Loading...
10-23-2001 PC MIN . . . MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 200 I Members Present: Chair Pederson, Commissioners Baker, Franz and Ropp Members Absent: Commissioners Mesich and Schuster Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Park Planner/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 6:30 p.m. by Chair Pederson. 2.1. Consider 10/23/01 Planning Commission Agenda COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 23, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION: ITEMS 5.4. AND 5.5. - REQUEST FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (PARK POINTE) - POSTPONED TO THE NOVEMBER 29, 2001 MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 2.2. Consider Consent Agenda COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 3. Consider Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 25,2001, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend November City Council Meeting Commissioner Baker will attend the November 19,2001 City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 2 . 5.1. Request by Elk River Landfill for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing - Case No. Cu 01-35 Staff report by Building and Zoning Administrator Stephen Rohlf. Mr. Rohlf stated that many of the typical issues associated with Elk River Landfill have been resolved in past years. He eXplained that the Landfill is requesting a modification to their existing conditional use permit and solid waste facility license to allow disposal of demolition debris over the top of an existing mixed municipal solid waste cell. Mr. Rohlf discussed issues regarding the Shoreland Management Ordinance. He stated that it is staff's interpretation that the city has the authority to determine the type of land uses in a Shoreland District and that a landfill can be considered. He noted that Dave Hills, ~egional ~ydrologist for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources agrees with this mterpretatlOn. Mr. Rohlf also discussed technical issues and referred to the letter from the city's environmental consultant, Matt Ledvina of Environmental Resources Group, LLC, dated October 18, 2001. Mr. Rohlf then reviewed screening and buffering issues due to the close proximity of the hiking trail and Rice Lake. . Other issues of discussion include fires, litter, contamination, safety, renewals, and leachate recirculation. Mr. Rohlf stated that there are two areas of contamination at the landfill; one in the northeast corner of the site which seems to have been eliminated by the active gas venting, and the other is a small plume of contamination that is heading west toward Rice Lake. This contamination may have been introduced by borings for gravel mining. Aggressive remedial action is being pursed at this time. He stated that he is not worried that the contamination will leave the site. Mr. Rohlf noted that this current amendment process will not replace the regular renewal scheduled for 2004. He reviewed the leachate treatment process which speeds up the decomposition of the refuse. Mr. Rohlf explained that it is not known how long the liner will last, and that the leachate process will help to neutralize the material that is in contact with the liner. The city and county have approved the program, but the State has not approved the technology at this time. Mr. Rohlf reviewed the criteria and findings for approval of a conditional use and compliance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Staff feels the Landfill's request can meet the required standards and recommends approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Rohlf introduced Deb McDonnell with Waste Management and Deb Dean, site manager of the Elk River Landfill. Mr. Rohlf explained the location of the proposed demolition site, storm water pond, existing vegetation, and the city trail. Commissioner Baker asked how far the city trail was from the Landfill's property line. Mr. Rohlf explained that the trail is approximately 100 feet away. . Commissioner Franz asked where the two areas of contamination are located. Mr. Rohlf pointed out these areas, noting that the areas have been defined horizontally and vertically. He stated that the active gas venting system seems to have alleviated the problem with the area located to the northeast of the Landfill. Planning Commission Minutes October 23,2001 Page 3 . Mr. Rohlf state that the landfill began operation in 1972. The site was a former gravel mining area and was unlined. He eXplained that the contamination happened long before Waste Management owned the landfill, but that it will be cleaned up. Deb McDonnell stated that they will not be adding to the "footprint" of the landfill, but will be adding demolition waste over the top of a closed cell. There is a synthetic cap over the cell with earthen material which will be used as the liner base. Any water which comes in contact with the demolition material will be collected a put into the leachate collection and treatment system. Commissioner Baker asked the applicants to define demolition material. Deb Dean explained that demolition material consists of sheetrock, roofing, insulation, woods, new construction materials, tile or other building materials. Chair Pederson asked if a landscaping plan was available. Ms. Dean explained that large spruce type trees would be staggered to fill in the gaps in the existing trees. Chair Baker asked why the 5: 1 slope is recommended. Mr. Rolf explained that the issue is long term maintenance. He stated that the Landfill has demonstrated that they can provide maintenance on a 3: 1 slope, and that the State will likely be changing this requirement. Ms. Donnell explained that for a 5: 1 slope the State recommends a spacing of the drainage control berms every 200 feet. For a 3:1 slope, that distance between the drainage control berms must be shortened up which creates a different design, or the "wedding cake" approach. . Mr. Rohlf stated that there will be transition between the 3:1 slope and the 5:1 slope. Mr. Rohlf explained that the actual disposal footprint will not change but the footprint of the earth slopes will change, and will be closer to the property line. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Chair Pederson suggested that Item 3 be changed to read "City of Elk River" rather than City Council. Also, that an Item 4 be added to ensure that this review does not replace the review scheduled for 2004. Mr. Rohlf suggested that language be added to the conditions of approval to specify that 3 rows of evergreens be planted to fill in the gaps along the west property line. The rows will be 10 feet apart and the trees will be staggered to provide maximum screening. Also, trees and bushes will be provided on the west side of the berm. Ms. McDonnell stated that the Landfill is agreeable to this request. Commissioner Baker asked if they should be looking at adding evergreens where there currently are oak trees, since the oaks do not provide any screening when the leaves are off the trees. Mr. Rohlf suggested that this issue could be considered when the permit renewal is reviewed. Ms. McDonnell stated that the County is requesting screening with evergreens on the west side. Mr. Rohlf stated that if the recommendation is approved, he will ask the Landfill to include the recommendations into a plan view for the City Council meeting. . Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 4 . Commissioner Baker stated that he was concerned about the leachate and felt is was important that staff continue to work with the applicant to address the issue. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER LANDFILL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THEIR EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 01-35, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT THIS LETTER OF APPROVAL IS CONDITIONED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN MAT LEDVINA'S LETTER DATED OCTOBER 18, 200t. 2. THAT SECTIONS 2.)(03)(B) OF THE LANDFILL'S CUP AND SOLID WASTE FACILITY LICENSE BE AMENDED TO READ: "THE DEMOLITION DEBRIS LANDFILL CELL DC-3 SHALL BE LOCATED AND OPERATED AS SHOWN ON THE JUNE 2001 PERMIT APPLICATION AND AUGUST 2001 REVISIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PERMITTEE WITH CITY STAFF APPROVING AND HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THE TECHNICAL ISSUES INVOLVED." . 3. THAT THREE ROWS OF SPRUCE WITH TEN FEET SPACING BETWEEN ROWS AND TEN FEET SPACING BETWEEN TREES IN EACH ROW SHALL BE PLANTED ON THE CITY'S PROPERTY IN AREAS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION CELL WHERE NO TREES CURRENTLY EXIST. OTHER VEGETATION, SUCH AS BUSHES, SHALL BE PLANTED IN THESE AREAS AS PROPOSED BY THE LANDFILL. FURTHER, THAT SPRUCE SHALL BE PLANTED ON THE LANDFILL'S PROPERTY AT THE BASE OF THE SLOPE ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE NEW DEMOLITION DEBRIS CELL TO HELP SCREEN THE OPERATION DURING THE WINTER. LASTLY, THAT THE LANDFILL PROVIDE THE CITY A PLAN DEPICTING THESE REQUIREMENTS, PRIOR TO THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL ACTING ON THIS REQUEST. 4. THIS CURRENT AMENDMENT DOES NOT REPLACE THE LANDFILL'S REQUIREMENT TO RENEW THEIR SOLID WASTE FACILITY LICENSE AND CUP IN MAY OF 2004. CHAIR PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 5.2. Request by Susan Davis for Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (Beauty Salon). Public Hearing - Case No. CD 01-37 Staff report by Senior Planner Scott Harlicker. Susan Davis, 1723 Tipton Circle (Bailey Beck Addition) requests a conditional use permit to allow a hair salon to be operated out of the basement of her home. The applicant has one chair and does not anticipate adding additional employees at this time. Mr. Harlicker noted that a conditional use permit had previously been issued for this site for a former resident, but it has been more than one year . since the salon was in operation and therefore, a new conditional use permit is required. . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 23,2001 Page 5 He reviewed hours of operation, parking, and access to the site. Staff recommends approval of the request with the three conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Baker asked what would happen if the applicant decided to add another chair. Mr. Harlicker stated that an amendment to the conditional use permit would be required. Commissioner Baker asked if parking would be adequate if the applicant added another chair. Mr. Harlicker stated that there is room for 4 cars in the driveway. Chair Pederson did not feel adding another chair would create a parking problem. Commissioner Franz asked if the hair salon meets the building code. Mr. Harlicker stated it meets current building code requirements and that the original salon was built to meet the code. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY SUSAN DAVIS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A HAIR SALON, CASE NO. CU 01-37, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL NOT EXCEED 10:00AM TO 8:00PM 2. SIGNAGE SHALL BE liMITED TO 4 SQUARE FEET AND MOUNTED ON THE WALL OF THE HOME. 3. THE APPliCANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL THE CRITERIA OF A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 5.3. Request by Cascade I Land Co. for Preliminary Plat Approval (Cascade Industrial Park), Public Hearing - Case No. P 01-20 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Cascade I Land Co. requests preliminary plat approval of Cascade Industrial Park located at Jarvis Street and the 161st Avenue alignment. The applicant proposes to subdivide 47 acres into 19 lots and 2 outlots. The lots range in size from 1.5 acres to 3.37 acres. Mr. Harlicker reviewed access to the lots, existing site conditions, layout of the proposed lots and streets, grading, drainage and utilities, and the park dedication recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the 12 conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be adequate distance between the wells for these lots and the property used by the City for spreading sludge. Mr. Harlicker stated yes, that the lots are approximately 300 feet deep and that by locating the wells as far east as possible there is adequate separation distance. Commissioner Franz asked what will happen to 165th Avenue. Mr. Harlicker stated that 165th Avenue will be cul-de-saced. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 6 . Chair Pederson asked what type of curb and gutter will be installed. Mr. Harlicker stated that the City Engineer will require concrete curb and gutter. Mr. Harlicker noted that the City Engineer will require a minimum of 80 feet and maximum of 100 for the Jarvis Street right-of-way, in order to accommodate future development. Jarvis is proposed to be extended north to function as an "east side" collector street. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Jim Brown, representing Cascade I Land Development, stated that they have agreed to keep the wells to the forward side of the lots to provide proper separation. Dave Shappell, 9325 164th Lane NW, asked that the drainage in his yard not be impacted by the road construction. John Lenz, 16444 Jarvis Street, expressed his concern for the rising water table. He stated that Trott Brook runs through his property and that it appears to be rising slightly each year. Mr. Lenz felt that development of the 40 acres could have an impact and asked that the developer be aware of this. He also asked if it would be possible to plant a row of trees to help screen his property from the development. Mr. Harlicker stated that when Lot 7 develops, screening would be addressed at that time. He noted that the property to the south of Lot 7 is a drainage and utility easement and it would not be possible to plant trees on that lot. Mr. Lenz stated that he has already planted a row of seedlings to screen his property from Lot 7 and he was ask that the trees not be tilled under. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. . Chair Pederson asked if holding ponds will be required. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that three ponds will be located in the development. He has reviewed preliminary drainage plans, made comments and has spoken to the developer about the changes, but he has not reviewed the revised plans at this time. The developer will be required to provide a quality control pond to get sand, salts, oils, and floatables such as paper out of the run-off stream, as well as retaining drainage so that the peak discharge from this site is no greater than it was before development. Questions to be answered by the developer in the revised drainage plans include where is the water going to discharge, how is it going to get away from the site, and what affect will it have on neighboring properties. Commissioner Baker asked the applicant was willing to look at screening of Lot 7. Mr. Brown stated that landscaping will be discussed during the site plan review and he will work with staff to address the issue. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY CASCADE 1 LAND CO. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (CASCADE INDUSTRIAL PARK), CASE NO. P 01-20, 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. Planning Commission Minutes October 23,2001 Page 7 . 3. STREET LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER UTILITIES 4. A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COSTS OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. A SEALCOAT FEE IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 8. A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER . 9. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE GRADED AND SEEDED. 10. ALL APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. 11. ALL WELLS ON LOTS ABUTTING THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE PLAT BE LOCATED TO THE EAST AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. 12. 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. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 5.6. Request by the City of Elk River to Amend Business Park District Permitted and Conditional Uses . Director of Planning Michele McPherson reviewed the current Business Park District standards and the proposed amendment to establish definitions for warehousing and showrooms and to allow showroom space, repair! servicing of equipment, and increased warehouse space. She stated that Mr. Rick Martens of Brookstone, Inc. has been involved in the review process and he is present to offer his comments. Ms. McPherson reviewed each of the proposed language changes and the basis for the changes. She noted that the Economic Development Authority reviewed the proposed and existing language at their October meeting. Staff feels that the proposed language is a balance between the needs of the market and the needs of the City in their efforts to continue to encourage job creation and businesses that provide opportunities for residents to work within the community. Staff recommends approval of the proposed language. Planning Commission Minutes October 23,2001 Page 8 . Commissioner Baker asked if there are places within the City where warehouses and the types of businesses under discussion are allowed at this time. Ms. McPherson stated that currently, a straight warehousing or distribution business would only be allowed in the 12 or the 12 districts. She noted that the Business Park was designed to encourage a higher standard in building quality, manufacturing, research and development, and office type uses. A use such as a truck terminal would only be allowed in the medium industrial district, such as the Cascade Industrial Park proposed on Jarvis Street. Commissioner Baker felt that increasing the amount of warehouse space would detract from the purpose of the business park district. Ms. McPherson stated that now there is more of a mix between uses and the difference between warehousing, showroom, and other types of uses in not as clear cut as it used to be. She explained that the amendment will open the business park for more warehouse-type uses, but it will not open it up for uses use as a truck terminal or purely a distribution warehouse. Chair Pederson felt that the amendment will defeat the intent of the Business Park District Statement of Purpose. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. . Rick Martens, President of Brookstone, Inc., explained that he felt it was always very clear in negotiating the development agreement for Elk River Business Park that they were interested in constructing office/warehouse type buildings. He stated that he is aware that it is the goal of the City to attract businesses that provide more jobs per square feet of space, rather than fewer. Mr. Martens stated that he feels they have developed a product to fit the market which is a hybrid mix of office/warehouse and a mix of finished and unfinished space. He did not feel it is realistic to expect that Elk River will be able to attract a large amount of manufacturing, since manufacturing is only about 16 percent of the total work force in America. Mr. Martens stated that building finishes on this type of product is typically only about 25 to 35 percent, which will be offices and showroom space. The remainder would be unfinished space with uses including a limited amount of manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, service, maintenance, repair and refinishing businesses. Mr. Martens eXplained that a distribution center in the Twin Cities is defined as a 24 - 32 ft. clear building with 10,000 ft. bays, and 250-300 feet in depth. The types of buildings they are proposing are not distribution buildings; they have quality building fronts, and there would be no front-loaded buildings. Mr. Martens felt that given the building standards which are now in place, there is ample protection that the City will not be getting the type of buildings they don't want to see. Mr. Martens stated he would prefer to see the control by way of building design. He did not feel requiring a conditional use permit for 65 percent warehouse was appropriate and felt 50 to 80 percent made more sense. Also, he would like to see the 50 percent limitation on warehouse space be viewed in aggregate for multi-tenant buildings. If the Commission does not feel this proposal is appropriate, he would be willing to accept the EDA's recommendation, although he does not agree with the 65 percent limitation. . Chair Pederson asked for clarification on Mr. Martens comment of control by building design. Mr. Martens eXplained that if the City specifically did not wish to see distribution buildings, they could prohibit truck terminals, front-loaded buildings, and require a conditional use permit for any building over 18 foot clear ceiling height, since a distribution building is 24 - 32 foot clear. He felt this would work well with the market. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 9 . Commissioner Baker asked why Mr. Martens would not build in the 12 District, if he wanted to build warehouse space. Ms. McPherson explained that Mr. Martens has entered into a long term development agreement with the City to develop a 40 acre business park with specific standards for what he must to build and when. If Mr. Martens did not have that agreement with the City, he would have the option to negotiate land elsewhere in the city for a pure warehouse use. Mr. Martens felt limiting use of distribution space within office/warehouse buildings is highly unusual. Chair Pederson asked for clarification of repair and maintenance. Mr. Martens cited an example of a business that refurbishes and services computers. He eXplained that he was referring to equipment-type of repair and maintenance, not vehicle maintenance or body shops. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Chair Pederson stated that he felt repair and maintenance of technology equipment would fit in the business park district. He was uncomfortable with the 50 percent warehousing as a permitted use, and felt a showroom needs to be finished space. Chair Pederson was concerned that the ordinance was being tailored to fit one user. . Commissioner Franz stated that the country is moving away from being a manufacturing society and moving more toward importing products from other states and countries to make them available in the area. He felt this ordinance amendment is important to attract these kinds of companies and that along with them will come businesses with some office and showroom needs. Commissioner Baker stated he did not have a concern with repair and maintenance businesses as long as it was technology-related and did not include heavy equipment and trucks. He did not feel showrooms for heavy equipment such as printers would need to be finished and the level of finishing should be left up to the business, since they would be most concerned about how their product would be displayed to attract buyers. Commissioner Baker did not feel increasing the warehouse space fit with the business park district purpose to provide more jobs. He stated he could not support a recommendation for approval at this time. Commissioner Ropp agreed that the amendment does not fit the Business Park District Statement of Purpose. He stated he would like to see showroom space finished to clearly define it from warehouse space. Commissioner Franz stated that warehouse space is needed not only for finished goods but for raw materials as well. He felt 30 percent is very restrictive to a business involved in light manufacturing. He noted that even if the intent is to have more jobs per square foot, Elk River will have no jobs per square foot if we are too restrictive in our ordinance, because no one will come here to build light manufacturing or assembly facilities. He agreed that further work may be required on the amendment, and suggested tabling the issue, rather than recommending denial. He stated that he agreed with the intent to expand the amount of warehouse space. . Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 10 . Commissioner Ropp asked if there was a difference between storing goods to be sold and a part of a manufacturing facility that is storing inventory to be made into a finished product. He did not consider storing raw materials for assembly as part of a manufacturing business to be a warehouse use, but he would considered storing assembled finished products in a separated locked facility a warehouse use. Discussion followed regarding whether or not storing raw materials would be considered commodities. Ms. McPherson explained that the intent of adding a definition of warehouse was to define what is meant by the act of warehousing. Using Commissioner Ropp's example, raw materials would be considered commodities. She felt that if some of the existing businesses were placed under the definition, they would exceed the 30 percent rule. Ms. McPherson stated that a building could be limited to 18 feet in height and still be a warehouse. Staff feels that by limiting the amount of warehouse space, the rest of the building will need to be taken up by people, offices, and space for setup and machines for manufacturing product. Commissioner Baker stated that he was formerly employed by a printing company which had a warehouse at least as big as the main building, and it was filled to overflowing with product and supplies. He felt that the amendment could potentially limit a business. Chair Pederson stated that a conditional use permit could be requested, in that case. . Mr. Martens felt that it would be very difficult to "micro-manage" showroom space and define the level of finished space. He stated that he was asked to come into Elk River to build industrial and office/warehouse buildings and now they are being told that cannot build the type of building that the marketplace is calling for. He stated that the 30 percent limitation will not work, and that he will not be able to build another multi-tenant building in the Elk River Business Park with this limitation. He stated that a lender would not allow it, even if they were foolish enough to do it. He asked that the Commission allow more flexibility. Commissioner Baker asked if the business park district standards were in place when Mr. Martens began negotiations with the City. Ms. McPherson noted that the agreement with Amcon/Brookstone was signed in 1999 and the business park standards were adopted in 1995. Ms. McPherson suggested tabling the ordinance for further work. Commissioner Baker stated he did not want to see the kind of buildings that are along the Highway 10l/Rogers corridor. Ms. McPherson explained that the building design standards would not allow these types of buildings, nor would truck terminals be allowed in the business park. Commissioner Baker stated that since the Highway 169/Highway 10 corridors are the gateways to the community, he would like these buildings to look nice, regardless of the type of use within the building. Commissioner Baker stated that any type of business is going to need room to store raw materials and finished goods. He suggested the Commission consider regulating the ceiling height. . Commissioner Franz stated he would like to withdraw his comments regarding showroom space. He suggested expanding the minimum warehouse space to 50 percent and taking a look at building heights. He felt that the City needs to be more flexible and allow developers to build functional, cost-effective buildings. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 11 . Chair Pederson stated that he felt some level of finishing is needed for the showroom space. He stated he would not support the ordinance amendment at this time. He suggested looking at what other cities are doing regarding office/warehouse space, such as Minnetonka, Plymouth, the Carlson Complex along 494, or Champlin for some comparison. Chair Pederson stated that he felt it was important to look at the amount of warehouse space that is actually needed, and whether or not this is an appropriate use in a business park. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT STANDARDS, CASE NO. OA 01-09. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 5.7. Request by the City of Elk River to amend the Comprehensive Plan to Include Certain Property in the Urban Service District Scott Harlicker stated that the City of Elk River requests an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include approximately 80 acres located on the south side of 175th Avenue and east of Twin Lakes Road in the Urban Service District. Mr. Harlicker explained this request prompted by discussions during the review of the Klein property for extension of water and sewer. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the existing conditions, current zoning and land uses, and proximity of the area to the current Urban Service District. Staff recommends approval of the land use amendment based on the findings listed in the staff report. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. . Jerri Graham, 17451 Tyler Street, asked that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request. She felt that the 8 properties are well-established and that there was no documentation made available to them when they purchased their property that the zoning would be changed. Ms. Graham stated that the character of the neighborhood is somewhat a nature" oasis" and made a better gateway to Elk River than high density. She stated that the school district cannot keep up with the higher density that keeps coming. She felt that the Commission has an opportunity to slow down growth. Ms. Graham stated that the properties in question were not developed with future subdivision in mind and many have livestock. Ijaz Osman, 10616 175th Avenue, stated that feels like he is stuck and that he has no control over what is being decided for his property. He stated that he did not wish to move but if his property is included in the Urban Service District, he will be forced to sell. Mr. Osman asked what is happening with the North Star Corridor project. Mr. Harlicker explained that proposal for federal funding was approved, and that they will be going to the state for funding this year. Mr. Osman stated that he felt if Cargill has no plans for development, that this area should be able to remain rural, as well. He felt this is an example of where "City and Country Flow Together" as the City's motto states. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. . Commissioner Baker asked what it will mean to the property owners to bring the property into the Urban Service District at this time. Mr. Harlicker stated that it would mean water and sewer would be made available and the property owners would be assessed. Terry Maurer eXplained that if the City Council approved including the property in the Urban Service District, they would likely establish a time frame such as the 2007 date was set for Planning Commission Minutes October 23,2001 Page 12 . water and sewer for the Highway 12/Fillmore area. Commissioner Baker asked if the density would be changed. Mr. Harlicker explained that next step would be to amend the land use and zoning designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ropp asked what the costs would be for a property owner to hook up to sewer and water. Mr. Maurer estimated that the trunk assessment would be $6,500 per acre, the lateral assessment would be $50 a foot (approximately $4,000), plus the costs for bringing the sewer and water from the right-of-way to the home. In addition, there would be charges for the actual sewer and water connections to the house. Mr. Maurer explained that it would be cost-prohibitive for these 8 single family residences to pay the assessments and they would be forced to subdivide their property and sell it. He noted that it has typically been the City Council's policy when including property in the Urban Service District, not to assess property owners the trunk and lateral assessment until a specified date in the future. Mr. Osman asked why a time line would be given to hook up. Mr. Maurer stated that the Council felt it was appropriate to allow the homeowners time to decide what they were going to do with their property. He stated that if the property is not included in the Urban Service District, they will not be assessed, but if it is approved the City Council would set a date. Commissioner Baker felt that it was time for the City to review the Comprehensive Plan and see if other changes are needed, as well. . Discussion followed regarding 175th Avenue. Mr. Maurer stated that the current plans for 175th do not include sewer and water, but that adequate right-of-way will be provided for possible future extension. Commissioner Franz stated that he felt a higher density for this area may be justified if the area was all cornfield, but it includes a large wetland complex which serves as a buffer. He felt this is a good reason why the area was not included in the Urban Service Area during the last Comp Plan review. He also felt a review of the Comp Plan was in order, to address these types of issues as well as areas for townhomes. Commissioner Baker stated that the future of the North Star Corridor is uncertain at this time. He felt it would be appropriate to review the Comprehensive Plan to see where the City is at and where it is going. Commissioner Ropp felt that it is possible a review of the Comprehensive Plan may allow areas with a rural character such as this to remain. He did not feel a compelling reason to bring the property into the Urban Service Area at this time. Chair Pederson stated that it appeared logical to bring the area into the Urban Service District, but after looking at it more closely, there is a considerable amount of wetland. Also, he felt that that it is unknown at this time if the transit-oriented community will happen. . COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT, AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED OCTOBER 23,2001, CASE NO. OA 01-11, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 13 1. THE AREA INCLUDES A LARGE WETLAND COMPLEX WHICH WOULD NOT BE BUILDABLE. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA TO THE SOUTH IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME. 3. THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CARGILL PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-1. Commissioner Baker opposed. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on 9/15/01 City Council Meeting Ms. McPherson provided an update on the September 15, 2001 City Council meetmg. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /'" ~ I ,. 1 1 v#.lt/v., ,~~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary