Loading...
06-25-2002 PC MIN e e e MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002 Members Present: Chair Pederson, Commissioners Anderson, Baker, Franz, Jenson, Mesich and Ropp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Terry Maurer, Charlie Wilson, City Attorney; City Engineer; 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. Consider 6/25/02 Planning Commission Agenda COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 25, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITION: - ITEM 7.2. - REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN - RICHARD LEFA VOR COMMISSIONER JENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3. Consider Consent Agenda COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: -REQUEST BY RICHARD MOCHINSKI FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 6,832 SQ. FT. RETAIL FACILITY & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF BATTERIES PLUS, PUBLIC HEARING - CASE NO. CU 02-23 - POSTPONED TO 7/23/02. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1. Commissioner Mesich abstained. 4. Consider 5/28/02 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 28, 2002, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 2 e 5. Planning Commission Representative to Attend City Council Meeting Commissioner Jenson will attend the July 15,2002 City Council meeting. 6.1. Request by John Bailey for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Horses in R1c Zoning District. Public Hearing - Case No. CU 02-22 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. John Bailey requests a conditional use permit to permanently stable and pasture 5 horses and temporarily shelter and pasture 5 additional horses on 17.5 acres of fenced pasture. The property is located in the floodplain between the Mississippi and Elk Rivers. Staff recommends approval of the request with one condition. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. John Bailey, Jr., applicant, explained that the property was owned by his parents who are now deceased and their estate is going through probate. Mr. Bailey stated that the property has been used to pasture horses for the past 60 years. The reason for the request is to ensure that a future buyer will be allowed to continue to pasture horses. Chair Pederson asked how the manure was handled. Mr. Bailey stated that it was spread on site, but that it could be hauled away, since there is vehicle access to the property off Morton Avenue. Mr. Harlicker stated that the ordinance requires 1 acre per horse so that waste can be handled on site, and this property has more than adequate space. e Commissioner Baker asked if there were horses on the property now. Mr. Bailey stated that there currently are six horses pastured on the site. Commissioner asked if the other homeowners on Morton were aware of this request. Mr. Harlicker stated that all property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified. Dan Anderson, 209 Morton Avenue, stated that he has been a neighbor of the Bailey family for many years and is very familiar with the property. He noted that no income can be derived from the property since it is in the floodplain, and felt that pasturing horses was a good use of the property. Mr. Anderson expressed his support for approval of the request There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY JOHN BAILEY TO ALLOW UP TO 10 HORSES ON 17.3 ACRES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. IF MORE THAN 10 HORSES ARE ON SITE, THE CUP SHALL BE AMENDED. COMMISSIONER JENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.2. Request by Contour Excavating. inc. for Preliminary Plat Approval (Birchview). Public Hearing - Case No. P 02-12 e Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 3 e Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Contour Excavating request preliminary plat approval of Birchview, a six single family lot plat, located at 20737 Quincy Street at the 207th Avenue alignment. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the location of wetlands, wooded areas, and the existing home. He explained that the 700 foot maximum length for a cul de sac cannot be met due to the wetland. Staff would recommend allowing the additional 140 foot length, if the plat is approved, in order to avoid a significant amount of wetland filling. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the layout of the streets and lots. Staff recommends that the lot line between Lots 4 and 5 be adjusted to allow for extra width between the edge of the wetland and the property line in order to accommodate a driveway on Lot 4. Mr. Harlicker discussed the wetland issues associated with Lots 3 and 4. He noted that the Planning Commission may recommend approval of a plat with one lot that does not comply with the minimum lot size requirement. Also, he noted that even if the wetland is excluded from the lot size of Lot 3, the remaining 1.7 acres is adequate to support the proposed residence and the proposed primary and alternative septic system locations. Mr. Harlicker stated that the Park and Recreation Commission has recommended cash to meet the park dedication requirement. Two street trees per lot will be required, as well as a landscaping plan showing location of trees. He noted that the Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel will again review the plans. Chair Mesich asked what type of wetland was behind Lot 6. Mr. Harlicker noted that the wetland was a Type 2 and he explained where the Type 3 wetland portion was located. e Commissioner Baker asked what the difference was between a Type 2 and a Type 3 wetland. Mr. Harlicker stated that it was his understanding that a Type 3 wetland has standing water throughout most of the year, and a Type 2 wetland is dry part of the year and has standing water part of the year. Commissioner Baker asked if the lot lines could be adjusted so that Lot 3 meets the minimum lot size. Mr. Harlicker explained that acreage is limited outside the wetland and no matter how the property is divided up, one of the 6 lots would be deficient. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Marty Campion, Civil Engineer with Otto Associates, stated he was present representing Coutour Excavating. He stated that he concurs with the comments in the staff report. He stated that only approximately 1 acre of the 3.2-acre wetland in question is a Type 3, and this classification is due to the deeper water within the wetland. He stated this layout was The Technical Panel preferred this layout. A mitigation area to the north will be reviewed by Kjolhaugh and the Technical Panel. Commissioner Mesich asked for clarification on the driveway and septic location for Lot 6. Mr. Campion explained the locations. Mr. Harlicker asked if the primary system will encompass the entire area as shown. Mr. Campion stated that the area is 50'x100' which would be twice what is needed for a conventional system, but would likely be close to the actual size for a mound system. e Commissioner Franz asked if Lot 3 would become even smaller than 1.7 acres, if it were used for wetland mitigation. Mr. Campion stated that the alternative location would be to the east on Lot 4, which is heavily wooded. Also, wetlands could be mitigated next to the existing wetland, but they would have to do a significant amount of grading for a small amount of wetland. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 4 e Commissioner Mesich stated that placement of a home and primary septic system on Lot 4 would take out a significant amount of heavily wooded land. Jon Anderson, 20760 Quincy Street, stated that he is not opposed to good development, but that he is opposed to haphazard, ill-prepared development and he believes that this development meets the later standard. He stated that he feels this development is being squeezed into an environmentally sensitive area, especially the wetland. He also expressed a concern for the number of accidents on County Road 33 in this area. He felt that the transportation issues need to be addressed before any more development occurs. Dan Peterson, 20687 Quincy Street, stated that he does not oppose this development. He explained that he and his neighbor are planning to development their property in the future. He asked if 207th could be extended to provide access. He stated he was not opposed to a turn lane, but he was concerned that there would be an access to their property. Curt Werner, 20575 Quincy Street, stated that he and Mr. Peterson are planning to develop their property together and shares his concerns. Mr . Warner stated that he owns just over 40 acres and explained the location of his property. Dave Wilson, 10402 209th Avenue, stated that his major concern is that the wetland would back up onto his property. He stated that he is concerned especially with Lot 4 which heavily wooded. He questioned why the City would allow a lot which does not meet the minimum lot size. e Marty Campion, Otto Associates, stated that the preliminary plat was submitted to Sherburne County. The Highway Department will permit the access in the location shown, with a right turn lane. He stated that they had no other concerns. He stated that 207th will be platted along the common property line which will accommodate access to the south anywhere along the first 800 feet. Mr. Campion explained that turned the cuI de sac may shorten up the frontage that is needed for the existing home. He stated he did not have a problem dedicating the tip as public right of way to provide access to the property to the south. Mr. Campion stated that the request for allowing the smaller lot size is not without precedent in Elk River, since it was allowed for a project for Bridgeland Development. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson asked if staff has looked at future road connections for development of the property which was mentioned. Mr. Harlicker stated that there is access to the south. He explained that the applicant considered a road up to the north, but decided against it because of the wetland, significant grade changes, tree removal and grading that would be required to put a road through. Scott explained there is also a large wetland which would prevent a connection from the west. Commissioner Franz asked for clarification on Mr. Rohlf's letter which stated the Type 3 wetland was 3.7 acres, and the engineer stated the area was one acre. Mr. Harlicker stated that he was not able to comment on this issue. e Commissioner Mesich stated that the wetland has standing water most of the time. He expressed a concern that it would be surrounded by primary septic systems. Commissioner Mesich stated that he felt the plat was quickly put together to maximize the number of lots. He also stated that he did not feel it was desirable to drive around a septic system to get to a Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 5 e home. He felt the plat should have to more than 5 lots to give the wetland "breathing space" . Chair Pederson asked if it would be possible to shift the driveway to the south. Mr. Harlicker stated that driveways can be located up to 5 feet from the property lines. Commissioner Mesich stated he was concerned that the secondary septic location would have to be utilized. Mr. Campion stated that the septic locations or conceptual, and that there is no reason to believe that the primary septic site is any better than the secondary site. Curt Werner, 20575 Quincy Street, stated that he was concerned that a great deal of wetland would be impacted in order to access his property from the east. Brian Eggert, 20897 Quincy Street, was concerned with the number of septic systems in the wetland area. He felt even a mound system would impact the wetland, due to the number of homes being proposed. Commissioner Baker stated he was concerned with the number of lots being proposed. He stated that he does not see a compelling reason to deviate from the City's ordinance and would support limiting the plat to five lots. e Commissioner Mesich expressed his concern that potential development will add to the already dangerous situation on County Road 33. He stated that since this highway is proposed to be a major east-west corridor, the sharp curves will likely need to be taken out and will affect future development. He stated he could not support six lots, but he felt that. the Commission had no reason to deny the plat. He stated that if there were only five lots, the cul-de-sac could be shortened up and more driveway space would be available for Lot 6. Commissioner Franz stated he could support five, or even four lots. He stated that he concurred with Commissioner Mesich's comments. Commissioner Anderson also concurred with the Commissioner's comments. He stated that he could support four lots. He felt the property lines should be somewhat symmetrical. and was concerned how a driveway would be placed on Lot 4. He did not support accepting a lot that did not meet the City's standards. He felt the county road was not the City's issue. Commissioner Ropp's stated he felt Lot 4 was oddly-shaped and should be reworked. He stated he could support 5 lots, but would prefer only 4 lots. Commissioner Baker asked if eliminating Lot 4 which does meet the ordinance would be considered a taking. e City Attorney Charlie Wilson explained that generally, a property owner has the right to proceed with development of his property as long as it conforms with City's ordinances. The Commission is not free to "second guess" what is in the ordinance and impose additional standards. If there is anything about a particular lot or overall plat that does not meet the ordinance, the Commission can deny it. Commissioner asked if denying a plat when it meets the ordinance would be considered a taking. Mr. Wilson explained that a taking means that all possible use of the land is taken away from a property owner and compensation is required. Wrongfully denying a plat would result in some other form of legal action. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 6 e Commissioner Mesich stated that lots have been turned down before due to usual configurations, such as how the lots are laid out with lines that are parallel to each other and well-defined. In this case, Lot 4 is an L-shaped lot and does not meet that criteria. Mr. Wilson stated that that type of basis would be sufficient. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the edge of the wetland should be considered as the property line. He did not feel Lot 4 was laid out well. Commissioner Mesich stated that the shed on the lot to the north has an elevation which is lower than the wetland and would be flooded if there is any runoff from the wetland at all. Chair Pederson felt that four lots would be more appropriate. He felt the plat was poorly laid out. He expressed concern regarding the possibility of water over the driveway of Lot 6, the location of septic systems next to a wetland, the neighbor's concern for potential for water runoff onto their property, and the impact of future development to the north and south, and the traffic concerns on County Road 33. Chair Pederson stated that with the construction of the over pass on 169, there will be even more traffic on County Road 33. He stated he could not support the plat, and unless the plat were significantly changed, he would vote to recommend denial. Commissioner Baker concurred he also would recommend denial until changes were made to the plat. e COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY CONTOUR EXCAVATING FOR PREUMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF BIRCHVIEW, CASE NO. P 02-12, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LOT SIZE FOR LOT 3 DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE. 2. THE CONFIGURATION OF LOT 4 DOES NOT MEET CITY STANDARDS. 3. THERE IS UMITED ACCESS TO LOT 4. 4. THE ADDITIONAL WETLAND MITIGATION WILL FURTHER REDUCE THE SIZE OF LOT 3. 5. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM LAYOUT ON LOT 6 APPEARS TO BE DEFICIENT. CHAIR PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6.3. Request by Daniel O'Bresky for Conditional Use Permit for Subway Restaurant (Elk River Crossing 4th). Public Hearing - Case No. CU 02-24 Chris Leeseberg explained that staff is requesting that this item be tabled a special meeting of the Planning Commission on July 9, 2002 so that the appropriate revisions can be made to the application. e Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 7 e COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY DANIEL O'BRESKY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SUBWAY RESTAURANT, CASE NO. CU 02-24, TO THE JULY 9,2002 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6.4. Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Allow Fitness/Athletic Training Centers as a Conditional Use in the Business Park Zoning District. Public Hearing - Case No. OA 02-03 Staff report presented by Scott Harlicker. Mr. Harlicker explained that the Planning Commission recently reviewed and recommended denial of a request for a gymnastics training facility in the Elk River Industrial Park. The City Council approved the request as an interim use, and also then directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow fitness/ athletic training centers as a conditional use in the Business Park Zoning District. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the proposed language for the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Franz asked how floor area was determined. Mr. Harlicker provided this information from the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission has already recommended denial of the request for a gymnastics facility in the Business Park and he was unclear what the City Council expected of the Commission. e Commissioner Baker stated that the Council supported the Commission's determination that the proposed use did not constitute a vocation, trade or technical school, but they did approve the request as an interim use. Commissioner Baker stated he was not sure what the City Council's intent is in recommending an ordinance amendment. He stated that the Statement of Purpose for the Business Park clearly states the intent is to provide high-paying jobs. Commissioner Baker stated that two previous requests have been granted for the owner of this property to modify the Business Park standards, and now the Commission is being asked to accommodate a business that does not fit. Commissioner Baker asked if Mr. Harlicker knew what the City Council's intent was in directing staff to prepare an ordinance amendment. Mr. Harlicker stated that he felt the City Council is looking for input from the Planning Commission with a recommendation for either approval or denial. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Franz stated that he feels the business proposed by the applicant has special needs and the City Council's intent was to provide space for this unique type of use. He felt that the Commission was in agreement that there is a need for this type of facility in Elk River but that there is no space to accommodate it, and meet the ordinance. Commissioner Jenson felt that since there are builders who are willing to build "to suit", there may be space available, but perhaps not at the price the applicant is willing to pay. e Commissioner Mesich asked City Attorney Charlie Wilson if he felt it was good practice for a city to amend their ordinance to suit a specific business. Mr. Wilson stated that the "worst case scenario" would be make small changes to the ordinance here and there which could Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 8 e lead to the ordinance not fitting together very well. He felt that the positive side would be to identify and address a need that is not otherwise served by the ordinance. Chair Pederson felt the use would be a better fit in the Highway Business zoning district, rather than Light Industrial. Commissioner Anderson stated he cannot support the ordinance amendment because he did not feel the use was appropriate in the Business Park. COmnllssioner Baker stated that the interim use will run for three years, and the applicant is expecting that the ordinance amendment will be approved by that time. Commissioner Baker felt that City Council needs to take a closer look at Statement of Purpose, and that they will see that the use does not fit. Commissioner Franz stated that the Commission previously approved a Montessori School as a conditional use in a Light Industrial zone. He felt that that interpretation was more of a <<stretch>> that an athletic training facility as a conditional use in Light Industrial. He did not feel a Montessori School would generate any more jobs than an athletic facility. Chair Pederson stated that he could not support the ordinance amendment. He did not feel educational facilities fit the purpose of the Business Park. Chair Pederson felt approval of the amendment would open up the Business Park to other uses such as karate or swimming facility. e Commissioner Baker expressed a concern that other business park buildings that would affected by this ordinance amendment. Chair Pederson concurred. Commissioner Jenson felt that the existing businesses in the business park would be significantly impacted by athletic facilities. Chair Pederson -- could an indoor archery range or gun range be allowed as a conditional use by this amendment. Mr. Harlicker referred to the 3rd proposed standard and stated that these types of uses could be accommodated in other zoning districts. Commissioner Mesich felt that standard #3 was arbitrary. He felt that this amendment was being proposed to help one property and one applicant and should not be supported by the Planning Commission. He felt that if the Council did not want the property guided Light Industrial, they would change it to Highway Business. e COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING FITNESS AND TRAINING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT, CASE NO. OA 02-03 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE AMENDMENT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT, PARTICULARLY THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: "IT IS ALSO THE INTENT TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES WHICH GENERATE A HIGH NUMBER OF JOBS PER SQUARE FOOT RATHER THAN PREDOMINATELY WAREHOUSE TYPE USES." Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 9 e 2. THE USE COULD BE ACCOMMODATED ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FEELS THAT THIS REQUEST WAS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A PARTICULAR APPLICANT. 4. THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A PROPERTY ZONED BUSINESS PARK AND GUIDED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Commissioner Franz opposed. 7. Other Business 7.1. Update on June 17.2002 City Council Meeting Commissioner Anderson provided an update on the June 17,2002 City Council meeting. 7.2. Concept Plan by Richard LeFavor e Scott Harlicker reviewed a concept plan by Richard Lefavor to subdivide approximately 79 acres into 3 lots. Mr. Harlicker noted that the applicant would like to obtain feedback from the Commission on the concept, before investing in engineering and design work. The Commission and staff discussed options for changing the access and configuration of the lots. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed concept was probably the best option to accomplish the applicant's desire to split the property and still meet the City's ordinance. 8. Adiournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary e