: 150 School: 20 Park: 27+ County Offices: Features of Alternative A-I are:. 18 It is assumed that the Sherburne County Fairgrounds ,and the municip,-fl ballfields will be relocated out of the Area. It is assumed that Sand£iper Estates will be completed with one-acre unsewered residential lots as originally proposed but that the houses on these lots will be located so as to allow the resubdivision of the lots when sewer ,and water services are available. 37 It is assumed that the rnumcipal ballfields will be relocated to mother site in the city. Single-family housing will be built along both sides of County Road 30 (Mississippi Road) with the exception of a site plan- ned for an elementary school near the intersection of Mississippi Road and Waco Street. Single-family housing is also planned west of Waco Street md along the Elk River north of Highway 10. Care will be taken to ensure that the size of future residential lots which abut older large lots (such as the Grandview Addition) are of sufficient size so as to not diminish the value of the existing homes. Multiple-family housing is planned in the northeast between the single- f,'u'nily housing and the business park. Multiple-family housing may consist of duplexes, four-, six-, or eight-family buildings or apartments. A future business park would be developed along the south side of Highway 10 on both sides of the Sherbume County Government Center. The business park would include light industry, offices, office-warehouse, ,'md office-showroom buildings. A new zoning district would be created which would be created which would give the City additional control over site planning and exterior building design in the business park to ensure that all developments project an attractive image. Additionally, the City would create a master landscaping plan for the edges of the new business park streets and at the entrances, requiring that private developers implement it. Please refer to the following section, "Focus Area A Site Design Recommendations" for fur- ther discussion of business park site planning ,and street edge landscaping. 38 A major new area of public recreational open space would be created in the Mississippi River floodplain with a pedestrian and bicyclist access along Mississippi Road. Two new neighborhood parks are planned, one north of Mississippi Road and one to the south. Each should be approximately three to slx acres in size. Additional neigh- borhood recreation space would be provided at Orono Park and the planned elementary school site. Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities should be provided along all collector and arterial roads. These may consist of concrete sidewalks (in residential neighborhoods) or wide paved shoulders or detached asph~t .paths (along Waco Street, Mississippi Road, and Highway 10). New collector roads should be built in general conformance with the layout illustrated by Figure 4. Access to and from Highway 10 would be limited to only six locations within Area A to protect traffic flow ,and safety on the highway. W'aco Street would be extended across the Elk River to con- nect the northwestern portions of Elk River to Focus Area A. New sanitary sewer and water services would begin to be extended into Focus Area A from their present terminus near the Elk River and Main Street as soon as a public hearing on the matter is held and the City Council approves the public project. These services would be extended in stages and would proceed from southeast to northwest, serving single-family housing, multiple-family housing, and busi- ness park as demand dictates. 40 L [ FOCUS AREA "A" SITE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following points should be observed by the City staff and the Planning Commission and City Council when reviewing development proposals and when formulating long-term spending progrm-ns for public improvements. ELK RIVER VILLAGE CTIARACTER The City considers it desirable to promote and maintain a physical character which conveys the image that Elk River is a freestanding, small town with historic roots, set in an agricultural area, and possessing sub- stantial community cohesiveness. Ways in which to build that physical character in Area A include: Landscaping along Highway 10 to complement the extensive land- scaping along Highway 169 in the northern part of the city and which also acts as an entry and exit feature. Special emphasis should be given to overstory deciduous landscaping at the intersec- tion of TH 10 and Waco Street and at the TH I0 bridge over the Elk: River. Attractive entry signage near the western city limits or near the Waco Street intersection with Highway 10. Careful site planning in the industri,'d and commercial areas which downplays track docks, outdoor storage, signage, and landscaping which softens the buildings. · Overstory trees in the front yards of homes. 41 CONrMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SITE PLANNE'qG Substantial liberty can be granted to designers of commercial or industrial developments as long as certain minimum requirements, described below, are satisfied. These elements should be reviewed by either the City Planner/Zoning Administrator or by the City Planning Commission, or both. Because there is oftentimes some judgment involved in adminis- tering site planning guidelines ,md regulations, review of site plans by the City Planning Commission and City Council is helpful. Generic site plans for a commercial and ,'tn industrial development lop- ment project have been included to illustrate the design features of importance, which are also listed below. 1. Soften parking areas Use berming along the front property line with landscaping to soften the view to ,-my parking lot between the road and the building. Ideally, the major parking lot for industrial or office projects should be on the side of the building with perhaps only visitor parking in the front, or no parking in the front at all. Landscaping should not hide buildings or signs but serve to catch the eye ,'md "soften" tile image. Berming should be approximately three feet in height. Hide and shield truck: docks Truck docks should be oriented away from the public road by placing them on the side or rear of the building. When on the side of the building or otherwise visible from residential areas, wing walls and landscaping should be used. 3. Hide trash handling areas If trash must be stored outdoors, it must be concealed with walls and kmdscaping 42 [ [ [ 4. Disallow or conceal outdoor storage Outdoor storage should not be allowed if the City's intention for Area A is to create a better-quality business park for attractive light industry, office-showroom buildings, and offices. Any outdoor storage that may be allowed should be in an inconspicuous location and hidden by walls, opaque fencing, ,'md landscaping. Equal facade treatment on all sides In the business park, buildings should have the same materi- als on all sides. It may. be appropriate to grant a dispensation from this requirement for commercial development if the less-attractive side is not visible to residential development. However, with materials such as rock-face concrete block, lower-cost construction o'm be achieved with attractive results. Generous use of landscaping The City should require that all commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential developments submit prior to approval a landscaping plan (preferably prepared by a regis- tered landscape architect) which indicates species and sizes. Minimum 'sizes for plantings should be 2 inches caliper for deciduous trees and six feet in height for coniferous trees. Landscaping should be used to soften parking areas, hide trash areas, soften blank building walls, blend the building into the site, and add seasonal color anand interest. The City should either draft and ~idopt a landscaping ordi- nance which either (1) quantifies the number of plantings or the percentage of screening along site edges or (2) gives freedom to the City Planning commission and City Council (with staff recommendations) to make subjective judgments about the quality of the plan and require changes if seen fit. [ [ [ 7. Paved parking areas with curb and gutter All parking areas should be paved with asphalt (or concrete) ,and have concrete curb ,and gutter. Use ponds as amenities Surface water ponds should be used to detain runoff ,and reduce the need for storm sewers. These can be used as ame- nities throughout the area. Keep signage subdued The sign portion of the Elk River Zoning Ordinance is relatively restrictive. Its continued enforcement should ensure that signs do not get out of control. The City should con- sider adding provisions which restrict the number of businesses which can be advertised on one sign or else require a common typeface, color, and size for more than thi'ee names on one sign. Multi-tenant signs should be designed to appear as a single sign. Low-scale "monument" signs should be encouraged in the business park. 10. Establish a positive character for the business park The business park, if it is to avoid some of the marketing problems encountered by the Elk River Industrial Park, should include regulations on exterior building materials (no metal sided, metal frame structures) and site planning as described above. Additionally, the City should design a comprehensive boulevard landscaping plan which would be implemented on a lot-by-lot basis by business park occu- pants and which includes special emphasis at the major entryways. 46 E Pedestrian Features As Area A develops, the City should establish either paved shoulders or off-road paths for pedestrians `md bicyclists along County Road 30, Waco Street, Orono Road, ,md Highway 10. The planned street leading from Orono Park to County Road 30 should have sidewalks. A thirty- to sLxty-foot-wide pedestrian access to the riveffront park should be obtained just south of Boston Street (although motorized access should be planned only from the eastern end of the park because of poor soil con- ditions in this vicinity. ) Public Landscaping A formal pattern of overstory deciduous trees should be planted along Waco Street, County Road 30, Orono ROad, and Highway 10 through Area A. Special landscaping emphasis should be given to the pedestrian connection between Orono Park and the proposed Mississippi River park. Separating Incompatible Land Uses One of the most important elements to the overall success of Area A will be the separation of the industrial or commercial developments from housing. This should be accomplished as follows: Follow the plan for land use and circulation illustrated by the Land Use and Circulation Plan: Area A, Figure 4, which separates the two types of traffic. Observe the guidelines for non-residential site planning described above. ['1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require (in the commercial or industrial zones which abut residential zones) that parking lots or truck maneuvering areas be set back at least 30 feet from that dividing line. Ideally, parking lots or truck maneuvering or docking areas should be on the opposite side of the building from residential properties (use site plan review). 48 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require that there be a 100 percent opaque fence or wall not less than six feet tall between non-residential and residential sites; that such fence or wall be set back from the property line five feet and the setback be landscaped. · Require that residential lots abutting non-residential sites be extra deep. Highway 10 Edge The commercial and industrial buildings along Highway 10 will be the most visible to high numbers of the passing public and, therefore, should be given special consideration in site plan reviews. Ideally, the buildings would be between the highway and the major parking lots. Otherwise, the parking lots should be softened with berming and landscaping as pre- viously discussed. The buildings should present a pleasing facade to the highway, including as many windows as is possible given the internal demands of the operation. 49 FOCUS AREA "A" IMPLEMENTATION General implementation guidelines for the Focus Area Plans are presented later in this report, although several specific recommendations pertaining to Area A are set forth below. EXTENSION OF UTILYFIES The Western Area Feasibility Study (Maier Stewart and Associates, January, 1989) examined in detail the feasibility of extending sewer and water services into Area A, including the likely cost per residential lot. Upon adoption of the Focus Area A Study, the City should immediately reopen discussions with the landowners with the aim of beginning the first phase of those .public improvements and assessments. Serious con- sideration should be given to adopting a utility routing plan which supports simultaneously the residential and business park land use plans and which minimizes long-term project costs (including financial car- tying costs). Several questions about assessment policy were raised in the feasibility study which also need to be answered. Additionally, the use of financial tools other than just assessments should be explored. These may include tax increment financing (assuming there are no major changes in the state law), general funds, and Municipal State-Aid roadway funds, and water system financing by the Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission. LAND DEVELOPMENT Sandpiper Estates One of the major controlling factors in the development of Area A may be the platted and partially improved Sandpiper Estates residential subdi- vision. It will, of course, be essential to discuss carefully with the owner 51 of that project abandoning it if Alternative A-1 is to be adopted. If Alternative A-2 (or some variation of it) is adopted, it will also be important to replat the project using smaller, sewered lots. County Fairgrounds The City should encourage Sherburne County to relocate its fairgrounds out of the City at the earliest possible date so that better use can be made of that site (and surrounding properties) and so that the City can recoup its full investment in utility and road improvements. Park System Expansion Major additions to the City park system have been suggested by the Alternatives to serve this neighborhood and the'City at large. The only sure and equitable way to obtain the planned park sites is for the City to buy them; it is very unlikely that such tracts can be acquired through dedication as part of a plat, particularly the major riverfront open space and park in the floodplain. Therefore, if this plan is adopted by the City Council, the City Parks Commission should initiate discussions with lan- downers and work with the rest of the community to build support for this major undertaking. Combining Properties In designing Alternatives A-1 and A-2, attempts were made to avoid splitting ownership parcels and to avoid suggesting that various owners combine or sell their parcels to a common developer. However, the results of a long history of land parcelization are not always conducive to the best urban design and land marketing. Therefore, there may be instances where ownership patterns should change. The City may assist in this although it is best if such arrangements can be made entirely pri- vately. · ~ ] 52 111t '- ii1i1!ii I i!1 iili FIGURE 6-B POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL SITE OVERALL ASSESSMENT Site # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ranking 1st 3rd 7th 8th 5th 2nd 6th 4th 1988 Growth Management Plan