Loading...
08-22-2000 PC MIN . . . MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, AUGUST 22,2000 Members Present: Chair Mesich, Commissioners Baker. Chambers, Kuester and Pederson Members Absent: Commissioner Schuster Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker. Senior Planner; Stephen Wensman, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:50 p.m. by Chair Mesich. 2. Consider 8/22/00 Plannina Commission Aaenda COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 22, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consider 7/25/00 Plannina Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 25, 2000, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 8, 2000, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTIN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4. Plannina Commission Reoresentative to Attend Seotember 18. City Council Meetina Commissioner Kuester will attend the September 18, 2000, City Council meeting. 5.1. Reauest by John Bunkers for Conditional Use Permit to Amend the Barrinaton Place PUD Aareement. Public Hearina - Case No. CU 00-30 Reauest by John Bunkers for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Auto Reoair. Public Hearina - Case No. CU 00-20 5.2. Staff report by Steve Wensman. John Bunkers requests a conditional use permit to amend the Barrington Place PUD (Planned Unit Development) Agreement to permit auto specialty shops as a conditional use. He also is requesting a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle specialty service station business in the Barrington Place PUD, located at 568 Dodge Avenue (Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Planning Commission Minutes August 22. 2000 Page 2 . Barrington Place). Mr. Wensman explained that the applicant proposes to modify the former carwash into a 3-stall garage space with an office. A tenant would utilize one of the stalls for the auto repair portion of his business. The tenant describes his business as fleet maintenance and repairing custom cars. Auto repair shops are prohibited in the Barrington Place PUD. as well as in the other PUDs in the city. Staff felt that the use could be considered since the property is located on Highway 169. and auto repair shops are permitted in the Highway Business zoning district. Mr. Wens man stated that if the PUD amendment were not approved, the applicant would like to proceed with the conditional use permit for a motor vehicle specialty service station. He noted that approval of the PUD amendment to allow auto repair could affect the entire PUD. Chair Mesich asked for clarification on the difference between auto repair shops and motor vehicle specialty service stations. Mr. Wensman reviewed the ordinance for the Commission. . Mr. Wensman reviewed Item 5.2. - Conditional Use Permit Request. at this time. The primary business would be fleet maintenance which would be a motor vehicle specialty service station use, and the auto repair would be for the hobby repair business. The applicant has stated that at most. there would be 2-4 vehicles parked outside the building. All work would be done inside, however, the applicant would like to open the garage doors in the summer months for ventilation. Mr. Wensman noted that Mr. Bunkers has indicated he will be installing an HV AC system in the building, so the doors could be kept closed in the summer. Staff recommends limiting the auto repair use to one of the three garage stalls and to prohibit parking of inoperable vehicles outside overnight. Mr. Wensman felt that noise could become an issue with the close proximity of offices and apartments in the area. The applicant feels the problem with be minimal with this type of small operation and has stated he will strictly adhere to the hours of operation (8 - 5. Monday through Friday). Mr. Wensman stated that the five conditions for Mr. Bunker's recent easement vacation will be included in this conditional use permit. Mr. Wensman reviewed emergency vehicle access for the site, landscaping, parking and entrances into the building. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit Numbers CU 00-20 and CU 00-30. John Bunkers, owner of 568 Dodge Avenue, applicant, stated he felt his neighbor's opposition to this request is unreasonable. He stated that when he is finished with the project he will have invested $100.000 in improvements. Mr. Bunkers stated that most of the improvements are visible improvements and he distributed photographs of the site. He did not feel there are any issues which staff has that cannot be addressed. He felt that the proposed use is a significant improvement of the previous use, with less noise, traffic, trash and operating hours. He stated that air conditioning and the required ventilation will be provided so that the doors can be kept closed in the summer. Mr. Bunkers noted . Planning Commission Minutes August 22. 2000 Page 3 . that they will not be doing any tire work. He stated that the PUD agree was twenty years old and things have changed since then. Chair Mesich asked if the doors would be replaced with insulated doors. Mr. Bunkers stated that the overhead doors are already insulated. Chair Mesich asked if the aluminum building front would comply with the ordinance. Mr. Bunkers stated that he has met with the Building Official, Cliff Skogstad, and he found no problems with the building. Gary Santwire, representing seven owners of properties in the Barrington Place PUD, expressed his objection to the request by Mr. Bunkers. He read a letter which he had written dated August 22, 2000, to the City of Elk River, expressing his objections, and submitted the letter for the official meeting record. Mr. Santwire did not feel it was appropriate to change the PUD agreement which was an agreement between the developer and the City of Elk River. He objected to allowing a use which was purposely excluded in the Barrington Place PUD Agreement. He felt the use proposed by Mr. Bunkers would have a detrimental impact on the neighboring uses and would severely impact space leasibility for his clients as well as other businesses in this area. He discussed problems currently being experienced with the Goodyear repair business regarding noise from impact wrenches and other equipment. He did not think the City would be able to control this aspect of the business, once it was approved. . Lynn Caswell, of John Oliver and Associates, 580 Dodge, expressed their objection to Mr. Bunkers' proposal and asked that the Planning Commission deny the request. He felt the value of their property would be diminished, and the noise activity would be a problem. Russ Nohra, 601 Queensland Way, Minneapolis, MN, owner of six properties in the Barrington Place PUD, explained why he chose to locate in the City of Elk River. He stated that his tenants are concerned about the noise associated with an auto repair business. He asked that the Commission abide by the PUD agreement and deny Mr. Bunker's request. Mr. Santwire asked what the status was of Mr. Bunkers' easement vacation. Mr. Wensman stated that staff is waiting for comment by the City Attorney. Mr. Bunkers stated that his prospective tenant was not able to be present to explain his business in detail. Mr. Bunkers stated that truck repair could be excluded and only pickup trucks allowed. He felt that the previous carwash operation was noisier and more disruptive than what he is proposing. He felt that the noise can be controlled and would be willing to hire a noise expert to insure that everything would be done to reduce noise as much as possible. Mr. Santwire stated that the previous carwash was there for 14 years without any significant problems. He expressed his concern that the Commission was not given a copy of the entire Barrington Place PUD Agreement. Lynn Caswell stated that the car wash was an annoyance, but the only problem they experienced was an occasional vehicle with a loud bass system. . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 4 . There being no further comment from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kuester asked how what the process is to amend a PUD. Ms. McPherson explained that the City's position is that the PUD, site plan and conditions related to the site plan are established through the conditional use permit process. Staff has interpreted that the conditional use process was the appropriate means to amend PUD's for sign age, uses, and other types of requests. She stated staff could request a legal update from the City Attorney before the case is reviewed by the City Council. She stated that the ordinance does not specifically address amendments to PUD agreements, and as part of the ordinance re-codification process, these types of issues will be addressed. Ms. McPherson noted that the list of permitted and conditional uses may have changed since 1980. She felt it would be difficult for the city not to at least allow the applicant an opportunity to go through the process to see if the request is appropriate. Ms. McPherson stated that a PUD can evolve over time, but it still goes back to how it was originally approved. Commissioner Kuester stated that she was uncomfortable with the PUD Agreement being tied back to the original developer since things can change after a development is completed. Chair Mesich felt since the PUD Agreement refers to "its successors", he would assume that the property owners would have some say in what happens within the PUD. . Discussion followed regarding the process to amend a planned unit development agreement and who should participate (Le., original developer, tenants, property owners, etc). Ms. McPherson stated that she will verify with the City Attorney that staff is processing these applications properly. Commissioner Pederson stated that auto repair shops do create a great deal of noise and do require more parking. He did not feel that the proposed use fits in with the surrounding businesses. Commissioner Chambers stated he would have a difficult time approving the request to amend the PUD agreement. Commissioner Baker stated he did not feel Mr. Bunkers' request was a large deviation from the former use as a gas station convenience store and carwash. Chair Mesich stated he would like to have a copy of the entire PUD agreement available for the Commission. He suggested that staff spend more time on the conditional use permit request for the auto repair facility issue, and work with the neighboring businesses regarding noise and screening. Chair Mesich asked that the City Attorney review the issue of modifying a PUD Agreement and who should be involved. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY JOHN BUNKERS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE BARRINGTON PLACE PUD, CASE NO. CU 00-30 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: . 1. 2. NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY USES NOISE Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2000 Page 5 . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ODORS INCREASED PARKING ISSUES CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER LESS INTENSE BUSINESS ORIGINAL PUD AGREEMENT DOES NOT ALLOW AUTO REPAIR SHOPS CLARIFICATION NEEDED REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF THE PUD AGREEMENT COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY JOHN BUNKERS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE REPAIR TO THE SEPTEMBER 13,2000 WORKSHOP MEETING. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. A five-minute recess was taken at this time (8:05 p.m.) 5.3. Reauest bv Indeoendent School District #728 for Conditional Use Permit for Interim Use, Public Hearin9 - Case No. CU 00-31 . Staff report by Scott Harlicker. District #728 is requesting an interim use permit to continue the use of a temporary parking lot connected to the west of the existing paved parking lot between the Senior High and Vandenberg. This parking area was constructed in the middle of the 1999-2000 school year to replace the parking lost when they closed the parking lot at Oak Knoll baseball fields. The parking area will be approximately 345 ft. x 135 ft., and delineated with stakes and ropes. Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit with the two conditions in the staff report which require a Class V surface and expiration of the interim use on June 15, 2002. Ms. McPherson noted that the Oak Knoll parking lot has been closed to students for parking during school hours due to safety issues. She explained that as a result, the parking area in question was opened up and defined using stakes and ropes. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Ms. McPherson noted that Mr. Russ Langer, 19922 1901h Circle, asked that his comments be noted. He felt that parking by students should be limited and permit fees should be increased. Mr. Langer stated that allowing the parking lot would contribute to higher traffic levels on School Street; more drivers times more cars would equal more problems and felt the increase in cars would increase noise, air pollution, litter and trash problems, and runoff of chemicals from leaking radiators, oil pans, etc. would contaminate the ground. . Mr. Ron Bratlie, representing the School District #728, stated that they would comply with surfacing of the parking lot with Class V. He explained that this parking lot is Phase I of their parking lot expansion project which was approved approximately 2 years ago. Phase 2 includes taking out some of the blacktop in the northeastern corner of the parking lot in to create some green space for band practices. Mr. Bratlie stated that the reason the project has not been completed is because the School District does not have the funds. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 6 . Commissioner Chambers asked if the project would be done this fall if the bond referendum passes. Mr. Bratlie stated that Phase 1 would likely be done next summer (2001), and Phase 2 would be done the following summer. He explained that the Jackson Avenue access would be closed at that time. Ms. McPherson noted that the northeast parking lot is mainly used by faculty and not students. Chair Mesich asked if the visibility issue with the "welcome station" on School Street. Mr. Bratlie stated that the building had been moved to the satisfy the police department's concerns. There being no further public comments, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chambers stated that he would like to add a condition to require paving of the parking lot by June 15,2001, if the bond referendum passes. Commissioner Baker stated in response to the comments of Mr. Russ Langer, that he did not feel the approval of the parking lot would add to the amount of traffic since parking was being moved from one area to another. Also, he did not feel this parking lot was adding to the pollution or noise since it was staying in the same general where is was located prior to being moved. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #728 FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: . 1. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT IS EFFECTIVE FROM AUGUST 15, 2000 TO JUNE 15,2001. 2. THE PARKING AREA BE SURFACED WITH CLASS V. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 5.4. Reauest bv Sherburne County Public Works for Conditional Use Permit for Cold Storage Buildina, Public Hearina - Case No. CU 00-29 Staff report by Steve Wensman. Sherburne County Public Works requests a conditional use permit to construct a 3,072 sq. ft. cold storage building at 425 Jackson Avenue, in the Cl zoning district. The existing maintenance facility at this location is sited on two lots, and consists of a 3,060 sq. ft. office and a 5,510 sq. ft. garage. These two lots will be combined as a conditional of approval of their conditional use permit. Mr. Wensman reviewed issues associated with location of the building, parking and setbacks, curb and gutter, building materials, grading and drainage, landscaping, and access into and through the site. Mr. Wensman noted that the applicant has stated some of the landscaping recommendations will not work. Staff recommends approval of the request with the 9 conditions outlined in the staff report. . Commissioner Chambers asked if pole buildings were allowed in the city. Mr. Wensman explained that metal buildings are allowed in the RIa district if they are colored or painted to match the home, but the ordinance is difficult to interpret for other districts. Ms. McPherson stated that the ordinance does allow architecturally designed metal siding in the C 1 zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes August 22. 2000 Page 7 . Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Rhonda Lewis, Assistant County Highway Engineer, representing Sherburne County, displayed a photo of a brick-type fascia which they propose to use on part of the building called "Nova Brick". She did not see a problem with combining the two lots or striping of the parking stalls. She felt the curb and gutter was a drastic issue for the site. Ms. Lewis explained that there are metal industrial buildings behind their site and did not feel the new building would be visible to the public traveling on Jackson Street, but it would be visible from Lions Park. She explained that their budget for the proposed building would not support bituminous removal, installation of curb and gutter, and landscaping. She stated she would like to work with the city to come up with a more feasible plan. Mr. Wensman explained that when the request was originally made, staff interpreted the site to be in the 1-1 Light Industrial zone, and it is actually in the C 1 district, which requires a higher grade of building materials. Ms. McPherson described the surrounding property which consists of the fire station (also in the C1 district). an office building to the north. a vacant lot, the Boy's and Girl's Club and Lions Park. There is vacant stretch of property between the Boy's and Girl's Club and Morrell's property. Office and residential uses are located on the east side of Jackson. . Ms. Lewis asked whether or not a pole building is acceptable. Ms. Wensman stated that the exterior needs to be something other than typical metal siding. Ms. McPherson explained that architecturally designed metal siding or vinyl siding would be acceptable. Commissioner Chambers stated that Nova brick is a concrete shingle product which is hung on a building. He felt a vinyl siding or stucco would be more acceptable. He felt using typical pole barn construction was not acceptable in this area. Commissioner Pederson agreed with Commissioner Chambers. He stated that a metal pole shed would detract from their existing brick building, as well as any future business which would be located on the vacant property. Chair Mesich felt that the underlying land use was changed during the Comprehensive Plan review in order to encourage a more upscale appearance as uses change and development occurs. Commissioner Kuester asked how the Commission felt about the outdoor storage of material. Staff Wensman stated he would work with the applicant prior to the City Council meeting. Ms. McPherson stated that government buildings are permitted as a conditional use in the C 1 district, but she was unsure of how the outdoor storage evolved. She stated that the Commission could require placement of an enclosed corral or they could require that the material be moved and stored at another location. . Planning Commission Minutes August 22. 2000 Page 8 . Commissioner Kuester asked why the County wanted to keep the area open in front of the building, rather than landscaping it as proposed by staff. Mr. Wensman stated that they wanted to keep this area open for snow removal, since the plowing is done using the County's large snowplow trucks. Also, there are doors on the side which they plow up next to. Commissioner Kuester felt there should be conifers to screen the storage area from the park. Ms. McPherson explained that the applicant would have two years to complete the improvements. Also, if the Commission felt it was important to do additional landscaping along Jackson. the applicant could be given additional time to complete the improvements. as was done in the case of Cenex. Chair Mesich stated he would like to see some screening done along the north. Ms. McPherson stated that she felt staff could work with the County to come up with a plan that would work. Chair Mesich stated that this area was not intended to allow metal structures. Ms. Lewis stated that there are other metal structures in this area. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. . COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO POSTPONE THE REQUEST BY SHERBURNE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A COLD STORAGE BUILDING, CASE NO. CU 00-29, TO THE SEPTEMBER 13,2000, WORKSHOP MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.5. Reauest bv Dolohin Car Wash for Conditional Use Permit for Exoansion. Public Hearina - Case No. CU 00-32 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Dolphin Carwash requests a conditional use permit for a 4,600 sq. ft. addition to their existing car wash located at 516 Freeport Avenue (Lot 3. Block 1, Elk River Plaza 3rd Addition). The proposed addition will enclose the spray-prep area and provide additional space for detailing work. In 1989, the previous owner received approval for the same proposed expansion but was never constructed. Mr. Harlicker reviewed setbacks, drainage, traffic circulation, building exterior, landscaping and location of the dumpster. Staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Lance VanNorman, applicant, stated he did not have a problem with any of the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Pederson asked what material was being composted on the site. Mr. VanNorman stated that the debris which is washed off vehicles and stored there. He stated that he will have the material removed by a refuse service. He . Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2000 Page 9 . felt there would be very little increase in traffic, but that the traffic would move through the site much better. Chair Mesich asked if the carwash itself was being upgraded. Mr. VanNorman stated that he would be making significant changes in the equipment. Jody Brosco, 521 Jefferson Lane, stated that she lives across the street from Dolphin Carwash. She was concerned about the traffic and noise from the vehicles leaving the carwash. Mr. Harlicker stated that the problems with vehicles exiting the shopping center onto Freeport would be an enforcement issue. Chair Mesich suggested that Ms. Brosco contact the police department. Ms. Brosco stated that she already has complained to them. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY DOLPHIN CARWASH TO CONSTRUCT A 4,600 SQ. FT. ADDITION, CASE NO. CU 00- 32, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE NEW DRIVEWAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WILL HAVE TO INCLUDE CURB AND GUTTER. 2. THE EXTERIOR OF THE ADDITION SHALL MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING. . 3. AN ACCURATE PARKING LAYOUT WILL HAVE TO BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. 4. A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED SHOWING THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING RELOCATED EAST OF THE NEW DRIVE WAY AND OTHER EXISTING LANDSCAPING. 5. THE EXISTING DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WILL HAVE TO BE MOVED. THE NEW LOCATION WILL HAVE TO BE SHOWN ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN. 6. THE COMPOSTING AREA ALONG THE SOUTH CURB LINE WILL HAVE TO BE ELIMINATED. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.6. Reauest bv Citv of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Revise Desian Standards in the Business Park Zonina District. Public Hearina - Case No. OA 00-7 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. The City of Elk River requests amending the design standards for the Business Park zoning district and to eliminate multi-tenant buildings as a conditional use. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the changes as proposed. Ms. McPherson stated that the Economic Development Authority has reviewed the ordinance amendment and has no opposition to the proposed changes. . Planning Commission Minutes August 22. 2000 Page 10 . She noted that architecturally designed metal siding has not been included in the Class I and Class II list of materials. The Commissioners discussed the terms "facing" and "visible" , as well as an appropriate percentage of Class I and Class II materials for the front, back and sides of buildings in business park zoning districts. Ms. McPherson expressed support for the need to provide continuity in the choice of materials used, on all sides of a building. Commissioner Baker stated that he felt there needs to be consistency of materials used within a development. He felt that the buildings can look for different structurally, but have continuity in the type of materials, such as glass or brick. Chair Mesich stated that he felt it would be too restrictive to require that the same materials be used on all buildings within a development and would not want to see them all look the same. He supported having higher standards for the backs of the buildings. Commissioner Chambers stated that he felt the back of the buildings should have at least 50 percent of Class I materials. . Further discussion following regarding minimum requirements for use of Class I and Class II materials. The Commissioners were in agreement that it is difficult to establish these types of standards. Ms. McPherson suggested that the Commission could formally review each site plan, if they chose: staff would first review an application and make a recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider. Commissioner Pederson felt this process would add another level of "red tape" and would cause delays for developers. The Commissioners supported the proposed language changes for loading spaces/overhead doors and multi-tenant buildings. Chair Mesich suggested including an option to allow overhead doors on the front of a building with a conditional use permit. He also suggested including stainless steel as a Class I building material. Ms. McPherson asked what other information the Commission would like to have regarding building materials. She noted that there will be a number of requests coming in for site plan review, therefore, she felt it was important to adopt standards for the business park district as soon as possible. Chair Mesich supported the 50 percent Class II building materials for the backside of buildings. Commissioner Pederson expressed his concern for eliminating concrete tip-up panels in the Business Park zoning district. He felt that rake-face panels should be accepted in some circumstances. The Commissioners discussed architecturally treated concrete panels which are allowed in the Class II material list. . Commissioner Chambers expressed his concern for allowing an "all rock-face block" or "all stucco" building. He felt there should be some break-up in the use of materials. The Commissioners discussed requiring use of at least three different Planning Commission Minutes August 22. 2000 Page 11 . materials. They were in agreement that stucco and rock face block should not exceed 50 percent of any building face. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. There being no public comment. Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT AND TO ELIMINATE MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE, AS PROPOSED. WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: D. LOADING SPACES/OVERHEAD DOORS - ADDITION TO LOADING SPACES/OVERHEAD DOORS AS NOTED: LOADING SPACES AND OVERHEAD DOORS MAY BE ALLOWED IN FRONT YARDS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. G. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS - CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AS NOTED: . CLASS I MATERIALS: BRICK, MARBLE, GRANITE OR OTHER NATURAL STONE, TEXTURED CEMENT STUCCO, COPPER, STAINLESS STEEL, GLASS AND INTEGRAL COLORED SPLIT FACE (ROCK FACE) BLOCK. THE BUILDING FACE SHALL NOT BE COMPRISED OF MORE THAN 50 PERCENT INTEGRAL COLORED SPLIT FACE (ROCK FACE) BLOCK OR STUCCO. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL LISTED AS EITHER CLASS II MATERIALS. AT LEAST 60 PERCENT OF EACH BUILDING WALL FACING OR VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, OTHER PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY, OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MUST BE OF CLASS I MATERIAL. PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING NOT FACING OR VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OF A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF CLASS II MATERIALS, NOT TO EXCEED 60 PERCENT, IF THE STRUCTURE OTHERWISE CONFORMS TO ALL CITY ORDINANCES. IF A WALL IS VISIBLE BUT NOT FACING A STREET, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR PUBLIC FACILITY, THE DEVELOPER MAY USE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF CLASS II MATERIAL, PROVIDED THE WALL IS SCREENED FROM VIEW. THE MIXTURE OF BUILDING MATERIALS MUST BE COMPATIBLE AND INTEGRATED. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Uodate on Auaust 21.2000. City Council Meeting Commissioner Baker was unable to attend the August 21. 2000, City Council meeting. . Planning Commission Minutes August 22.2000 Page 12 6.2. Tree Preservation . Michele McPherson stated that the City Council has expressed support for a Tree Preservation Task Force. She requested volunteers from the Planning Commission to serve on the task force. 6.3. Home DeDot Ms. McPherson stated that the painter for the Home Depot Store used the wrong color for the outside of the building and will be repainting it. 8. Adiournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (') II /. ' (.L' / fit J ~U'0ul(~ ;tju4'/--IY?1Y/L .. Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary . .