6.7. SR 04-19-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Planning Commission Page 10 Febmary 24, 2004 plan. He concurred that children should not be playing in the streets and that an area is needed for them to play. Commissioner Offerman concurred with Commissioner Anderson that the request should be tabled, and that no trees w/Il be preserved if the property is developed under the existing Rlc zoning. He noted that Planning Commission approved a very detailed tree preservation ordinance, but that due to financial cutbacks, the City would not be able to hire a city forester and without a city forester to enforce it, a tree preservation ordinance would not work. He stated that he would encourage the residents to talk to their City Council representative if they are in support of a tree preservation ordinance. He stated that they hope to get back some amenities through the PUD zoning, and he fee that those amenities proposed fall short. Commissioner Offerman noted that they have been given direction by the Council that Elk River is to be a place where people can both live and work. Based on current salaries, this is not happening in Elk River and there is a need for some affordable housing. He stated that things are changing due to land costs, and larger lots such as those in Nordic Woods may become a thing of the past. Commissioner Ropp stated he also would like to encourage the residents to speak to the City Council at a meeting during the Open Mike portion. He noted that there also were some issues in the discussion of the tree preservation ordinance regarding how much control the City should have over what property owners do on their own property. Commissioner Ropp also expressed concern regarding the traffic generated by the number of homes proposed and also felt that there was a better way to use this land. He stated he would likely not vote in favor of the plat if a few lots are dropped and a street or two was changed. He stated that he would like to see something completely different when the plat comes back next month. Chair Pederson stated that he felt the properv? could still be developed while saving a majority of the trees. He concurred that preservation of the trail corridor is very important. He stated that sidewalks were a safer place for children than in the streets. He stated that affordable housing was discussed with the developer but he did not feel $225,000-$250,000 is affordable housing and the focus should be shifted to redevelopment in older part of the community. He stated that he felt a cluster could work if it were moved closer to County Road i and had significandy less lots to preserve forested corridor area. Planner Chris Leeseberg asked for direction as to what the Commission would like to see. He stated that development of the property under the current Rlc zoning will also destroy most of the trees. If there is no PUD, there will be no design standards; the City cannot require the developer to plant additional trees or plantings; the buffer area along the Great Northern trail will be reduced by one th/rd (10 percent park dedication), and there will be little the city can do to prevent the developer from stripping the land down to put in the 113 lots which are allowed by the Rlc zoning. Mr. Leeseberg asked that the developer and staff be given clear direction whether they want the RIC zoning or PUD zoning. Commissioner Anderson stated that he lek it should be zoned PUD with 113 sites or less, vdth a cluster approach. Chair Pederson concurred with the PUD zoning. Commissioner Franz stated that he agreed with the PUD zoning. He stated that the Commissioner had asked the developer for a mix of affordable housing and that 84% of the lots under 11,000 square feet is not a mLx.