Loading...
04-13-2010 PC MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION • HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010 Members Present: Chair Westberg, Commissioners Anderson, Bell, Ives, Johnson, Lemke and Scott Members Absent: None Staff Present: JeremyBarnhart, Planning Manger; Chris Leeseberg, Planner/Park Planner; Rebecca Haug, Environmental Admuristrator; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary Also Present: Peter Beck, City Attorney Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m by Chair Scott. 2. Consider 4/ 13/ 10 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE APRIL 13, 2010 PLANNING • COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3. Consider 2/9/ 10 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER IVES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 9, 2010 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend City Council Meeting Commissioner Anderson will attend the April 19, 2010 City Council meeting. 5.1. Ms. Haug introduced City Attorney Peter Beck Mr. Beck provided a summary of cites decision to zone the entire Elk River Landfill property into the Mineral Excavation Overlay District and Solid Waste Facility Overlay District. He noted that there were issues with legal descriptions and the citys engineer has come up with a legal description to include all of their property. Commissioner Ives asked if the Landfill has been operating with the assumption that their property was zoned properly. Mr. Beck stated that it is the Landfill's position that they have been depositing in an area outside of the SWF District. He stated this request is a "clean up" effort to ensure that all of the Landfill property is in the appropriate district. Planning Coinnussion Minutes Page 2 April 13, 2010 --------------------------- Mr. Beck noted that he received a letter this afternoon, stating that Elk River Landfill had no objection to the proposed zoning. Jack Perry, 2200 IDS Center, Minneapolis, MN, representing Elk River Landfill - He stated that Mr. Beck is correct; they have no object to the zone change. He stated that the recently approved CUP and license have the same issue, since the legal descriptions are the same. He stated it appears that somewhere along the line, someone from the city drew the property line along the section line, rather than adjacent to the citytrail. He noted that this began showing up in the maps in 2000. He stated that he objected to the reference in the staff report that somehowthe error in the legal description was the Landfill's fault. Mr. Perry suggested that the CUP and license that acre approved also need to reflect this new legal description, along with parcel identification numbers. Mr. Beck stated that the legal description will not include the parcel identification numbers in the recorded document. He stated that it would be unlikelythe city would initiate an amendment to the Landfill's CUP and license to change the legal description; that would be up to the Landfill. Mr. Perry requested that the Planning Commission's recommendation be flexible to allow for any correction in the legal description that their surveyor may find. Mr. Beck stated that the legal description was not prepared by a surveyor, but was prepared bythe cites engineering consultant. He stated the legal description is very straightforward and covers all of the Landfill property. Commissioner Lemke asked if a legal description is typically attached to an ordinance. Mr. Beck stated yes. Commissioner Lemke asked if a legal description or a map takes precedence. Mr. Beck stated that the ordinance takes precedence and legal description attached to the ordinance that is adopted bythe City Council is what controls the zoning, not the map. An error in a map does not change the zoning status. He stated that if the city engineer was able to confirm that the legal description covers the landfill propertyto the trail, there would not be an issue. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING OF THE ELK RIVER LANDFILL PROPERTY TO MINERAL EXCAVATION (ME) OVERLAY AND SOLID WASTE FACILITY (SWF) OVERLAY, CASE NO. ZC 10-05. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.. Commissioner Bell asked if the Landfill's sort=eyor found an error in the legal description, would they have to start over with the zone change. Mr. Beck stated that the recommendation is for the legal description he has provided. He noted the legal description will be provided to the Landfill, if they do not already have it. 5.2. Mr. Leeseberg explained that the Planning Commission postponed action on this item until further information could be obtained from the property owner. He noted that theyhave spoken with the property owner and the current applicant is no longer interested in pursuing the conditional use permit. Staff recommends denial of the request. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE Planning Comnussion Minutes Page 3 April 13, 2010 --------------------------- REQUEST BY KEN BEAUDRY/M. GARG FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 10-04 FOR FAST CASH BUSINESS. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.3. Request by City of Elk River for Rezoning of Elk River Plaza PUD, Public Hearing -Case No. ZC 10-02 Mr. Leeseberg presented the staff repon for this item. He provided background information which prompted consideration to rezone this PUD. He noted taro open houses were held for the property owners, tenants and residents of Elk River Plaza. He noted that rezoning will be a PUD overlay district. Mr. Leeseberg provided details of the proposed Elk River Plaza Overlay Zoning District. Staff recommends approval of the request. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. Rich Schulz, owner of 510 Freeport office building -stated he attended both of the open houses and was still troubled with the rezoning. He stated he did not understand why other PUD's are not being looked at, as well. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the Elk River PUD is the oldest PUD and has had the most amendments. Mr. Schulz stated he will protest the change to C3 to the City Council. He noted that taxes vary by location. He cited an example that one Super America pays $2,000 more a year than the other, due to the different locations. He stated he is concerned that he will end up paying more in taxes. He stated the revising the zoning designation will have very little change on the type of tenants he can bring into his building, yet may impact his taxes. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the zoning will still remain PUD and not C3 Highway Commercial. He explained that other PUD's will be looked at, but that each of them is different. Commissioner Scott stated that it was his understanding that the Elk River Plaza PUD has had many amendments and this rezoning is more of a "clean up" issue. Mr. Leeseberg stated that no more amendment will be necessary, since the PUD Agreement will essentially "go away" and the new zoning will be codified in the cites ordinance. He explained that staff will now reference the Elk River Plaza overlay zoning district in the ordinance when any new requested come in. Commissioner Scott asked if the PUD overlay zoning is used in other cities. Mr. Leeseberg stated that it is new to Elk River, but is not new in other cities. Chair Westberg asked if Mr. Schulz's taxes could change. Mr. Leeseberg stated that according to what he was told by the county assessor's office, they would not change. Conurussioner Lemke asked for clarification on how the change will be implemented. Mr. Leeseberg explained how the ordinance will become part of the code. Mr. Schultz stated that he was more comfortable with the change now that he understood the properrywould not be rezoned to C3 Highway Commercial. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR ELK RIVER PLAZA Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 5.4. Page 4 PUD, AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE COMMISSION • DATED APRIL 13, 2010. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. ina _ The staff report was presented by Chris Leeseberg. Staff recommended approval of the amendment as presented in the report. Corrunissioner Bell asked what other uses besides schools are considered "institutional". Mr. Leeseberg stated that churches would be considered institutional uses. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, CASE NO. OA 10-04, AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DATED APRIL 13, 2010. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.5. Request by Russell/Rvan Kostreba for Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage (Midwest Mini Storage) Public Hearing -Case No CU 10-07 The staff report was presented byJeremyBarnhart. Staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff repon. Commissioner Ives asked how staff would determine "operable" boats. Mr. Barnhart stated S that determination would be based on whether they are licensed, appearance, such as no extensive damage or holes, etc. Commissioner Johnson asked if snowmobile trailers, boat trailers, etc. would be excluded. Mr. Barnhart stated that those items would be considered recreational vehicles. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. Russell and Ryan Kostreba, applicants, 15930 Jarvis Street (Midwest Mini-Storage) - RussellKostreba presented a number of photographs of their property. He stated he wished to address three of the conditions proposed bystaff. Condition # 2 -Landscaping. The applicants had concerns with the landscaping, since it has been planted twice and did not survive. Mr. Kostreba explained that theyhad asked previous staff if they could drill a well for imgation, but were told no. He stated they no longer have funds to put in a well. They are asking to be allowed to put in five trees at a time. They also felt that screening of their propertywas unnecessary due to the types of businesses in the area. He noted that the adjacent neighbor has outdoor storage which includes RV's. Mr. Kostreba referred to various views of his property in the photographs, noting that he felt their business can barely be seen from the rail lines. They noted that the goal of a business is to advertise not hide. Condition # 1 -Erosion. The applicants stated they tried to grow grass without access to water and were unable. They noted that the washout has been there for seven years and is approximately 18 inches deep. The applicants stated that the drainage ditch is not on their Plaiuung Commission Minutes Pale 5 April 13, 2010 --------------------------- property, and that someone drove a tractor in this area, digging up what vegetation was there. He stated that if he would tryto fill the wash, it would cause more damage than good. They did not feel that the erosion problem has gotten anyworse. Condition # 6 -Timeline. The applicants asked that condition # 6 be elunhzated, as they do not wish to be forced to complete a building in five years. He compared his request to the request by Dennis Sharp for outdoor storage. Ryan Kostreba stated there was a specific Councilmember who had an issue with the road, and that is whythe five-year timeline was placed on their CUP. Russell Kostreba stated that some cities prohibit outdoor storage of boats, RV's and recreational vehicles, and they need a place to store these types of vehicles. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Barnhart recalled the Council's decision on the five year limit on outdoor storage. Mr. Barnhart stated his recollection was the Council set the five year limitation so that when the final building was constructed, there physically would be no more room for outdoor storage on the site. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is also aware that other communities have restrictive covenants prohibiting outdoor storage of RV's and boats in residential neighborhoods. He felt there needs to be a place for people to store them. Mr. Barnhart stated that Elk River does not prohibit storage of boats and RV's. He stated that the goal is to not to have the business stop in five years, but to have covered storage for these types of vehicles. Mr. Barnhart stated that the erosion needs to be addressed now, as the problem will not just go away. Commissioner Ives asked who owns the property where the erosion is a problem. Mr. Barnhart explained that pond serves a number of lots. The storm water from the Kostreba site is contributing to the erosion. Commissioner Ives asked if fixing the erosion on this parcel will solve the problem. Mr. Barnhart stated that is the opinion of the city engineer. Commissioner Ives asked if the conditions of a CUP are somewhat loose. Mr. Barnhart stated that the property owner is given time to complete the conditions, but they are expected to followthrough. Commissioner Ives asked what happens in five years if they do not build. Mr. Barnhart stated that the applicant must ask for an amendment to their CUP. He stated that the goal is to have all storage indoors. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant can come back and ask for additional time. Mr. Barnhart stated the applicant is not prohibited from coming back and asking for any of the conditions to be amended. Commissioner Scott stated that stated that he is a customer of Midwest Mini Storage. He stated that he did not see how trees would ever grow on the site without significant investment in soils and imgation. He stated that if screening is the purpose, something other than trees should be used to achieve that. He stated that the erosion issues need to be addressed. Mr. Barnhart stated that the goal of landscaping ordinance applies to all businesses, which is to add more landscaping to the community. He felt there is an opportunityfor staff to work with the applicant on a landscaping plan, choosing specres that work in a sand environment. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Page 6 Chair Westberg asked what about the watering issue. Mr. Barnhart stated that some watering will be necessary and that can be discussed with the applicant in working out a landscaping plan. Commissioner Bell stated that he could understand why businesses would want to utilize the exposure from the train by advertising. He did not feel screening the site is in the business owners' best interest. Mr. Barnhart stated that staff is not suggesting they screen the propertywith trees. He noted that other businesses such as Wal-Matt and Home Depot have hundreds of trees which do not screen the businesses from view. He stated the minimal requirement they are asking for would not screen the business to the extent that they would be screened out of businesses. Commissioner Ives stated that he feels there is a need for this type of facility. Commissioner Anderson stated that he feels staff is trying to create some interest or "rail appeal", not screen them out of business. He stated that he felt staff could work with the applicant to find plants, such as prairie grass, wildflowers or other species that would survive in the sandysoiLs. He agreed that the applicants need to address the erosion issue. He stated that he lives in a neighborhood that does not allow outdoor storage and recognizes the need. He stated that the applicant could come back to discuss his needs prior to the end of the five years. Mr. Barnhart stated that 1/ of the trees in the plan were evergreens. He suggested some of the evergreens on the front could be moved to the side. The goal is not to screen the site out of business. Bell feel more comfortable if language was changed to reflect "revised" landscape plan, rather than stating "additional" trees. Commissioner Lemke stated that the city does not allowponding to be located off site unless there is an agreement. He stated that the city's ordinance specifies erosion control measures must be met. He stated he was in favor of staff working with applicant on the landscaping plan to come up with something that better suits the site. He questioned # 6 - "Chrtdoorstorage will terminate unless a building permit is issued". He asked if the outdoor storage would be allowed to continue if they built only one building in five years. Commissioner Lemke stated that purpose of the landscape plan is not to screen the property from the rail line, but to add some variety on the site and to get vegetation established. He stated that Repo Depot did not want to add landscaping, but not that it is completed, it looks very nice. Mr. Barnhart suggested the following language: C~uxdoor storage will terminate in five years, provided a building permit is issued once everyfive years. Conrrnissioner Ives asked how many more buildings the site could contain. Mr. Barnhart stated five more buildings were possible. Commissioner Westberg agreed that staff and the applicants should work out the details of the landscaping plan. Cotrunissioner Bell stated he did not like the use of the term "screening" in condition # 2. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IVES AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY RYAN AND RUSSELL KOSTREBA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 13, 2010 --------------------------- STORAGE (MIDWEST MINI-STORAGE, INC.), CASE NO. CU 10-07 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. REPAIR THE EROSION AS DESCRIBED IN BDM MEMO DATED APRIL 5, 2010. 2. REVISE LANDSCAPING PLAN TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL EVERGREEN TREES TO SCREEN FROM THE RAIL ROAD TRACKS. PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. 3. AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR ALL REQUIRE PERMITS. 4. ALL CONDITIONS IMPOSED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL APPLY, EXCEPT FOR #8, PERTAINING TO OUTDOOR STORAGE. 5. OUTDOOR STORAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO OPERABLE BOATS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. 6. OUTDOOR STORAGE SHALL TERMINATE IN 5 YEARS, PROVIDED A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS. ????? MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6.1. Call Special Meetings MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO CHANGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE AS FOLLOWS: 1. CALL SPECIAL MEETING FOR MAY 5, 2010 AT 6:30 P.M. -FOCUS AREA STUDY 2. CANCEL AUGUST 10, 2010 AND CALL SPECIAL MEETING FOR AUGUST 3, 2010 DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 7. Adjotuzunent There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Minutes prepared by eb ie Huebner. Tina Allard City Clerk Chad Westbe Chair