01-23-2018 PC MINMeeting of the
12-M
Held at the Elk River City Hall
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Members present: ("hair 11,1ric Johnson, Commissioners Mike Nichols, jill Larson -Vito,
Robert Rydberg, Alexander Feinstein, and Brad Thiel.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: planning Manager Zack Carlton, Senior Planner Chris Leeseberg,
Planner BrieAnna Simon, Sr. Administrative Assistant/Recording
Secretary Jennifer Gyreen
Also Present: Clouncilmember Jennifer Wagner, Council Liaisc)n
I 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.rri. by Chairjohnson.
'I'lie Pledge of Mlegiance was recited.
3.1 Ordinance Amendment — Residential Dimensional Regulations
NIs. Simon presented the staff report. She, explained staffs evaluation of all the
residential properties and planned ( rut Developments (ITII)s) noticing 1-nany
,
sirnila, 'tiesand the goals towards sunplif,
similarities, ving the residential dimensional regulations.
She indicated the similarities for front, side, and rear setbacks, with most of tbetri
located in the PUDs meet the existing regulations for Single Fairdly Residential (Rl --
c) She indicated changing there to a standard zoning district will reduce the number
of residential dimensional regulations altogether and those dimensions would be
outlined in city code, allowing residents an easy way to determine dieir property
setbacks. She reviewed the current and proposed wraps,
Nf s. Simon explained the second part of this review was to reduce tile residential
zoning district from eight to six. The new proposed residential zoning districts will
loosen. regulations in some areas of the city and simplify the residential zoning
regulations, She reviewed the Proposed dimensional requirements for the six
new/modified residential zoriing districts,
Ms. Simon and Mr. Carlton explained in greater detail one of the zoning districts
being proposed entitled "compact" is a result of the development community
requesting smaller lot sizes, noting 75' and 80' lot sli7cs are no longer financially
Planning Ccnnrnission
januan, 2,3, 2018
Pap"c' 2
feasible for developers and 65' and 70' lot sizes (\vhile still triallitaining 15' between
buildings) are more what the market IS SLIppOrting. Therefore, rather than the
developer having to do a PLJI) and a rezoning, these perrnitted strialler lot sizes
would make an easier process for developers and allow ri-iore predictability for
surrounding neighborhoods while allowing affordability to home costs as prices f(..)r
construction marcrials keep increasing. NIr. Carlton explained the desire to offer -4
-wide range of home price points to cater to more liornebuyers while still allowing
rnore flexibility and transparency in the ordinance.
fl"he commission expressed possible concerns with density and lot sizes but overall
were in favor of thesernochfications,
Mr. Leesebergy presented the staff report.
The planning Commission reviewed the definitions and discussed furdler changes or
modifications to the following areas:
Anilnals, change, the Nvord "hogs" to "swine"
Firearrnchange the definition into two sentences.
Institutional rise: There was discussion if churches should be include(] in this
category, 'Fhe consensus was that it should.
Salvage yard: concerns regarding language of "two or niore inoperative vehicles"
and how many current residential properties are 'o.)perating' a salvage yard due to
vehicles being stored on their prol-.)erties
3.3 Ordinance Amendment — Zoning District Uses
NIT, Leeselrerg presented the staff report, The: Planning ( ornmission, reviewed the
zoning district uses and offered the following comments.
Sec. 30-1292 --j:jjrght Industrial District --- the commission discussed the need to
keep the focus on jobs in this district; the), indicated other uses are occurring such as
indoor recreational (indoor batting cages/mrorkout facilities/etc.) and if they should
be allowed to continue with a Conditional Use"Permit (CAJP). It was noted not
allowing them in this district could create a financial challenge for sor.ne user groups,
Staff will retrin-i tc> the cc)mmission widi a map of where thene. types of businesses are
allowed in the city with a C1131).
Rernove frorn (d) ("ondidonal I-Tses: (5) Kennels, corninercial (indoor only) and move
to 1-3 Gerieral Industrial
Sec. 30-1026 ----1)D downtown district institutional uses retrioved; staff will review
the downtown desigii guidelines and bring back to the commission.
Planning Cornmission
januai,y 23, 2018
Page 3
Counciltnember Wa�mer updated the con-imission on the council's discussion
regarding the request by Vanman/Lefcbvre project to rno d4 the, Planning
Conitirission's recommendation to the council regarding the landscape requirements
and rnc)dJfyjjig the amount of curb and gutter to be installed. She explained the
COUnCil'S viewpoint regarding the property location and type of business use as the
reason why the council su Wested the applicant apply for as variance to the
requirements.
Councilr
nerriber Wagner stated the COUnCil considers each property on a case by case
basis and modifies requirements because of the location of the property or the ty,Pc
of business occurring on the property. `Flee corrimissic)n noted their desire to follow
the ordinance as its written and with the information they received, noting the
landscape plan was riot received at tire time the applicant met witli the Planning
Commission, and noting the conditions were not completed at the time of the
original conditional use permit in 1998. The conrinission expressed concern -with
making exceptions when applicants criticize the ciry regulations and with amending
the ordinance when an applicant does not agree with the regulations.
There being no further business, (::hair.) ohn son adjourned the regular tneering of the
I.,'I.k River Planning Corrinussion at 8:49 pm.
Minutes prepared byjepmfer Green,
Tina Allard
CA ;lerk
11", Al
Planning C"c)rrimission Chair
E�-