6.8. SR 05-17-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Planain§ Commission Page 10 Februm'y 24, 2004 plan. He concurred that chJ2dren should not be playing in the streets and that an area is needed for them :o piny. Commissioner Offe:unan concm'red widu Commissioner Anderson that the request should be tabled, and that no trees ~ be preserved if the proper'~y is developed under the e,,dsdng Rlc zoning, tie noted that Plan.uing Commission approved a yew detailed r_-ee preser~'ation ordinance, but that due to financial cutbacks, the City would not be able to hire a city, forester and without a cit7 forester to enforce k, a tree preservation ordinance would not work. He stated that he would encourage due residents to talk to their City Counc~ representative if they are in support of a tree preservation ordinance. He stated that they hope to get back some amemdes through tee PUD zoning, and he lek that those amenities proposed fall short. Commissioner Of-fen-nan noted that they have been given direction by the Council that Elk River is to be a place where people can both Eve and work. Based on current salaries, this is not happenSng in ELk River and there is a need for some affordable housing. He stated that ddngs 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 15ke to encourage the residents to speak to the City Council at a meeting during :he Open Mike pordon. He noted that there also were some issues in due 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 lek 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 duat he would like to see something completely different when the plat comes back next month. Chair Pederson stated that he lek the property could still be developed while saving a majority of the trees. He concurred teat preservation of the trail corridor is yeH 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 fee1 $225,000-$250,000 is affordable housing and the focus should be shiked to redevelopment in older part of the community. He stated that he fek a cluster could work if it were moved closer to County Road 1 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 desigu2 standards; the City cannot require the developer to plant additional trees or plantings; the buffer area along the Great Northern trail wilt be reduced by one third (10 percent park dedication), and there will be · little due 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 due developer and staff be even clear direction whether they want the R1C zoning or PUD zoning. Commissioner Anderson stated that he feb it should be zoned PUD with 113 skes or less, with a duster approach. Chair Pederson concurred with the PUD zoning. Commissioner Franz stated that he agreed with the PUD zonLug. He stated that the Commissioner had asked the developer for a mLx of affordable housing and that 84% of the lots under 11,000 square feet is not a mLx.