Loading...
02-29-2000 PC MIN . . . &~f~@W~~ MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2000 Members Present: Commissioners Baker, Chambers, Kuester, Morphew and Schuster. Commissioner Schuster arrived at 6:38 p.m. Members Absent: Chair Mesich Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Stephen Wensman, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AS CHAIR PRO- TEM, DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF CHAIR MESICH. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 1 . Call Meetin<;:1 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 Thompson. 2. Consider 2/29/00 Planninq Commission Aqenda COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 29, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consider 1/25/00 Planninq Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 25, 2000, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4. Planninq Commission Representative to Attend March 20, 2000, City Council Meeting Commissioner Kuester will attend the March 20, 2000, City Council meeting. 5.1 . Request bv Elk River Landfill for Renewal of Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearinq Case No. CU 00-4 Commissioner Schuster arrived at this time (6:38 p.m.) Staff report by Steve Rohlf. The Elk River Landfill is requesting renewal of their conditional use permit and solid waste license, which is done every four years. Staff's greatest concern is the unlined cell. Remedial actions have been taken which include venting of methane gases which build up deep within the cell. If Planning Commission Minutes February 29.2000 Page 2 . this measure does not work, it will be necessary to take other means. Mr. Rohlf noted that Mr. Terry Johnson, hydrologist for the Landfill, was present to answer questions. Mr. Rohlf explained that cells 14-17 are being reviewed, and cells 1-13 have already been approved. He reviewed the map indicating which cells are in Livonia Township. Steve noted that the City's environmental consultant, Bruce Leisch & Associates, will review the detail of each cell. Steve Rohlf explained that the bio-reactor proposed for the landfill will re- circulate the leachate, instead of having to pump it out and haul it to the Pigs Eye treatment facility. The advantage to the landfill is that the waste will be more compressed, leaving them more capacity, and also avoid some of the cost of treating the leachate. The benefit to the environment is quicker decomposition and stabilization of the waste, which is good because the liner life is unknown. Mr. Rohlf noted that the Elk River Landfill was the first to install a liner in Minnesota. Mr. Rohlf stated that the landfill is requesting 3 to 1 slopes which will allow them to gain approximately 1,500,000 cubic yards of disposal area on the same footprint that is approved by the city's current permits. He reviewed the criteria which the landfill must meet in order to allow the 3 to 1 slopes, and noted that the City's approval is contingent upon approval by the MPCA and Sherburne County. Details of the MPCA will be incorporated in the City's permit and license. . Steve Rohlf stated that Tim Edgeton, Sherburne County Forester, has developed a screening plan for the landfill. He expressed his concern that the Landfill not introduce Oak Wilt, since the disease is so prevalent in the city already. Mr. Rohlf noted that a reclamation plan will be required when the Landfill requests their permit renewal in four years. Mr. Rohlf introduced Deb McDonald, Deb Dean and Terry Johnson, representing the Elk River Landfill, at this time. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. Curt Corrow, of Corrow Sanitation, resident adjacent to the Landfill, expressed his concern that he has not received any reports on water contamination for some time. He asked if the well testing was still being done. Terry Johnson stated that the water is still being tested annually and was not aware that Mr. Corrow was not receiving the reports. He stated that he will make sure that last year's and this year's reports are sent to him. . Mr. Corrow asked which direction the groundwater flows. Terry explained that the system flows in two directions; the shallow system flows south and then west to the wetland, and the deeper system flows straight west. Mr. Corrow asked what the rate of contamination is. Mr. Johnson stated that the highest area of contamination is well within the landfill property, and that testing shows that it is barely moving. He explained that once a cell is capped, the contaminants are virtually just sitting there and will eventually be broken down by organic carbon. Steve Rohlf explained Tiller was denied a permit for a wash plant because the Planning Commission Minutes February 29. 2000 Page 3 . City did not want to have a lot of water pumped into this area. He stated that this could potentially affected the migration of contaminants. Terry Johnson explained that since the cells are impermeable when capped and they contain organic material, gases are created which need to be released. He felt that the method of venting the gas for the past several years has had a positive effect. Steve Rohlf noted that the gas-to-electricity project at the Landfill was named the U.S. Environmental Project of the Year in 1998. Mr. Corrow asked if the Landfill will be able to expand in the future. Steve Rohlf stated that in order to expand a rezoning would be necessary, and requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council. Joe Johnson, resident on 23151 Avenue, asked what kind of gas is being released. Steve Rohlf stated that the gas is methane. Steve Rohlf noted that occasionally the methane builds up and the Landfill will"flame off" the excess. Joe Johnson asked what would happen if a fire occurred. Deb McDonald stated that the first thing that would be done is to immediately shut off the flow of oxygen. They would then try to get clay in and place an impervious cap on the cell. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. . Commissioner Kuester asked what the landfill site could be used for, once the operation ceases. Steve Rohlf stated that some of the possible uses include a golf course, nature trails, ski slopes and archery courses. Commissioner Kuester questioned who would own the property. Terry Johnson stated that the property would gradually be turned over to the public. Commissioner Baker questioned the use of water for the re-circulation of leachate and asked if this would increase the risk for release of contaminants. Terry Johnson explained that water vapor is pulled out with the gas at a faster rate than water is put in. He noted that there generally is a moisture deficit. He explained that they try to keep water out of the cell as much as possible, but since the waste comes in fairly dry, they may need to introduce some water. Commissioner Baker asked what the rate of decomposition might be. Terry John stated that studies of bio-reactors for re-circulation have shown that the waste is basically compost after 8 years. Terry Johnson stated that he was a part of a project to dig up an old landfill near Watertown and they found that the waste had basically become dirt. Discussion followed regarding the bio-reactor system. Steve explained that too much leachate could cause the liner to bulge or leak. Matt Levina of Bruce Leisch and Associates, stated that he did not anticipate any problems, but that a condition is included in the approval so that if a problem arose with the bio-reactor, it would be stopped. Steve Rohlf noted that the reason liquids are not allowed to be disposed of in the landfill is because it would increase the level of leachate. . Planning Commission Minutes February 29,2000 Page 4 . Commissioner Schuster asked what the life of the line is expected to be. Deb McDonald stated that testing by immersing the material in various substances has shown the life to be in excess of 1,000 years. Steve Rohlf noted that a clay liner is also installed to back up the vinyl liner. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had any concerns regarding water runoff on the 3 to 1 slopes. Steve Rohlf stated that since there currently are mowers that work on 3 to 1 slopes, the surface will be seeded to prevent erosion. In addition, a bench row will be required every 40 vertical feet. Steve agreed that long term maintenance and stability are concerns and are addressed in the CUP and license agreements. He stated that geo-net will also be placed on the slopes which helps significantly with erosion control. Commissioner Schuster asked if they plan to install additional generators. Deb McDonald stated that each cell will have its own well and header line, which will go to a generator. She noted that gas curve testing indicates they have enough gas to install one or two additional generators. Ms. McDonald added that if the bio-reactor is put in, they will also need to do something with the gas which is generated. Steve Rohlf noted that the flame that is sometimes seen at the Landfill is caused by burning off excess gas. . COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL, INC. FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SOLID WASTE FACILITY, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 00-4, WITH THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF IN THE REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DATED FEBRUARY 29, 2000, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING MAJOR CHANGES: 1. BIO-REACTOR (LEACHATE RE-CIRCULATION) IS APPROVED CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY MPCA AND SHERBURNE COUNTY. IF THIS SYSTEM IS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY, THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO STOP THE PROCESS AND HAVE THE LANDFILL RETURN TO CONVENTIONAL WASTE DISPOSAL AND LEACHATE TREATMENT. 2. APPROVAL OF CELLS 14 THROUGH 171S CONTINGENT ON CITY STAFF'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. 3. 3 TO 1 SLOPES ARE APPROVED CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY MPCA AND SHERBURNE COUNTY. 4. AN END-USE PLAN IS MADE PART OF THE NEXT RENEWAL OF THE CITY'S PERMITS FOR THE LANDFILL. COMMISSIONER SCHUSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Reauest bv Citv of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Reaardina Floodplain Ordinance and Maps, Public Hearina Case No. OA 00-1 . Staff report by Steve Rohlf. Mr. Rohlf explained that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requiring that the City of Elk River adopt revisions to its Floodplain Ordinance. Failure to comply would make Elk River residents ineligible for flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Rohlf reviewed the revisions in the ordinance text and maps, noting that the Planning Commission Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 5 . changes will have little effect on the City's administration and enforcement of the Floodplain Ordinance. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO AMEND SECTION 902 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 00-3. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.3. Request by Phoenix Enterprises for Preliminary Plat (Harley Addition', Public Hearinq Case No. P 00-3 5.4. Request by Phoenix Enterprises for Conditional Use Permit. Public Hearinq Case No. CU 00-5 . Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Phoenix Enterprises has requested preliminary plat approval to plat Outlot A of Hilllside Crossing Third Addition (2.02 acres) as Harley Addition. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit for motorcycle sales and repair. The applicant's client, a Harley Davidson authorized dealer, proposes to construct a 39,939 sq. ft. building consisting of two stories and a basement. Mr. Harlicker reviewed issues and staff recommendations regarding parking and access, grading, drainage and utilities, building elevations, landscaping, and signage. He noted that the applicant is now proposing to use brick on the entire building exterior. Staff recommends approval of the requests with the conditions in the staff report to the Commission dated February 29,2000. Chair Thompson asked if the signs will be lighted. Scott explained which signs would be lighted. Commissioner Chambers asked if a light could be placed over the emblems on the west and south ends of the building. Mr. Harlicker stated that this issue will be reviewed by staff. Chair Thompson questioned if the Amoco emblem on the entrance sign would need to be moved. Mr. Harlicker stated that the location of that sign was approved as part of the Amoco conditional use permit approval. Discussion followed regarding height of the proposed building and the flags located on top of the building. Mr. Harlicker stated that the building height is within the limits established for the PUD. Discussion followed regarding additional landscaping to the north of the property along Evans. Mr. Harlicker explained that site lines need to be maintained Commissioner Baker suggested that shrubs be placed along Evans on the north end of the property. Mr. Harlicker stated that Staff will work with the city engineer to determine if additional landscaping can be added along the east property and along Evans without restricting visibility. . Commissioner Baker asked if the underground garage walls will be visible from Highway 169. Keith Johnson, representing Phoenix Enterprises, stated that the garage area would not be visible because of the location of a terraced retaining wall on the Highway 169 side of the property. He asked that the Commission not consider the logo at the ends of the building as signage. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 29.2000 Page 6 Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY PHOENIX ENTERPRISES FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (HARLEY ADDITION), PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. P 00-3, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. PARK DEDICATION FEE SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 2. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 3. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY PHOENIX ENTERPRISES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MOTORCYCLE SALES AND REPAIR FACILITY (HARLEY DAVIDSON), PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 00-5, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER BE ADDRESSED. 2. A LANDSCAPE PLAN BE PROVIDED AND APPROVED BY STAFF WHICH MEETS THE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. THE LANDSCAPING SHALL INCLUDE STREET TREES ALONG EVANS STREET, SHADE TREES ON SITE AND ON THE PARKING ISLANDS, ORNAMENTAL AND EVERGREEN TREES. 3. CURBED LANDSCAPED ISLANDS BE PROVIDED AT THE WEST AND NORTH ENDS OF THE CENTER ROW OF PARKING SPACES. 4. ALL SIGNS WILL REQUIRE A SIGN PERMIT AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HILLSIDE CROSSING PUD AGREEMENT. 5. THE SITE PLAN BE AMENDED TO SHOW THE EXISTING SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE FROM EVANS STREET. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.5. Reauest by Tim Smith for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. CU 94-17, Public Hearinq Case No. CU 00-3 Staff report by Michele McPherson. Tim Smith is requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit (CU 94-17) to remove a condition which requires the removal of a house on their property within three years. The house has remained for six years since the permit was originally approved. The subject property is located at 413 Main Street (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 15, Village of Elk River). In August of 1999, a concern was raised by a council member asking why the house was still on the property. The Planning Commission is asked to determine if it is appropriate to remove the condition that requires removal of the dwelling. If it is Planning Commission Minutes February 29. 2000 Page 7 . determined that it is appropriate, the applicant will then be required to bring the property into conforming status. Findings for denying the request are provided in the staff report, if the Planning Commission denies the request. Commissioner Kuester asked if this situation were unique. City Attorney Peter Beck stated that there are other conditional use permits which are not in compliance, but not this type. He felt that the situation is unusual in that the entire back yard of a single family dwelling is a the parking lot of a commercial business. Commissioner Baker asked what the zoning of the property. Ms. McPherson stated that it is C2 (Office District). Commissioner Kuester asked if the structure is being used as a residence. The applicant stated that a family is renting the house on a month-to-month basis, because of the uncertainty of allowing the house to remain on the property. Commissioner Schuster questioned if there was a statute of limitations for conditions of a CUP. Peter Beck stated that there is none. Commissioner Baker asked the applicant what they plan to do with the building. Tim Smith stated that they would sell the property if they could find a buyer. He stated he did not have the resources to move the building. . Discussion followed regarding why the condition was not enforced earlier, and also, why it has become an issue now. Peter Beck explained that the issue was brought forward by a council member, and also, a complaint was made to another council member. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. Jerry Smith, 24860 147th Street, part owner of the property, stated that he was not sure why the condition was placed on their permit and that in the excitement of building the new structure, the condition was overlooked by them. He stated that their intent has always been to sell the building and it is being marketed. He felt the expense to bulldoze the building down and clean up the site would be enormous, and they would also lose the income they are not receiving in rent. Mr. Smith suspected that the complaint which was made was likely caused by the previous tenant who stored playground equipment on the site. Currently, a mother and 2 children are living in the home. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kuester asked the applicants what they would like to see happen. Mr. Tim Smith stated he would like to see the condition to remove the house completely removed from the CUP. He felt the property may not sell for some time, based on the time it has taken to move other properties in the downtown area. . Commissioner Baker asked if the Smiths are actively marketing the property and whether or not they have had any showings. Mr. Jerry Smith stated that they are trying to market the property and did have someone interested in the site as an Planning Commission Minutes February 29,2000 Page 8 . office for a remodeling business, but they have not heard anything further from him. Discussion followed regarding other single family homes in the office district which are still used as residences. Chair Thompson stated she would not be comfortable removing the condition but would consider extending the time for removal of the house. Commissioner Morphew agreed with Commissioner Thompson and felt that there would be no incentive to remove the house if the condition were taken out. Commissioner Baker asked what the appraised value of the home was. Mr. Jerry Smith stated that the house is appraised at $95,000, but would be much more valuable as a commercial use. Peter Beck asked if the applicant has asked the City for redevelopment assistance. Mr. Jerry Smith stated that they have not, but it would be a possibility to consider. Commissioner Schuster was opposed to tearing the house down. He felt it would be more detrimental to the neighborhood than leaving it stand and supported an extension for removal. Commissioner Chambers questioned extending the time frame unless there was a reason. . Mr. Jerry Smith stated that when they purchased the property, there were 2 homes on the three lots. There office building at 403 Main Street is built on 1-1/2 lots. Discussion followed regarding the issue of two principle structures on one zoning lot. Commissioner Schuster asked how the lot would look if the house were removed. Staff explained that the property owner would be required to meet the normal City requirements for screening and landscaping of the parking lot, and filling the basement in. COMMISSIONER SCHUSTER MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST BY TIM SMITH FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CU 94-17 TO ELIMINATE CONDITION #4, WHICH REQUIRES REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE ON LOT 3, AND EXTENDS THE TIME PERIOD TO JUNE 24, 2003, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . 6. THE GOAL OF THE CITY IS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS OFFICE COMMERCIAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT FEEL EXTENSION OF THE TIME IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE ACTIVELY MARKETING THE PROPERTY. TEARING DOWN THE HOUSE AND LEAVING A VACANT LOT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MIXED USES ALREADY EXIST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SETTING A TIME LIMIT OF AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS WILL LIMIT THE LONG TERM USE OF THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL. Planning Commission Minutes February 29. 2000 Page 9 . COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 3-3. Commissioners Schuster, Chambers and Kuester voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Baker, Thompson and Morphew opposed. Commissioner Thompson stated that she felt 3 additional years was too long. Commissioner Baker stated that the applicant needs to make it a priority to sell the property and to explore all options that are available. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY TIM SMITH, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 00-3, AND TO RECOMMEND MODIFYING CONDITION NO.4 TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF THE HOUSE BY A SPECIFIC DATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SCHUSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 2-4. Commissioners Kuester, Thompson, Baker and Morphew opposed. 5.6. Reauest by Frank Madsen for Land Use Mao Amendment to Remove Prooerty from Urban Service District Public Hearing Case No. LU 00-1 5.7. Reauest by Frank Madsen for Rezoning from R 1 c to R 1 a. Public Hearina Case No. ZC 00-3 . Staff report by Steven Wensman. Frank Madsen, 19640 Proctor Road, is requesting a land use amendment to remove property from the urban service district, and a rezoning of his property from R 1 c (single family residential) to R 1 a (single family residential). Mr. Madsen proposed to subdivide his property and sell three acres to another party who does not want to connect to City sewer and water. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. Frank Madsen, applicant, stated that he did not attend a meeting which was held during the Comprehensive Plan review in which a neighbor opted to be excluded from the Urban Service District. He stated that if he had been aware of the option, he would have also asked that his property not be included. There being no other comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY FRANK MADSEN FOR A LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. LU 00-1. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY FRANK MADSEN FOR A REZONING FROM R1C TO R1A, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. ZC 00-3, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. THAT IF IN THE FUTURE, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO RETURN TO THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT, THE APPLICANT SHALL BEAR THE COSTS OF PROVIDING SEWER AND WATER TO THE PROPERTY. . Planning Commission Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 10 . COMMISSIONER MORPHEW SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.8. Request by Hoyt Partners LLP for Zone Chanqe from BP to C3, Public Hearing Case No. ZC 00-2 5.9. Request by Hoyt Partners LLP for Land Use Chanqe from CC to HB, Public Hearina Case No. LU 00-2 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Hoyt Partners is requesting a land use plan amendment to HB (Highway Business) and a rezoning to C3 (Highway Commercial). The property is located in the southeast corner of the future intersection of Waco Street and Highway 10, north of the westerly extension of Business Center Drive. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the zoning of surrounding land uses and access to the sites. Staff has determined that the proposed change for Parcels 1 and 2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however. they are recommending that the zoning of Parcel 3 remain Business Park. Mr. Harlicker explained that Business Center Drive forms a physical as well as visual separation between the parcel fronting Highway 10 and Parcel 3. Staff feels that traffic generated by highway commercial uses on Parcel 3 are likely to have an adverse impact on the Government Center. Commissioner Thompson asked if the parcels to the west of this site will become landlocked when Waco Street is realigned. Terry Maurer explained that there is one property for which a driveway will need to be constructed to provide access. . Commissioner Baker asked what types of uses are allowed in the C3 zoning and the Business Park zoning districts. Scott Harlicker reviewed these uses with the Commission. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. Stewart Wilson, applicant, explained that Parcel 3 was included in their request to provide geometric consistency for the site. There being no other comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schuster asked if the realignment of Waco Street was contingent upon State approval. Terry Maurer explained that the City has been working with MN/DOT for the past 4-5 years to close unnecessary accesses onto Highway 10 whenever possible. A signalized intersection at the new Waco Street alignment and Highway 10, and continuation of the frontage road has been a part of that plan. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY HOYT PARTNERS LLP FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO HIGHWAY BUSINESS, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. LU 00-2, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: . 1. PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A FUTURE AREA FOR HIGHWAY BUSINESS LAND USES. 2. THE ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 10 Planning Commission Minutes February 29,2000 Page 11 . 3. THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW FOR HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY HOYT PARTNERS LLP FOR A REZONING TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. ZC 00-2, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OF HB (HIGHWAY BUSINESS). 2. THE CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED TO WARRANT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY AS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. 3. THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 10 AND IS LOCATED AT A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION WHICH WILL MEET THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF BUSINESSES ALLOWED UNDER THE C3 ZONING DISTRICT. 4. THE C3 ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS. 5. THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND WILL BE SERVICED BY MUNICIPAL SEWER AND WATER. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.10. Reauest by Ron Wald for Preliminary Plat (Mulvany Point), Public Hearina Case No. P 00-2 . Staff report by Steve Wensman. Ron Wald is requesting a preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 21.59 acre parcel (11119 18151 Avenue NW) in the Business Park zoning district into four lots (4.4 acres, 2 acres, 1.8 acres and 11.4 acres in size). Mr. Wensman reviewed issues associated with the plat regarding roads, access, easements, sidewalks, drainage, grading and erosion control, Trott Brook Farms, Outlot I, tree preservation, the existing house, and park dedication fees. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. Dave Putnam, Midwest Land Engineers, had the following comments regarding the proposed conditions of approval: #20 - Permanent cul-de-sac: Mr. Putnam was concerned that value of the lots would be lost if platted as a permanent cul-de-sac, as setbacks would be affected. He suggested that an easement for street, drainage an utilities be granted instead. #9 - Easements over ponds - The applicant objected to encumbering the lots with easements for pond, when it is not known at this time where the ponds will be located. He felt it would make the lots more difficult to sell. He requested that the City deal with each parcel as it is developed. The applicant was willing to dedicate easements over existing ponds. . Planning Commission Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 12 . Discussion followed regarding easements for future drainage ponds. Terry Maurer, City Engineer, explained that the city has found it necessary to require platting of drainage and utility easements for NURP ponds and wetlands. He stated that buyers are sometimes unwilling to provide on site ponds, and feel that the drainage for the entire plat should have been taken care of during the platting process. # 15 - Sanitary sewer connection to the east-Mr. Putnam stated that they are working with the property owner to obtain an easement across Outlot I, Trott Brook Farms, but they cannot be sure at this time that they will be successful. Steve Wensman stated that the condition can be re-written to allow re-design of the sanitary sewer if access is not obtained. # 18 - Sidewalk along south side of new east-west road in plat - Mr. Putnam questioned the necessity of the sidewalk and did not feel it would be used. Staff explained that the City has found sidewalks are indeed used in business/industrial parks, noting that they are currently planning to construct a sidewalk in an existing industrial park, due to the number of employees that walk on a regular basis. Terry Maurer responded to the applicant's and Mr. Putnam's comments as follows: . #20 - A permanent easement would be acceptable. The easement could be vacated in the future if a through-street is never going to be constructed. #9 - Mr. Maurer stated that the City wants buyer to know that a lot is encumbered so that they are aware a drainage pond may be required on their site. He explained that staff will work with the buyer to relocate a pond if another location on the lot makes more sense. Mr. Maurer noted that most of developers that come in with new plats build a drainage pond for the entire area, eliminating the need for easements on individual lots. # 15 - Staff is willing to assist the applicant in acquiring the easement in favor of the City from D.R. Horton. He agreed that the language in this condition can be modified to require re-design of the sanitary sewer if the easement is not secured. Mr. Maurer noted that D.R. Horton paid a fee to access the City's storm sewer, so there may be a fee required by them to negotiate an easement. # 18 - Mr. Maurer explained that sidewalks have been required in all recent commercial and business park plats, because the City has found sidewalks are being used. Discussion followed regarding alternatives for advising potential buyers that it may be possible to vary the size and location of ponds, subject to approval by the City. It was the consensus of the Commission that this issue will be handled in the developer agreement. . Dave Aust, 11039 18151 Avenue, asked how close the cul-de-sac would be to his property. Terry Maurer explained that it would be 25 feet from the northwest Planning Commission Minutes February 29,2000 Page 13 . corner of his property. Mr. Maurer noted that the cul-de-sac would be defined by a barrier curb with a turf boulevard, either sodded or seeded. Mr. Aust was concerned with runoff onto his property. Mr. Maurer stated that the property owner has no right to overflow onto his property by state statute. Thomas Christian, 10989 181s1 Avenue, expressed his concern that the ponds and wetlands proposed for this development will overflow onto the adjacent residents' properties. He discussed the storm water piping that had to be installed because of the increased runoff from development to the north (Le., Menards, etc.). Terry Maurer explained that the pond on this property serves a different purpose and is designed to keep the runoff from this site from ending up in the Mississippi River. There being no further public comment. Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY RON WALD FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT (MULVANY POINT), PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. P 00-2, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED THAT OUTLINES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT APPROVAL AND INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. 2. THAT A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF . THE COSTS OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 3. UPON COMPLETING ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVING THEM ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, A WARRANTY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 25 % OF THE IMPROVEMENT COSTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD. 4. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. 5. PARK DEDICATION FEE AND TRAIL FEE IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. 6. A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR EACH LOT. 7. THAT ALL COMMENTS IN THE CITY ENGINEER'S MEMO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWINGS. 8. THAT THE WETLANDS BE DELINEATED. 9. THAT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BE PLACED OVER ANY NURP POND, . WETLAND, OR UTILITIES IN THE PLAT. Planning Commission Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 14 . 10. THAT STREET LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER UTILITIES. 11. THAT THERE BE NO MASS GRADING OF THE SITE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. 12. THAT 10 FEET OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY BE GRANTED ON COUNTY ROAD 13 ON THE WESTSIDE OF THE PLAT. 13. THAT A 12 FOOT TRAIL EASEMENT BE GRANTED TO THE CITY FOR A FUTURE TRAIL OR SIDEWALK ADJACENT COUNTY ROAD 13 ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PLAT. 14. THAT TREE REMOVAL PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BE LIMITED TO WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 15. THAT AN EASEMENT BE GRANTED IN THE FAVOR OF THE CITY FOR THE UTILITIES CROSSING PRIVATE PROPERTY. IF THE EASEMENT CANNOT BE OBTAINED, THEN THE UTILITIES SHALL BE REALIGNED TO ANOTHER LOCATION AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 16. THAT ANY TREES ON OR OFF SITE, NEAR THE LIMIT OF GRADING, THAT ARE TO BE PROTECTED, BE FENCED WITH A SNOW FENCE PRIOR TO TREE REMOVAL OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DRIP LINE TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO TREES BY INADVERTENT GRADING, EROSION, SOIL COMPACTION AND STORAGE OF DEBRIS OR EQUIPMENT IN THE TREES. . 17. THAT AS EACH LOT DEVELOPS, A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED INDICATING TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES AND THE NECESSARY TREE REMOVAL. 18. THAT A 6 FOOT SIDEWALK BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE NEW EAST-WEST ROAD IN THE PLAT AS PART OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 19. A SEALCOAT FEE IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER BE PAID TO THE CITY PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. 20. THAT A PERMANENT CUL-DE-SAC BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A STREET AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. 21. THAT THE EXISTING HOME BE REMOVED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. 22. THAT THE PLAT PROVIDES ACCESS CONTROL ON THE TYLER STREET, COUNTY ROAD 12 AND COUNTY ROAD 13 FRONTAGES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 60 FOOT OPENING FOR THE PROPOSED ROAD. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. . 5.11 . Reauest by the City of Elk River to Rezone Certain Parcels alono Tyler Street Corridor, Public Hearina Case No. IC 00-1 Planning Commission Minutes February 29. 2000 Page 15 . COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO REZONING CERTAIN PARCELS ALONG THE TYLER STREET CORRIDOR TO THE MARCH 28, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.12. Reauest by City of Elk River For Ordinance Amendment Reaardina Conditional Use Permit Revocation and Interim Uses. Public Hearina Case No. OA 00-2 Michele McPherson explained that the Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to provide a process for the revocation of conditional use permits, and, to provide a process for the approval of interim uses. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment as detailed in the staff report dated February 16, 2000. Peter Beck, City Attorney, explained how the process could have been used in instances of violation of conditional use permits. Mr. Beck stated that the City could go back as far back as 20 years to correct conditional use permit violations. He discussed the revocation process with the Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING REVOVCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERIM USES, CASE NO. OA 00-2. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. . 5.13. Reauest by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Reqardina Park Dedication Reauirements. Public Hearina Case No. OA 00-1 Staff report by Michele McPherson. Ms. McPherson explained that the Park & Recreation Commission requested staff to draft a revised park dedication ordinance to more clearly state the City's expectations for dedication of land and money toward park development. She reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kuester asked if the Park & Rec Commission had specific criteria in mind for number 8 regarding credit for private open space for park and recreation purposes. Ms. McPherson stated that this option would only be for a unique situation, and would only be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Kuester felt that the language to accept private open space as credit for park dedication should be eliminated. She felt the public would not be welcome in private open space. Commissioner Thompson expressed her agreement with Commissioner Kuester. Ms. McPherson felt that removing the language would eliminate the City's ability to take advantage of a privately installed recreational opportunity which may be arise in the future. Commissioner Chambers felt that if the language was included in the ordinance, a future Commission may not interpret their intent in the same way. . COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes February 29. 2000 Page 16 . CASE NO. OA 00-1. COMMISSIONER MORPHEW SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 3-3. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 00-1, WITH THE DELETION OF ITEM NO.8. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.14. Reauest bv City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Reaardina Temoorary Sian Re9ulations, Public Hearina Case No. OA 00-4 Staff report by Michele McPherson. Ms. McPherson explained that the City proposes to amend the temporary sign regulations as follows: 1 . Increase the number of days for display of temporary signs to 90 per year. 2. Increase the number of permits to six per year, allowing each permit to have a different number of days and whose cumulative total would not exceed 90 days per year. 3. Allow different size signs based on the posted speed of the adjacent roadway. Signs would be either 32 or 64 square feet maximum. 4. Allow more than one sign per lot for multi-tenant buildings provided that the signs are placed a minimum of 100 feet apart. Staff recommends approval of the amendment as proposed. . Commissioner Thompson asked if the City would be a required time frame between running signs. Ms. McPherson stated that the time would generally not be limited. Commissioner Chambers asked how this ordinance amendment would apply to home occupations. Ms. McPherson explained that temporary signs are not allowed for home occupations and therefore would not be affected by this amendment. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. Joe Johnson, of Sun n' Swim Pools, 16800 Highway 10, explained why he has found the temporary signs to be the way to draw business. He felt the proposed amendment would work and that all the other business owners he spoke with were in agreement. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TEMPORARY SIGN REGULATIONS, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 00-4. COMMISSIONER MORPHEW SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.1. Determine if Sale of Kina/Main Site is Consistent with Comorehensive Plan . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 29. 2000 Page 17 Michele McPherson explained that the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed sale of city property at King and Main streets is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE SALE OF CITY PROPERTY AND KING AND MAIN STREETS IN CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.2. Update on 1/18/00 City Council Meetinq Michele McPherson provided an update on the January 18, 2000, City Council meeting. Commissioner Kuester noted that Commissioner Thompson's term on the Planning Commission has expired and expressed her appreciation to her for her years of service. 7. Adiournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, j)~'~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary