Loading...
10-27-1998 PC MIN . . '. MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27,1998 Members Present: Chair Mesich, Commissioners Chambers, Cote, Kuester, Morris, Schuster and Thompson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner; Steve Wensman, Planner; Peter Beck, City Attorney; Frank Kryz, City Engineer Representative; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meetinq To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:46 p.m. by Chair Mesich. 2. Consider 10/27/98 Planninq Commission Aqenda COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 27, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3. Consider Consent Aqenda COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: 3.1. REQUEST BY PHOENIX ENTERPRISES FOR REZONING (HILLSIDE 9TH), PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. ZC 98-7 - POSTPONED TO 11/24/98 3.2. REQUEST BY PHOENIX ENTERPRISES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (HILLSIDE 9TH), PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 98-21 - POSTPONED TO 11/24/98 3.3. REQUEST BY PHOENIX ENTERPRISES FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (HILLSIDE 9TH), PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. P 98-5 - POSTPONED TO 11/24/98 3.4. REQUEST BY CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 98-3 COMMISSIONER COTE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Consider 9/29/98 Planninq Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1998, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER COTE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1. Chair Mesich abstained. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 2 . 5. Planninq Commission RePresentative to Attend City Council Meetinq Commissioner Morris indicated he will be unable to attend the November 16, 1998 City Council meeting. Commissioner Schuster volunteered to attend in his place. 6.1. Request bv City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Reqardinq Nuisances, Public Hearinq Case No. OA 98-5 Staff report by Laurie Mezera-Kerr, Environmental/Code Enforcement Officer. Laurie indicated the amendment regarding parking of trucks, tractors and/or trailers has been revised to reflect some of the comments of the October 13th workshop. She explained that the proposed ordinance does not eliminate trucks and trailers in all residential zones, but rather, it will regulate them as a home occupation. The reason the ordinance was proposed is to reduce the truck traffic, noise and odor, and to protect the property values, aesthetics and roadways in the residential zones. . Members of the Commission questioned why the truck operations are proposed to be handled through the conditional use permit process, rather than licensing them. Peter Beck, City Attorney, explained that it may not be within the city's jurisdiction to license vehicles. Chair Mesich felt it would be easier to revoke a license for non-compliance than it would be to revoke a conditional use permit. Peter Beck indicated he was concerned the city would have less discretion through the licensing than through the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Mesich opened the public hearing. Steven Stoffer, 14092 Victoria Lane, expressed his support for the proposed ordinance. He stated that his concerns are the long idling times, odor and the impact on the future blacktop overlay. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Chair Mesich indicated that the proposed ordinance would be city wide policy and it was not drafted for a particular neighborhood. Commissioner Chambers felt there was a need for regulation, but did want the process to be lengthy for an applicant to obtain a permit. . Commissioner Kuester indicated she did not understand how conditional use permits are enforced. If a complaint is received, an investigation would then be conducted. Peter Beck explained that if a zoning violation situation comes up where a violator refuses to comply, the case would be brought up in district court. He was aware of only one or two instances where this has occurred in the 20 years he has been with the city. Commissioner Kuester stated she did not understand how the conditional use permit process would help. Peter stated that the city could structure the conditional use permit with conditions to address the nuisance issues. A violation of the conditions would be grounds for revocation. A violation would not automatically terminate the permit. The city would need to follow the due process procedure which would include notification to the permit Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 3 . holder of the violation and allow an opportunity to correct it. If the violation was not corrected, a notice would be sent out for a hearing on revocation. If the violation was still not corrected, the city would then seek a district court order. Chair Mesich felt the conditional use permit would enable the city to set conditions that would make it easier to enforce violations. Peter added that the conditional use permit would clearly identify what the requirements are and what a violation would be. Commissioner Schuster questioned why another ordinance is needed if there already is a nuisance ordinance. Peter Beck indicated the proposed ordinance will add the noise and odor caused by the trucks to the list of nuisances. Currently the city's nuisance ordinance follows state standards which would require the city to purchase special equipment and conduct testing. Laurie stated that the existing ordinance does not address idling of trucks during the day, or the associated odors. If the idling is addressed through the conditional use permit conditions, this will also address the odor issue. Commissioner Schuster felt the issues are adequately addressed in the current nuisance ordinance and felt the proposed ordinance would just create more problems. Laurie Mezera-Kerr explained that the new language would give her the necessary tools to go out and do her job, which is to enforce the operation of semi tractors and trailers. Currently, the trucks are permitted in residential areas and the nuisance ordinance only applies to the hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. If a complaint is received regarding noise and odor during the daytime hours, she cannot enforce the nuisance ordinance. . Chair Mesich felt the ordinance was necessary and this will become more evident as the city grows. He felt the proposed language was very lenient in comparison to other cities. Peter Beck agreed that some cities do not allow the semi tractors/trailers anywhere, but felt the ordinance was appropriate as the city currently exists, due to the amount of rural area in Elk River. Commissioner Kuester felt the ordinance was reasonable and sees it as a compromise to total elimination of the parking of truck tractors and/or trailers. COMMISSIONER COTE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 98-_, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER AMENDING SECTION 500.06(6) OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 98-5, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: - ADD A COMMA AFTER THE WORD "VANS" IN LINE 2 OF NO.6. - CHANGE "IN EXCESS OF TEN MINUTES" TO "IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN MINUTES" - STRIKE THE WORDS, "OR GREATER" - STRIKE THE WORDS "SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC NUISANCE" COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Commissioner Schuster opposed. . Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 4 . 6.2. Request by Associated Developers of the Twin Cities, Inc. for Rezoninq, Public Hearinq Case No. IC 98-9 6.3. Request by Associated Developers of the Twin Cities, Inc. for Preliminary Plat (Elk River Crossing), Public Hearina Case No. P 98-8 6.4. Request by Associated Developers of the Twin Cities, Inc. for Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearinq Case No. CU 98-26 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Associated Developers has requested the following: 1. Rezoning 58.49 acres from C3 (Highway Commercial and R2b (Two family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) 2. Preliminary plat of 58.49 acres into 12 commercial lots and 2 outlots 3. A conditional use permit for a 58.49 acre commercial Planned Unit Development Scott reviewed the major issues associated with the project which were addressed in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated October 30, 1998, which included the following: . 1. Density 2. Land Use 3. Wetlands 4. Pedestrian Circulation 5. Landscaping and Signage 6. Parking 7. Relation to Central Business District 8. Architecture 9. Miscellaneous Frank Kryz, representing Howard R. Green Company, discussed concerns related to the project density, transportation, the environment. utilities and other miscellaneous issues, as outlined in Terry Maurer's memo to the Planning Commission dated October 23, 1998. Individual transportation issues which were discussed included: A. Trunk Highway 169 and Main Street B. Main Street and CSAH 13 C. Right-in-right-out along CSAH 12, between the main entrance and the intersection of Tyler Street and CSAH 12 D. CSAH 12/Tyler Street E. Tyler Street/South Development Access F. Service Entrance/Tyler Street G. Need for additional right-of-way along CSAH 12 H. Need for additional interior right-of-way . Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 5 . Environmental issues reviewed included: 1. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) 2. Wetlands 3. County Ditch 4. Corps of Engineers Permit 5. Indirect Source Permit Mr. Kryz noted that the overall density of the proposed project is somewhat less than Elk Park Center. Chair Mesich questioned if the wetland area was included in the density computation. Mr. Kryz indicated that the wetlands were excluded. Commissioner Kuester felt a joint driveway would be appropriate for lots 1 and 2. . Tony Gleekel, of Siegel, Brill, Greupner & Duffy, representing the developer, Associated Developers of the Twin Cities, Inc. (Mattias Fischer, president), indicated this project has been discussed for a number of years and they have recently submitted the necessary applications in order to more forward. Their intent is to familiarize the Planning Commission with the project and the associated issues. He stated he did ndrexpect any action to be taken by the Planning Commission at this time but would like hear their comments. He indicated Mr. Frank of McCombs, Frank and Roos, completed the preliminary plat which has been submitted for the project. Mr. Gleekel noted that a preliminary landscape plan was submitted to staff but arrived too late to be included in the Commissioner's packets. The landscape plan and signage plan were done by Greg Ingram, consulting planner and landscape architect. Mr. Gleekel noted that it is most likely Lot 1 will be expanded and the access will be shifted further away from the main access. He added that the shared driveway suggestion will be considered for this site, and possibly other lots within the plat. Greg Frank of McCombs, Frank and Roos, consulting engineer for the developer, discussed the constraints of the site, including existing access points, grade changes, wetlands, ditches, and the relocation of power and gas line easements. He discussed the 3: 1 slope requirements and suggested relocation of the proposed trail. He requested that they be allowed to go to 2: 1 slopes for the ponds north of the loading dock areas. Mr. Frank indicated they are proposing to mitigate the wetlands on site. He felt the traffic issues discussed by staff can be addressed in the site plan. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Mesich called for a motion to continue the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COTE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REQUESTS BY ASSOCIATED DEVELOPERS OF THE TWIN CITIES, INC. FOR REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE NOVEMBER 24, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. . Commissioner Cote asked how the County Road No. 12 project will impact the project. Scott Harlicker indicated the county's project does not extend that far. Mr. Frank indicated the city's plans for County Road 12 have been taken into consideration in their plans. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 6 . Chair Mesich felt the right-in-right-out would create a dangerous situation. Mr. Frank indicated that without the access, development of Lot 1 would be extremely difficult. Mr. Frank added that he will pursue the access issue with the County. Commissioner Kuester asked Mr. Frank to review the approximate location of signage for the project. She questioned whether or not the traffic to the loading areas would be using the right-in-right-out access. Mr. Frank explained indicated the access pattern to the loading docks. Mr. Gleekel indicated a free-standing pylon sign is proposed to be located in the proximity of Lot 1 off Highway 169. Mr. Gleekel indicated the signage will be discussed in detail with staff in order to comply with the city's ordinances. Scott Harlicker indicated the signage would be similar to Elk Park Center. Commissioner Chambers questioned whether or not an architectural style has been determined for the project. Mr. Gleekel indicated it is their intent to work with the city and their future tenants regarding the facade of the buildings within the project, signage and landscaping. Peter Beck explained the PUD agreement will include detailed site plans, landscape plans, and building elevations which will be reviewed the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, the PUD agreement will provide for review of the free-standing sites on an individual basis through the conditional use process. . Commissioner Chambers indicated that since this intersection is a major link with the downtown, he felt it is a appropriate to have an architectural theme to make that connection. Commissioner Cote expressed his agreement. Chair Mesich questioned if the individual tenants were named in the PUD process for Elk Park Center. Peter Beck indicated the elevations and sign bands were included for the anchor tenants but not the names. Individual pads were identified for banks, restaurants, etc. and the overall look of the project was established in planning process. Chair Mesich questioned if colors and building facades were approved at that time. Peter Beck indicated he did not recall that those types of items were approved in the conditional use permit for the initial project, but that the city has the authority to go to that level of review. Commissioner Schuster questioned why a two-way access was not requested. Mr. Frank indicated a two-way access would not be approved and a right-in- right-out was the most they could hope for. Chair Mesich questioned if the Park and Recreation Commission would be reviewing the project for their recommendation. Scott Harlicker indicated the project would be considered at their November meeting. . Commissioner Cote asked if screening is proposed for the back of the anchor tenant buildings. Mr. Frank felt the spatial separation created by the pond and the 25 foot grade would provide adequate screening and separation. Scott noted evergreens are shown to be planted on the west side of the wetlands adjacent to the buildings. Scott questioned whether or not recessed loading Planning Commission Minutes October 27. 1998 Page 7 . docks have been considered. Mr. Frank indicated both anchor tenants do not have recessed loading docks. Commissioner Cote expressed his concern for accesses to the various businesses along the internal roadways. He questioned if consideration could be given to constructing wider streets in order to provide turning lanes. Mr. Frank indicated this issue will be addressed in revisions to the plat detail. He felt most of the traffic coming into the site will be destination-oriented and there should not be a lot of through-traffic and this may justify a smaller street width. Commissioner Cote suggested continuing the bituminous trail on the west side of Crossing Street, around and over to Tyler Street in order to provide pedestrian access to future properties to the south. Chair Mesich expressed his agreement with Commissioner Cote and also suggested that a light be provided at the pedestrian crossing which could be activated to stop traffic. It was the consensus to discuss this item at the November 10, 1998, Planning Commission workshop and to contact the Park and Recreation Commissioners to provide their input. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Scott Harlicker asked if the Planning Commissioners were comfortable with the density of the project. . Commissioner Thompson stated she agreed with Commissioner Kuester that Lots 1 and 2 be combined. Scott asked how the Commissioners felt about the square footage of the big box retail sites. He explained that reason the developers are having difficulty meeting the city's requirements is because of the size of the proposed buildings. If the buildings were scaled back, there would be more room on the site for flexibility to meet the slopes required by code. He also asked the Commission to consider the number of parking stalls on the site, stating the applicants are proposing 140 more spaces than the code requires. Mr. Frank indicated the city' parking requirements are much less than what the users feel they need. He felt it would be prohibitive for the two "big box" tenants to each take 70 stalls less. Commissioner Thompson commented that she has not seen the parking lot full at Menard's, which is also a home improvement retail center. Chair Mesich indicated he did not have a problems with the density. He felt the right-in-right-out access should be eliminated and suggested opening up that area as green space for a park area or meeting area. Commissioner Thompson stated she would support a reduction in the density of the project if it would help reduce the slopes. She also stated the right-in-right-out access should be eliminated. Commissioner Schuster indicated he felt the density was appropriate, but did not support the right-in-right-out access. . Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 8 . Commissioner Cote stated he did not support the access. He indicated he would support decreasing the density in order to save wetland, but did not feel a recommendation to reduce the density would affect the overall project. Commissioner Morris indicated he did not have a problem with the density but was concerned about the wetlands. Also, he felt that if the number of parking stalls were reduced, he would support adding turn lanes at the crossing street. Scott asked if the Commissioners felt the proposed mix of land uses were appropriate. Chair Mesich asked if the proposed uses are permitted in the Highway Commercial zoning district. Scott indicated that they are permitted. Commissioner Kuester felt the pedestrian access should go through Lot 6. Scott suggested a pedestrian access on the west side to access the free-standing sites and a crosswalk at the intersection to direct pedestrians into the shopping area. Mr. Frank indicated he felt it would be unsafe for pedestrians to cross at the intersection and that it would be better to locate the pedestrian crosswalk after the big box retailer. Commissioner Cote felt there should be some type of architectural treatments used to tie the proposed project with the downtown. Commissioner Chambers stated he would also like to see the street scape of the proposed development tie in with the downtown. . COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO POSTPONE THE REQUEST BY ASSOCIATED DEVELOPERS OF THE TWIN CITIES, INC. FOR REZONING 58.49 ACRES FROM C3 TO PUD(CASE NO. ZC 98-9), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (CASE NO. P 98-8), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO. CU 98-26), TO THE NOVEMBER 24, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER COTE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Commissioner Cote suggested that each of the Commissioners take time to review this proposal and provide their comments to Scott as soon as possible. 6.5. Request by Amcon for Preliminary Plat (Elk River Business Park, LLC), Public Hearinq Case No. P 98-7 Scott Harlicker stated that Amcon is requesting preliminary plat approval to plat a 40 acre parcel zoned BP (Business Park) into 7 lots. Scott indicated that the necessary information for review of the plat has not been received and recommended that the request by postponed. COMMISSIONER COTE MOVED TO POSPONE THE REQUEST BY AMCON FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. P 98-7 TO THE NOVEMBER 24 , 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. . Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1998 Page 9 . 6.6. . 7.1. Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Reqardinq Lot Line and Yard Definitions, Public Hearinq Case No. OA 98-4 Steve Wensman explained the changes which were made to the proposed ordinance amendment, based on the discussion at the Planning Commission workshop. Discussion followed regarding the definition of rear lot line. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Don Driessen, 324 Main Street, asked for clarification on the proposed ordinance amendment. There being no other comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COTE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 98-_, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER AMENDING SECTION 900.00 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 98-4, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: - DELETE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF LOT LINE, REAR - IN THE CASE OF A CORNER LOT, THE REMAINING LOT LINE WHICH ALSO ABUTS A STREET OR ROAD SHALL BE CONSIDRED A SIDE LOT LINE. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Update on 10/19/98 City Council Meetinq Commissioner Cote provided an update on planning items considered at the October 19, 1998, City Council meeting. 7.2. Downtown Visioninq Worksession . Scott Harlicker and Steve Wensman discussed the Downtown Visioning worksession which they attended on Friday, October 20th. Commissioner Schuster and Commissioner Chambers indicated that they also attended the worksession. Scott indicated that the participants were divided into the following working groups: - Business - Public Improvements - Private Improvements - Activities and Events Scott noted that another worksession will be held the second week in January. Scott and Steve encouraged members of the Planning Commission to become involved in this important process. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 27. 1998 Page 10 8. Adjournment There being no further business. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AJdk'~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary