Loading...
01-23-2001 PC MIN . . . MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JANUARY 23,2001 Members Present: Chair Mesich, Commissioners Baker, Chambers, Johnson, Pederson and Ropp Members Absent: Commissioner Schuster Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meetina To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:56 p.m. by Chair Mesich. 2. Consider 1/23/01 Planninq Commission Aqenda COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 23, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 5.8. REQUEST BY CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD DEFINITION OF ANIMAL NUTRITION AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ESTABLISH AN AR (AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH) DISTRICT, PUBLIC HEARING - CASE NO. OA 00-8 - POSTPONED TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5.9. RESEARCH BY CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT TO A (AGRICULTURAL) FOR PORTION OF CARGILL PROPERTY, PUBLIC HEARING - CASE NO. LU 00-6 - POSTPONED TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5.10. REQUEST BY CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR REZONING TO AR (AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH) DISTRICT, PUBLIC HEARING - CASE NO. ZC 00-7 - POSTPONED TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5.12. REQUEST BY AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINING, PUBLIC HEARING - CASE NO. CU 01-05- POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5.13. REQUEST BY CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING LAW FERTILIZER APPLICATION CONTROL, PUBLIC HEARING - CASE NO. OA 01-02- THIS ITEM DOES NOT REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 2 . 3.1. Consider 12/12/01 Plannina Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 12,2000, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0- 1. Commissioner Baker abstained. 3.2. Consider 12/27/01 Plannina Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 27, 2000, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Planning Commission Reoresentative to Attend February 2001 City Council Meetina Commissioner Chambers will attend the February 20, 2001, City Council meeting. 5.1.a. Request by Hoyt Partners for Land Use Plan Amendment IMR to L11. Public Hearing - Case No. LU 01-01 Request by Hoyt Partners of Zone Chanqe IR1 c to BPI. Public Hearina - Case No. ZC 01-01 5.1.b. . Staff report by Michele McPherson. Stewart Wilson, representing Hoyt Partners, L.L.P. requests a land use amendment and rezoning for Outlot F of Elk Path Business Center. The property is approximately 18 acres in size and is located south of the Sherburne County Government Center, west of Sandpiper Estates and north of Riverview Heights. Hoyt Partners requests a land use amendment to change the land use designation form Medium Density Residential to Light Industrial; and a rezoning from R 1 c (Single Family Residential) to BP (Business Park). Sherburne County has entered into a purchase agreement with Hoyt Partners to purchase the property for possible future development. The County has no immediate plans for the site other than to landscape the area, provide picnic tables and walking paths for County government workers, and potentially the general public. . Michele McPherson reviewed the history of this area as follows: In 1988, the Growth Management Plan identified this area as having a high potential for industrial development. The 1990 Focus Area Study (582 acres in western Elk River) identified areas for residential, commercial and industrial development. Some of these changes were implemented and some were later revised. A portion of the Hoyt Partners property was zoned and guided single family residential and the remainder was guided for industrial and business park. The Business Park zoning district was created in 1994, which established higher quality building standards and encourage quality job creation opportunities within the City. In 1997, the City of Elk River initiated an ordinance amendment for this area, to change the land use from Single Family to entirely Business Park, in response to the Economic Strategic Plan. As a result of opposition from the Sandpiper Estates and Riverview Heights residential neighborhoods, a compromise resulted in Outlot F remaining Single Family Residential. In 1998, the City initiated an ordinance amendment which included jails in the definition of government offices. Ms. McPherson noted that at that time, the jail use was incidental to the County Government Center, but since then, the County jail has become similar in size to Planning Commission Minutes January 23. 2001 Page 3 . the administrative use. The applicant is requesting that the Commission consider changing the use of Outlot F from residential to business park. Ms. McPherson noted that it has been the goal of the City to expand its industrial base and its opportunities for job creation. and to provide an opportunity for City of Elk River to become a live-work community. If the Commission agrees that this goal is important. it would be appropriate to recommend approval of the request. However, based on the County's desires at this time, the zoning could remain residential until the County decides to develop the site. Ms. McPherson stated that the City does not know at this time how the County may develop the site if it were rezoned to Business Park. and that impacts on the adjacent properties need to be considered. Chair Mesich asked where the sewer and water is currently located. Ms. McPherson stated that sanitary sewer crosses the property. Terry Maurer stated that the water is available on the east side of this site. Ms. McPherson explained that utilities were installed across the center of Elk Path Business Center with the extension of Business Center Drive. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on previous zoning and land use designation of the site. Ms. McPherson reviewed details of the history of the site. Commissioner Ropp asked if the property to the west is developed. Ms. McPherson stated that the property is currently vacant and the Pinewood Golf Course has an agreement with the property owner to use a portion of the site adjacent to Waco Street as a driving range. . Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Stewart Wilson, 17975 Troy Street, Elk River, property owner, explained that he is presenting this request due to a strong interest by Sherburne County in purchasing the property. Given the opposition of the residents in Country Crossing to the development of business park in that area, he questioned whether R 1 c was appropriate for this site, since the property to the west will eventually be developed as business park. He felt that a governmental use of Outlot F would be compatible with the existing single family neighborhood to the east. and also would be an enhancement to the development of the business park to the west. He stated that he has received numerous requests to purchase the property for residential development, but that he has held off because he was not sure that residential use was compatible with business park to the west. Chair Mesich asked why the County has not considered expanding to the east or west. rather than south. Mr. Wilson stated that the County representatives could better answer the question. Chair Mesich agreed that a County use would be a good buffer for the residential. but that there are no guarantees and the land could be sold in the future and developed as business park. Mr. Wilson stated that he could not speak on behalf of the County. but that he did not believe the County was in the business of buying property and selling it for profit. . Brian Benson, Sherburne County Administrator, explained that approximately 25- 30 years ago. the citizens of Sherburne County voted to have Elk River remain the County seat. The County outgrew their downtown site and in 1980. the first phase of the government center building was completed. and since then two additions Planning Commission Minutes January 23. 200 1 Page 4 . have been built. Mr. Benson stated that. due to past discussions with City representatives, the County was under the impression that the City felt the Highway 10 frontage property was better suited for commercial/industrial purposes, and that expansion of the County offices would be better suited south of their existing site. He agreed that the County does not need the visibility Highway 10 provides, if they were to expand. Mr. Benson stated that they are looking at acquiring land for future expansion at this time, due to the rising costs and demand for land. He noted that they have no plans at this time to expand, but the way the County is growing, they need to plan for the future. Mr. Benson explained that the County would first expand up one level on the northwest portion of the building, but then they would be out of vertical space to expand and they would not have any additional area for parking. Mr. Benson stated that it has been the ongoing desire of past and present County Commission Boards to keep all County services on one campus. He stated that if the surrounding property were agricultural. they would purchase outlot F and continue to have the property farmed. But since the surrounding property is zoned business park, they would have the area landscaped and create and walking path and a lunch area for the County employees. Mr. Benson stated that the jail is serving the taxpayers well, and that the County has no desire or need for any additional jail space. . Chair Mesich asked where the prisoners would go when the jail is filled. Mr. Benson explained that first and foremost obligation of the jail is to serve the County. The County was able to build and finance the jail with some federal assistance by housing federal prisoners, but as the County's need for jail space increases, they will be able to utilize the additional space and will not need to expand the jail. Chair Mesich asked if the County has pursued purchasing the property to the east and west. Mr. Benson stated that he has spoken with Mr. Gagne (property owner to the east) about one year ago, and that when they spoke with the Wilson's regarding the property to the west, they were not interested and the piece immediately adjacent to the County's property has since been sold. Chair Mesich asked if the would have any assurances that the County would use the property themselves and it would not be sold for business park use. Mr. Benson stated that he cannot guarantee what a future County Board may decide to do. Mr. Benson stated that there are currently 450 County employees at this time and they are continuing to grow and provide additional jobs for the area. He noted that they are considering moving the Public Works offices to Becker. along with their maintenance facility. He stated that the County's purpose in acquiring this property is for the ability to expand their office space in the future. . Ms. McPherson asked why the County wishes to rezone the property at this time, rather than in the future, when they have a plan for development of the property. Mr. Benson felt it would be bad policy to acquire property that is zoned improperly and then to come back and request a rezoning when they are ready to expand. He stated that the County would be coming to then with any development plans anyway, and they would be willing to comply with any special conditions that may be appropriate at that time. Planning Commission Minutes January 23. 2001 Page 5 . Commissioner Baker asked if the County would have to move the County seat from that location. if they ran out of space. Mr. Benson stated that the County seat would not be moved. but that the offices would have to be split up and some would move to another location. Commissioner Baker asked if purchasing the property to the west were an option to the County. Mr. Benson stated that it was his understanding this property was sold. Ms. McPherson stated that the only piece of this property which as been "spoken for" is the piece north of Business Center Drive and that the property to the west is platted as one large lot and is already guided and zoned for business park development. She noted the City has not received any proposal to subdivide the property. Trunk utilities traverse the property east-west at the same location of the south boundary of Sherburne County's property. Steward Wilson stated that when he spoke to Sherburne County staff prior to Mr. Benson being the County Administrator, the County was not interested in purchasing highway frontage property because of the additional expense and because they did not need highway frontage. Because of that, the County has never pursued purchasing any of his highway frontage property or the property immediately to the west of the County. Commissioner Baker asked what the process would be for the County to purchase a portion of the property to the west. Ms. McPherson stated that the property would need to be platted in the same manner as any other plat. . Nicole Bahr, 18222 Ogden street, resident of Sandpiper Estates, stated that she would be living directly across the street from the proposed business park. She stated that she has been through the jail expansion issue and that the residents were told it would be an office expansion. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the fencing installed by the County. She stated that the 80 percent opacity means "at the fence" and that the fence does nothing for their view of the jail when looking out the window from inside their homes. She asked that the Commission consider the impacts on the residents. Ms. Bahr stated that the County is concerned about keeping their offices together in one location, but that children are being bussed all over because the schools cannot be kept in one location. Caroline Koch, 19176 Ogden Street, stated that she sent a letter to the Commissioners and City Council. Ms. McPherson noted that the letter was in the Commissioner's packets. Stated that her property faces the jail and she feels it is ugly. She does not feel the City needs so much business park; that it takes away from the residential beautification of Elk River. She stated she is saddened that Mr. Wilson did not sell his property for residential when he was given the opportunity. She asked the Commission to consider the residents living there who have children. She felt that the Softpak building is an eyesore and she felt sorry for the people living in the town homes across from Softpak. Chair Mesich questioned if it would be fair to potential residents living in Outlot F (if the zoning remained residential) to be next to a business park. Ms. Koch stated that these residents would already know it was zoned business park when they bought their property. . Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2001 Page 6 . John Weicht, 13330 Island View Drive, stated that it was his understanding that the County could expand their use under the current zoning, with a conditional use permit. Mr. McPherson reviewed the ordinance definitions for government buildings and government offices. Commissioner Pederson stated he did not feel it makes sense to allow a public works facility as a conditional use in a residential neighborhood, and yet governmental offices are not allowed. Patty Patterson, 18268 Ogden Street, stated that her backyard abuts the jail. She stated that she is aware that the jail is generating a lot of money and she could not understand why they can not have a better barrier to protect their view. She stated that they tried to sell their property once, but they were unable to. Ms. Patterson stated that they built their house with the intention of staying there a long time. She stated that they do not feel like they are in the country anymore. Jim Sletten, 18137 Ogden Street. expressed his disappointment with the landscaping that was done when the jail expansion was completed. He felt there was a much better barrier for the residential homes by Softpak and questioned why something like this wasn't done for the residents living next to the jail. He did not feel the County made an attempt to provide an adequate means of visual protection. He stated that he did not want to see another County building constructed without a proper buffer. . Chair Mesich questioned why the jail expansion was not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. McPherson stated that if a proposal is a permitted use, the application is reviewed administratively. The County did come before the Board of Adjustments regarding reducing the amount of landscaping, but the application was withdrawn. Ben Anderson, 13710 183rd Avenue, stated that he wanted to see this property used in the best way for the whole community. He questioned why Outlot F was left residential. He stated that the newspaper report quoted Sheriff Bruce Anderson stating that the County wanted this area set aside for possible future expansion of the prison and that it was a good money-making situation. He stated that he was concerned that money not be the bottom line in the City's motivation regarding the best use of this land. He supported using the property to compliment what is already going on in the government facility, to keep people from going back in to the prisons or from going in at all. Linda Anderson, 18287 Ogden Street, stated that before moving to Elk River, they lived near a business park and dealt with the noise and trucks coming and going. She stated that they have already had to accept the Softpak development and stated that they did not want to see Outlot F developed into business park. She felt that residential also provides tax base with increasing property values. Ms. Anderson stated that she and her husband commute to the Twin Cities for their jobs and that they like to come home to the peace and quiet of their neighborhood. Chair Mesich asked the County to address the landscaping issue. . Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 7 . Brian Benson, Sherburne County Administrator, explained that the County had asked for reduction in the amount of landscaping of the jail expansion for security purposes. He stated that after hearing the residents, the application was withdraw. Mr. Benson stated that if the County were to acquire Outlot F, the first thing that would be done is to install a berm and trees along the property adjacent to Sandpiper Estates. Roy Thorp, 13789183rd Avenue NW, asked that the County meet with the residents to go over the County's plans for the property and also, to hear the residents' concerns. Nicole Bahr asked if the County purchases property, can the City require that the County make an agreement in writing as to the landscaping and screening. Chair Mesich stated that those requirements are written in the zoning code. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Baker stated that he does not believe the County has any ulterior motives in purchasing this property. He felt that a significant amount of time has gone into zoning the land as it is. He suggested that the County explore other options for acquiring land for expansion before asking the City to rezone Outlot F. . Commissioner Pederson suggested recommending an ordinance amendment which would allow city and county offices in an Rl district, as a conditional use. He felt that by doing this, there would be somewhat of a guarantee that the County would build an office building. Also, the current ordinance to allow correctional facilities or jails as conditional uses would need to be changed, as well. Chair Mesich and Commissioner Chambers agreed with Commissioner Pederson's suggestion. Commissioner Pederson asked how long an ordinance amendment would take. Ms. McPherson stated that the Planning Commission could consider an amendment at their February meeting and the request would go to the City Council in March. Commissioner Pederson stated he did not feel residential zoning was appropriate for Outlot F. He felt they would be dealing with the same issues as they did with the Softpak issue. Commissioner Pederson stated that hE1 felt the use of the property as County offices would be more compatible with the residential and a good transition from business park. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY HOYT PARTNERS LLP FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR OUTLOT F, ELK PATH BUSINESS CENTER, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, CASE NO. LU 01-01, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE PROPERTY PROVIDES A GOOD BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUSINESS PARK/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TO THE WEST AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE EAST. . 2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW GOVERNMENT OFFICES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH WOULD PERMIT THIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED. Planning Commission Minutes January 23.2001 Page 8 . 3. PREVIOUS REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THIS SITE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT RESIDENTIAL IS THE BEST USE OF THIS PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY HOYT PARTNERS LLP TO REZONE OUTLOT F, ELK PATH BUSINESS CENTER, FROM R1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO BP BUSINESS PARK, CASE NO. ZC 01-01, BASED ON FINDINGS GIVEN FOR DENIAL OF THE LAND USE AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Ms. McPherson noted that this issue will be discussed at the Planning Commission workshop on February 13, 2001, with input from Stewart Wilson of Hoyt Partners and Sherburne County representatives. A recess was called at this time (8:00 p.m.) The Commission reconvened at 8:05 p.m. 5.2. Reauest bv T & W Investments, LLC for Conditional Use Permit for Automotive Use - Houles Addition, Public Hearina - Case No. CU 01-02 . Staff report by Michele McPherson. T & W Investments, LLC, requests that a conditional use permit be approved to allow a 70' x 90' (6,300 sq. ft.) expansion of an automotive use at 10908 17151 Avenue NW, in the 11 Light Industrial District. Ms. McPherson reviewed issues associated with parking, curb and gutter, fire lane, signage, and building materials. The applicant is willing to relocate the dumpster from the fire lane, as per the City Engineer's recommendation, and the enclosure will be constructed to match the building exterior. The City Engineer also recommends that the length of the building be shortened by 10 feet, in order to accommodate the fire lane without infringing on the retention pond. Ms. McPherson stated that the building will be constructed of rock-face block and will be painted a "buff" color with a red stripe near the top of the building, as previously approved. Staff will insure that the landscaping meets the requirements for size and number of trees. Staff recommends approval of the request with a reduction in the size of the building from 6,300 sq. ft. to 5,600 sq. ft. and the conditions listed in the staff report. City Engineer Terry Maurer explained that several compromises have already been made due to site constraints. If this had been a larger site, 4:1 slopes would have been required for the pond and relatively flat 10 foot wide area for the fire lane. Due to the constraints, 3: 1 slopes have been allowed with the condition that the pond be fenced. As the building is currently laid out, approximately 5-7 ft. of the fire lane would be into the 3: 1 slope and therefore, he is recommending that the building be "shortened up". The applicant is proposing to add retaining walls, but Mr. Maurer felt that would cause more extensive flooding. He did not feel any further compromises can be made and he felt that the applicants may be trying to put too much on the site. . Chair Mesich asked if the trench drain would be reviewed by the Chief Building Official. Mr. Maurer stated that the review and inspection of these types of issues Planning Commission Minutes January 23.2001 Page 9 . would be handled administratively through the building code and building official's office. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. John Weicht, 13330 Island View Drive, representing the applicant, stated that they plan to follow the conditions recommended by staff. but that they do have an issue with staff's request to reduce the size of the building. He agreed that there is a need to standardize requirements. but that he felt this site is unique due to the location of the gas main easement on the property. Because of the easement. they cannot grade the site as they would like and therefore. the building is at a higher elevation resulting in steeper slopes for the pond. Mr. Weicht felt that by installing a retaining wall on the south side of the fire lane. the fire lane can be raised up out of the 100 year flood elevation and still meet the 3: 1 slopes. Mr. Weicht explained that if building were reduced 10 feet in length. he would be forced to eliminate one of the two proposed tenants. Mr. Weicht stated that they are proposing landscaping on the outside of the fencing. but that he cannot plant trees in the gas line easement. He stated that the fence will be set back far enough so that they would be able to mow outside the fence. . Commissioner Baker asked if it would be possible to expand the pond to the south. Mr. Weicht stated that the property is owned by Cargill and that it is also a wetland. He noted that the pond could be moved over a couple of feet. but he did not believe it would be possible to move it the five feet that is needed. Mr. Weicht stated that he would like to work with staff to "juggle" the location of the pond in order to meet the City's requirements. Chair Mesich asked what type of use is proposed for the expansion. Mr. Weicht stated that the uses would be automotive in nature. Ms. McPherson stated the space could also be leased for a small light manufacturing use. Commissioner Baker asked what the drawback would be in allowing a retention pond. Mr. Maurer stated that he felt there was too much building on the site and he did not feel there was room to move the pond. There being no further comments from the public. Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pederson questioned if the applicant had additional parking above what the ordinance required. Ms. McPherson explained the location for additional parking for the proposed addition. Chair Mesich questioned the location of the handicap parking. Ms. McPherson stated that handicap spaces are located across the drive aisle from the building. Mr. Weicht stated that the handicap spaces were relocated due to the slopes adjacent to the building. . Commissioner Pederson asked if the fire lane could be placed behind the building. Mr. Maurer explained that the fire lane is located so that a fire truck rig could reach all points of the building in the event of a fire. Ms. McPherson stated that a setback variance would be required to locate the fire lane behind the . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 10 building. Mr. Maurer noted that there is also a rather steep slope behind the building. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of THE REQUEST BY T & W INVESTMENTS LLC FOR A 5,600 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION AT 10809 171 ST AVENUE NW, CASE NO. CU 01-02, WITH THE fOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT THE CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SITE PLAN. 2. ALL PARKING STALLS BE A MINIMUM Of 9 FT. X 18 FT. FACE-Of-CURB TO FACE- OF-CURB WITH A MINIMUM DRIVE LINE OF 24 FEET. 3. PARKING SHALL BE ON PAVED SURfACES AND THERE WILL BE NO PARKING IN THE ULYSSES STREET RIGHT-Of-WAY. 4. THAT THE DUMPSTER/RECYCLING ENCLOSURE BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE fiRE LANE AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING AND INCLUDE AN OPAQUE GATE. 5. THAT OUTDOOR STORAGE BE LIMITED TO THE 1,000 SQ. FT. DUMPSTER/RECYCLING ENCLOSURE. 6. THAT THE SITE BE LANDSCAPED TO CONfORM TO CITY ORDINANCE. 7. THAT A LIGHTING PLAN BE PROVIDED THAT CONfORMS TO CITY ORDINANCE. 8. THAT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY BE LIMITED TO THE ULYSSES STREET RIGHT-Of- WAY. 9. THAT DAMAGED OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES BE STORED INSIDE. 10. ALL REQUIREMENT OF THE CHIEF BUILDING OFfiCIAL SHALL BE MET. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.3. Reauest by Gerald & Anqie Koschney for a Conditional Use Permit for Sianaae, Public Hearing - Case No. CU 01-01 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Gerald and Angie Koschney are requesting to amend the conditional use permit for Elk River Crossing Planned Unit Development to allow a third wall sign on the canopy of Wash & Fill, located at 18296 Zane Street NW. The proposed 16 sq. ft. cabinet sign will be placed on the canopy of the Wash-n-FiII approximately 16 ft. from ground level. The applicant currently has the maximum amount of wall signage in place. The proposed sign will be visible from vehicles driving south on Highway 169 and east on Main Street. Mr. Harlicker explained that canopy lighting restrictions were placed on the Elk River Crossing PUD to avoid situations such as the highly-illuminated Holiday Station canopy at Highway 169 and School Street. Mr. Harlicker stated that staff recommends that if the sign is approved, that it not be illuminated, and that the amendment would be drafted in such a way that it would be specific to this site. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 23.2001 Page 11 Commissioner Pederson stated that he recalled the applicant for Wash-n-FiII stated that he did not feel there was a need for a canopy sign. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Gerald Koschney, 236 166'h Avenue NE, Ham Lake, applicant, explained why he felt the canopy sign was necessary for visibility. He stated that Conoco is the 2nd largest credit card company which does a lot of advertising and he would like to take advantage of that. He felt that potential customers driving south along Highway 169 looking for a Conoco Station would not be able to tell that there was a Conoco Station there, since the logo is not visible. Commissioner Baker did not feel the proposed sign would be obtrusive and that since the sign was relatively small, he did not have a problem with the sign being illuminated. Commissioner Baker supported Mr. Koschney being able to take advantage of the Conoco name. Commissioner Ropp expressed his agreement with Commissioner Baker. Chair Mesich felt that since the building is set an angle, proper signage may be more difficult. Commissioner Baker stated he would like the Planning Commission review the design standards for signs in the future. Commissioner Chambers stated he had no objection to the request and asked how the other Commissioners felt about having the sign lighted. Chair Mesich stated that since the applicant did not object to a non-lighted sign, he would support that it not be lit. Commissioners Pederson and Commissioner Johnson stated they did not object to the sign being lit. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY GERALD AND ANGIE KOSCHNEY TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ELK RIVER CROSSING PUD, CASE NO. CU 01-01, TO ALLOW A LIGHTED 16 SQ. FT. (2 FT. BY 8 FT.) CANOPY SIGN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: o INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT o NO PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST o THE UNIQUE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.4. Reauest bv Dynamics Desian & land Co. for Preliminary Plat Approval (Fox Haven), Public Hearina - Case No. P 01-01 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Dynamics Design and land Company requests preliminary plat approval for Fox Haven, a 24.33 acre, 19-1ot single family residential development with 6 outlots. The property is located north of Highway 10, south of lake Orono and west of Guardian Angels West. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the existing conditions of the site, layout of the streets and lots within the Planning Commission Minutes January 23.2001 Page 12 . plat, Shoreline Management Ordinance requirements related to the site, tree preservation, parks, trails and landscaping. Mr. Harlicker noted that issues related to grading, drainage, utilities and erosion control are addressed in the City Engineer's memo dated January 16, 2001. Staff recommends approval of the Fox Haven subdivision with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Baker asked how much space there would be between the street and the sidewalk. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated there is typically 7 feet. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. . Miles Knutsen, 13631186th Avenue NW, asked if there were any plans to upgrade Naples Street from a gravel road and extend city services. Mr. Maurer stated that they have tried to upgrade the road and extend services a number of times without success. Mr. Maurer stated that there are no plans to force services into that area. Mr. Knutsen stated that with this development, now is the time to provide city services to this area and upgrade the road. Mr. Maurer stated that the original proposal for this plat showed 2 lots on 186th and the developer was advised that the street would need to be upgraded and services extended. The lots have since been taken out of the plat and are shown as an outlot. He feels that the developer did not want to pay the full cost and they will wait until the improvements are done in the whole neighborhood. Mr. Maurer stated that he is recommending that the utilities be stubbed to both sides of the property lines so that the area is ready when the utilities are extended. He noted that at least one-third of the residents need to petition for improvements before the Council can act on the request. Mr. Knutsen stated that he supported upgrading the street and extending services. Sara Hartman, 18675 Macon Street, asked if the City can force the improvement on the residents. Mr. Maurer stated that the City would have that option with a 4/5 majority vote, but it has not wanted to do so. Chair Mesich asked if there would be parking on the street. Mr. Maurer stated that parking would be allowed on one side of the street only. Chair Mesich asked if boathouses would be allowed. Mr. Harlicker stated that the developer would have to meet the Shoreline Ordinance requirements. Marly Glines, representing Dynamics Design & Land Co., co-applicant, explained that they are proposing to construct a pier along the side of the harbor with six boat slips. There will be 3 docks with 2 boat slips on each dock. He stated that there will be no boat ramp or boathouses. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY DYNAMICS DESIGN AND LAND COMPANY FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF FOX HAVEN, CASE NO. P 01-01, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: . Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 13 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . . A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT APPROVAL AND INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER BE SHALL BE ADDRESSED. A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENT BE PREPARED SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT. STREET LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER UTILITIES A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COSTS OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 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 THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. 7. PARK DEDICATION FEES IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 8. 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. 9. A SEALCOAT FEE IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 10. A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 11. A DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 12. ALL GRADING BE CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 13. ALL MAILBOXES BE CLUSTERED. 14. A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN BE APPROVED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 15. ANY TREES OFF SITE OR ON SITE, NEAR THE LIMIT OF GRADING THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED, SHALL BE FENCED WITH A SNOW FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE TO PREVENT GRADING, COMPACTION, OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, DEBRIS OR MATERIALS. STAFF SHALL INSPECT FENCING PRIOR TO GRADING COMMENCING. 16. ANY OFF SITE GRADING WILL REQUIRE EASEMENTS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. 17. OUTLOT D WILL BE WIDENED SO THAT IT IS 80 FEET WIDE AT THE FRONT SETBACK. Planning Commission Minutes January 23.2001 Page 14 . 18. ALL COMMENTS OF THE DNR SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 19. THE NUMBER OF BOAT SLIPS OR DOCKS ALLOWED ON OUTLOT D IS LIMITED TO 6. 20. COVENANTS OUTLINING THE USE OF OUTLOT D SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE PLAT. 21. A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED WHICH INCLUDES ONE STREET TREE AND ONE FRONT YARD TREE ON EACH LOT. 22. OUTLOTS A, B, C, D AND E SHALL BE OWNED IN COMMON AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.5. Reauest by Dynamics Desian & Land Co. for Preliminary Plat Aooroval IRidaes of Rice Lake!. Public Hearina ~ Case No. P 01-02 . Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Dynamics Design and Land Company requests preliminary plat approval for a clustered, single family residential development (Ridges of Rice Lake). The plat consists of 273 acres with 70 lots and 211 acres of open space. The property is located on the north side of 22151 Avenue NW at the Vernon Street alignment. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the existing conditions of the site, the proposed density and how density bonuses were determined, layout of the streets, lots and outlots, current and future use of the open space, trails, park dedication, landscaping, and well and septic systems. This information is detailed in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 23,2001. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the conditions of approval. He noted that the City will be working with the developer on the paving of 22151 Avenue. City Engineer Terry Maurer noted that a number of the lots will need landscaping retaining walls in the rear of the lots in order to minimize fill and not encroach on the wetlands. Commissioner Baker asked if the sidewalk would be concrete or bituminous. Mr. Harlicker stated that it would be bituminous. Commissioner Pederson asked if some of the streets exceeded the City's maximum length for a cul-de-sac. Mr. Maurer stated that two of the streets do exceed the City's policy of 700 feet, since one is 800 feet and the other is just over 800 feet. He noted that the cul-de-sac is not measured from where it is temporarily, but from where it will be permanently, when the property to the east is developed. Chair Mesich asked if mowed trails are feasible in the wetland area. Mr. Maurer stated that he felt it would be possible. Mr. Glines expressed his agreement. . Commissioner Baker asked what type of architectural theme is being proposed. Mr. Harlicker explained that theme is typical of what has been done in other cluster developments: fencing, entrance house into the site, center island cul-de- Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2001 Page 15 . sac, etc. Commissioner Baker stated that he would like to see more detail on the architectural theme. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. Jim Brown of Dynamics Design and land Co., explained that the entrance will have an entrance house with two kiosk pillars made of brick and iron, which will be the common material theme used throughout the plat. Brick and iron cornerstone monuments will be placed at the partial intersections with benches along the trail ( approximately 1 mile of trail). Side-load and interior load garages will be incorporated where possible. The developer has walked the area where the mowed and wood-chip trail will be located and indicated that they felt the trails will be very usable, except in a very wet summer. Mr. Brown stated that even after the homes are constructed, the area will still retain its rural character. Farming will still be done in the front of the property near the road. Mr. Brown stated that they feel they have gone above and beyond what the ordinance requires. He stated that two decorative safety shelters will be located on the property; one in the Upland island in the private area, and another along 222nd, midway along the trail. He stated that they will be partially enclosed and maintenance-free. . Chair Mesich asked why the developer chose to have a large septic area like the one used in Windsor Park, rather than a ponding system. Mr. Brown explained that the inspection pipes have been cut off to ground level, and they have a contract with the Soil and Water Conservation District to plant prairie grass with forbs and flowers, and will be fenced. Mr. Brown stated that the type of system for Ridges of Rice Lake was chosen because of the good soils. He noted that there will be rotating cells so that each area will have a chance to recover. Mr. Brown stated that the same contractor will be installing the community septic system and the community well. Chair Mesich asked how the maintenance of these systems are handled. Mr. Brown explained that maintenance and replacement costs are determined and included the homeowner's association fees, which is governed by the c.I.C. (Common Interest Communities) laws. Dan Radefeldt, 1014 West County Road C2, st. Paul, MN, stated that he owned 170 acres of property to the north and east of the proposed plat. He stated that the property has been in his family for 60 years and is used exclusively for recreational use (snowmobiling and duck hunting). He expressed his concern that the development would impact the use of his property. He noted that part of his property is located in Livonia Township. Mr. Radefeldt stated that the property is 98 percent wetland with a small parcel of high ground where a hunting shack is located. He questioned if the open space provided in this plat would be enough of a buffer zone so that it would not affect hunting on his property. He asked for clarification as to where the homes would be located, in relation to the wetlands. . Mr. Harlicker stated that the homes would typically be on the high ground and not in the wetlands. Marly Glines, Dynamics Design and land Co., explained that the homes would be 30 to 40 ft. above the wetland. He stated that from the homes closest to the property line, there would be approximately 600 ft, from the rear lot line to Mr. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 16 . Radefeldt's property. and the lot lines for the other homes would be 1.000 feet - 1 quarter mile away. Paul Pedrow, 2330 12th Avenue East, North St. Paul, MN, asked if the trees would be left alone in the northern portion of the plat. Mr. Glines stated that the only areas that would be disturbed would be where the roads and house pads are located. Mr. Radefeldt asked what his liability would be. if people wandered onto his property. He stated that there are many natural springs in the slews on his property. Mr. Glines explained the location of the trails which the residents would be using. Mr. Radefeldt asked what the City's restriction was for hunting next to platted property. Ms. McPherson stated that no hunting is allowed 500 feet from the property boundary of platted property. so that no hunting would be allowed 500 feet into Mr. Radefeldt's property. . Randy Jones, 12781 2215t Avenue NW, stated that he has lived on his property 23 years and he is opposed to the changes that are occurring. He expressed his concern regarding traffic and the location of the road into the plat. Mr. Glines explained the location of the proposed road into the plat. Mr. Jones stated that he does not want to see 221 sl Avenue paved and does not want to pay for it. Mr. Jones asked if the trees would be taken down behind his house. Mr. Glines explained that the only trees that would be removed would be where the house pad is located. Mr. Glines stated that conifers will be transplanted along the entrance road to hide the street and homes from 221s1 Avenue. Mr. Jones expressed concern regarding the ground water and wildlife. He stated that the wildlife changed dramatically by just adding the one house built by Jerry Jackson. Mr. Jones stated that not all progress is good. some things should be left alone, and that this is one of them. There being no further comments from the public. Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Baker expressed his concern that reference in the current ordinance to an architectural theme is rather vague and needs to be more specific. He stated that he would like to see the applicant's proposal for an architectural theme in writing, with respect to the fencing. benches, shelters. and entrance. He stated that he would like to see some sort of time line as to when the park land portion of the open space would become city property. Ms. McPherson stated that the property owner. Mr. Thompson, has a life estate with the developer which states that he will be allowed to continue to farm the property until the time of his death. The City will be deeded Outlot D and the City will continue the same arrangement with Mr. Thompson. When Mr. Thompson passes on or no longer wishes to farm. the City will then decide what the use of the park will be. She stated that farming and agricultural uses are encouraged in the cluster ordinance. . Commissioner Chambers suggested that a condition be added to adopt the narrative submitted by the applicant. as well as the visual ideas as the design elements for the architectural theme. Planning Commission Minutes January 23.2001 Page 17 . The Commission accepts the narrative and drawings submitted by the applicant as the architectural theme. Mr. Glines stated that they are interested in going beyond what was done in Windsor Park regarding house designs, such as variable front setbacks, in creating streetscapes. Commissioner Baker noted that if the developer wishes to go above and beyond what has been accepted in the narrative and drawings, the Commission would support that effort. Chair Mesich expressed his concern that density bonuses are being given for wetlands that couldn't have been built on anyway. He felt it was important the Commission review this issue at a future meeting. Mr. Brown stated that he felt it was important to note that there is no infringement upon the wetlands and that a large amount of dry land is being preserved that is currently being farmed. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY DYNAMICS DESIGN AND LAND COMPANY FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF RIDGES OF RICE LAKE, CASE NO. P 01-02, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT APPROVAL AND INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS BE PREPARED AND . EXECUTED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 2. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER BE SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 3. A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENT BE PREPARED SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT. 4. STREET LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER UTILITIES 5. A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COSTS OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 6. 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 THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. 7. 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. 8. A SEALCOAT FEE IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 9. A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY . ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 18 5.6. 5.7. 10. A DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 11. ALL GRADING BE CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 12. OUTLOT C, OUTLOT D, OUTLOT E AND OUTLOT R BE PLACED IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO BE HELD BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR A QUALIFIED LAND TRUST. 13.. ALL MAILBOXES BE CLUSTERED. 14. A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN BE APPROVED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 15. ANY TREES OFF SITE OR ON SITE, NEAR THE LIMIT OF GRADING THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED, SHALL BE FENCED WITH A SNOW FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE TO PREVENT GRADING, COMPACTION, OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, DEBRIS OR MATERIALS. STAFF SHALL INSPECT FENCING PRIOR TO GRADING COMMENCING. 16. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE GRADED AND SEEDED. 17. THE BITUMINOUS TRAIL SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER. A TRAIL EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDE OVER OUTLOT R AND THAT PORTION OF THE TRAIL ON OUTLOT R SHALL BE 10 FEET WIDE 18. MAINTENANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF THE OUTLOTS, THE LANDSCAPED MEDIANS AND THE LANDSCAPED ISLANDS IN THE CUL DE SACS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT. 19. ALL APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. 20. A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT INCLUDES FRONT YARD TREES AN LANDSCAPING DETAILS FOR THE OUTLOTS 21. OUTLOT D SHALL BE DEEDED TO THE CITY TO MEET THE PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. 22. THAT THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE AND DRAWINGS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AS AN ARCHITECTURAL THEME, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE DENSITY BONUS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Request for Preliminary Plat ApprovallTwin Lake Townhomes 2nd Addition), Public Hearina - Case No. P 01-04 Request bv Phoenix Enterprises for Conditional Use Permit for Site Plan Approval - Twin Lake Townhomes 2nd Addition, Public Hearinq - Case No. CU 01-04 COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO POSTPONE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TWIN LAKE TOWNHOMES 2ND ADDITION, CASE NO. P 01-04 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 01-04, TO THE FEBRUARY 13,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 Page 19 SPECIAL MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.11. Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections of the Cluster Ordinance, Public Hearino - Case No. OA 01-01 COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO POSTPONE THE CITY OF ELK RIVER REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S CLUSTER SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, CASE NO. OA 01-01, TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.1. Update on January 22,2001 City Council Meetinq Commissioner Pederson provided an update on the January 22, 2001 City Council meeting. 6.2. National Conference Attendance Ms. McPherson stated that she will be attending the American Planning Association National Conference in New Orleans, as well as Commissioners Pederson and Ropp. 8. Adiournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, &0-~.lj~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary