Loading...
01-25-2005 PC MIN . . . MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2005 Members Present: Chair Ropp, Commissioners Lemke, Offerman, Scott, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: Commissioner Anderson Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; John Anderson, Assistant 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 Ropp. 2. Consider 1/25/05 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 25,2005 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Consider 12/28/04 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend February City Council Meeting Staff will contact Commissioner Anderson regarding his attendance at the Tuesday, February 22, 2005 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by Angie Westermeyer for Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (Hair Salon). Public Hearing - Case No. CU 04-41 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker stated that Angie Westermeyer requests a conditional use permit to allow a hair salon in her home at 13808 213m Avenue NW. He reviewed the existing site conditions, location of the salon area, hours of operation, and parking. He noted that the main issue is the potential impact of styling chemicals on the shared septic system. Mr. Harlicker reviewed a letter from Bogart, Pederson & Associates, recommending that a separate holding tank be installed with direct connections utilized exclusively by the hair salon operation. The tank would not be connected to the shared drain field and would need to be pumped on a regular basis. Commissioner Stevens asked if the lot was large enough to accommodate a second holding tank. Mr. Harlicker stated that a condition of approval is that all building code requirements . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 2 must be met, which includes proper separation distances, or the home occupation will not be allowed. Commissioner Offerman asked if each homeowner on the shared system has a separate holding tank. Mr. Harlicker stated yes, and that a second holding tank for this residence would be required. Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. Angie Westenneyer, applicant - Stated her reasons for the request. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ANGIE WESTERMEYER FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 04-41, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF JON BOGART, BOGART, PEDERSON & ASSOCIATES, ON BEHALF OF THE WINDSOR PARK THIRD HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, SHALL BE COMPLETED, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING A SEPARATE HOLDING TANK. 2. THE SALON SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL MEET ALL STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. 4. IF ADDITIONAL WORK STATIONS OR EQUIPMENT ARE TO BE ADDED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 5. THERE SHALL BE NO PARKING FOR THE BUSINESS ALLOWED ON THE STREET. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Request by St. Andrew's Church for a Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of Existing Facility. Public Hearing - Case No. CD 04-38 Mr. Harlicker reviewed the request by St. Andrew's Church to construct an 18,175 square foot addition to their existing facility at 566 4th Street. The addition will include a new cafeterialkitchen, gynmasium, office and storage space. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the site plan, parking, access and traffic issues, building elevations, and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that all comments of the City Engineer will be addressed. Commissioner Westgaard ask for clarification on the City Engineer's recommendation for truck traffic routing, and the impact of road restrictions. Assistant City Engineer John Anderson stated that the trucks would be required to observe the road restrictions. Director of Planning Michele McPherson explained that Mr. Maurer recommended the route because 1) it was shortest distance from the site to Highway 169; and 2) it minimizes the impact on adjacent residential neighborhoods. She noted that trucks will still be able to use the roads when the restrictions are in place; they will just have to have smaller loads and make more tnps. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 3 Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. Thomas Kaempffer, representing St. Andrew's Church - Introduced Linda Michie, Project Architect of GL T Architects. Ms. Mitchie noted a correction to the enhanced entrance to the south, and that the gym wall will be of precast concrete, not brick. Ms. Michie stated that construction is scheduled to begin in May when road restrictions will be off. Mr. Kaempffer asked if trucks would be able to go south to Main Street and then west on Highway 10 to the Big Lake demolition landfill. Ms. McPherson stated she saw no reason why not, but that she would check with Mr. Maurer. Commissioner Westgaard asked if only the trucks hauling demolition debris would be required to follow the route recommended by the City Engineer. Mr. Harlicker stated that all demolition and construction truck traffic is included. Commissioner Stevens asked how the exterior of the gym wall would be fInished. Ms. Michie stated that part of the wall would be smooth and then textured. She noted that the church would eventually expand in that area. Commissioner Offerman asked for clarification on the correction she noted previously. Ms. Michie explained where the new brick would end and a color-coordinated aggregate would used on the exterior gym wall. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO RECOMMENT APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THEIR EXISTING FACILITY, 1. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2. THAT THE ROUTING OF DEMOLITION /CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC BE CLARIFIED WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.4. Request by City of Elk River for Conditional Use Permit to Construct Municipal Liquor Store. Public Hearing - Case No. CD 04-40 Ms. McPherson presented the City's request to construct a municipal liquor store on Lot 3, Block 1, Fox Haven Commercial, located in the northwest comer of Highway 10 and Joplin Street. She reviewed the layout of the site, access, location of loading docks, signage, building materials and elevations, landscaping and lighting. Staff recommends approval of the request. Ms. McPherson introduced Don Pellinea of Tushie Montgomery, architect for the project, and Liquor Store Manager David Potvin. Commissioner Lemke asked why the trees in the Highway 10 right-of-way would be removed. Ms. McPherson stated that the trees were an undesirable species and would block the visibility of the site. She noted they would be replaced with better trees. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 4 Chair Ropp asked how the remainder of the commercial area would be developed. Ms. McPherson stated that the property is zoned C4 which allows only a limited number of uses such as a small strip mall, hair salon, dty cleaning, etc. Chair Ropp asked for clarification on the screening behind building. Ms. McPherson stated that the proposed berm and trees would help to screen the site from the Guardian Angels facility and the single family homes. She noted that the existing mature trees on the single family lots were nearing the end of their useful life and losing their effectiveness for screening. Commissioner Offerman asked if the rear of the building met the City's material standards in regards to materials and breaks in the facade. Ms. McPherson stated that the C4 District requires that 25 percent of certain building materials be used. She noted that there are no requirements for breaks in the fas;ade, but that the building will be adjacent to another commercial use. Commissioner Offerman felt it would be desirable to aesthetically break up the rear of the building, similar to the Business Park requirement. Ms. McPherson stated that the standards are similar to Elk River Crossing, not a business park use. She suggested that they may be able to work some detail into the comers so that the building does not appear to be so long. Commissioner Offerman stated that he would support that change and would like further detail if possible. Commissioner Scott asked why a single driveway is proposed. Ms. McPherson stated that staff felt one driveway would be enough until the other sites developed, at which time a "mini frontage road" could be incorporated so there would be less conflicting movements onto Joplin. She noted that the driveway would be large enough to accommodate boats and trailers. Commissioner Stevens stated that if the other two lots did not develop, they could end up with only one driveway. Ms. McPherson explained that originally the City owned the middle lot and that they "swapped" lots with the property owner, so that he now owns both remaining lots. She stated that he intends to market the lots and it is likely that the two lots will be developed as one site. Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. Craig Lupien, 18585 Lander Street - Stated that he felt this was a great location for the store. He had a concern that Joplin was very narrow in this location. He asked what the height of the trees would be which would be used to screen the loading docks. Assistant City Engineer John Anderson stated that the loading docks would be 4 feet lower than the sidewalk. Ms. McPherson stated that the 8-foot balled and burlapped spruce trees would be densely planted on the berm. Mr. Lupien asked for clarification on the traffic flow to and from the site. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt the traffic would have a minimal impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Commissioner Stevens questioned if the width of Joplin could handle the traffic. Ms. McPherson provided background information regarding the old Highway 10 right-of-way. She stated that narrow street widths tend to provide some "traffic calming", but that the area has development potential and 185m Avenue could be re constructed at that time. There being no further public comment, Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 5 REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AMUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE, CASE NO. CU 04- 40, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. THE DESIGN FEATURES ON THE WEST ELEVATION BE REVISED TO BE SIMIlAR TO THE REMAINING ELEVATIONS. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.5. Request by Toel Larson for Land Use Map Amendment to Change Land Use from LR Low Density Residential to MR Medium Density Residential. Public Hearing - Case No. LU 04- 06 5.6. Request by Joel Larson for Rezoning from R1a Single Family Residential to R3 Townhouse/Multiple Family Residential. Public Hearing - Case No. ZC 04-11 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker explained that the applicant is proposing to develop a 6.4 acre parcel into 32 townhomes. This will require a Land Use Plan amendment to include the parcel in the Urban Service Area, a rezoning from R1a to R3, and eventually preliminary/final plat (at a later date). Mr. Harlicker reviewed the existing conditions and history of a previous request to include this site in the Urban Service Area. Mr. Harlicker discussed the issue of timing and whether or not additional lots south of 175m Avenue should be included as well. He also discussed the issue of zoning the property to R4 since the land use designation is High Density Residential. Commissioner Stevens stated that the Commission discussed at their worksession, placing the entire 80 acres in the Urban Service Area. Ms. McPherson suggested that the Commission make a separate motion to the Council, if that was their recommendation. Commissioner Westgaard asked why the request was denied previously. Mr. Harlicker explained that at that time both the land use and the zoning were designated low density, and the surrounding property owners were against it. The zoning has since be changed to High Density Residential through the updated Comprehensive Plan. Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. Joel Larson, applicant - Stated he was present to answer questions from the Commission. There being no public comment, Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. Commissioner Scott stated that he had no issue with the request, but questioned many other requests they will receive for 5 - 10 acre parcels to be included in the Urban Service Area. Commissioner Westgaard stated he shared the same concern, and it seemed as though this small "chunk" had been left out. Commissioner Lemke concurred. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission needs to act on this request for the single parcel. Commissioner Stevens stated that it makes sense to include the adjacent parcels, given the close proximity to the transit/commuter rail station site, however he had concerns regarding the amount of wetland in this area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY JOEL lARSON TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PROPERTY AS . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 6 DESCRIBED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, CASE NO. LU 04-06. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY JOEL LARSON FORA REZONING FROM RlA TO R3, CASE NO. ZC 04-11, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD ALLOW FORA TRANSITION FROM POTENTIAL HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE WEST TO THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST AND NORTH. 2. GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST, THE R3 DENSITY, WHICH ALLOWS ONLY UP TO S UNITS PER ACRE, IS MORE APPROPRIATE. 3. DEVELOPMENT AT R3 DENSITY WOULD ACT AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND FUTURE HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER INCLUDING THE REMAINING ADJACENT PARCELS IN THIS SO-ACRE TRACT LOCATED SOUTH OF 1751HAVENUE, IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.7. Request by William Matthews for Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair Facility. Public Hearing - Case No. CD 04-42 Ms. McPherson presented the staff report by Planner Chris Leeseberg for a request by William Matthews to operate an auto sales business at 950 Highway 10 (Martin Plaza property). She noted that sales will specialize in late model, low mileage used cars and classic cars of the 50's through the 70's. Ms. McPherson explained that the site will primarily be used as a retail meeting space to sell autos and most of the vehicles will be stored off site. A limited number of late model used vehicles will be displayed on the site, not to exceed more 10 vehicles at one time. She reviewed the site plan, parking, number of employees (1), hours of operation and signage. Staff recommends approval of the request with the five conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Stevens asked if any cars would be on the site overnight. Ms. McPherson stated that the late model vehicles would be displayed on the site until they were sold, and the classic cars would be stored in an off site indoor storage facility and transported to the lot by appointment only. Commissioner Offerman asked what types of uses are at the site now. Ms. McPherson stated that the site has a mixture of small retail, office and personal service establishments and that this would be a new use. Commissioner Stevens stated that he has observed vehicles parked there overnight. Ms. McPherson stated that staff will inspect the site for possible code violation. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 7 Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. William Matthews, applicant - Stated that he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Offerman asked if five spaces were required for the business. Ms. McPherson stated that a minirmun of five spaces were required, in addition to the parking area for the displayed vehicles. Commissioner Stevens asked if the applicant planned to park vehicles overnight. Mr. Matthews stated that he would not park the classic cars overnight but that the newer low mileage vehicles would be parked overnight and will be marked for sale. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens asked where Mr. Matthew currently operates his business. Mr. Matthews stated that he currently does not have a site, and that he is required to obtain a state license to sell five or more vehicles per year. Commissioner Scott asked if the site had adequate lighting. Ms. McPherson stated that it would be up to the applicant to determine if the lighting was adequate. She noted that the location is fairly well lit by the Highway 10 lighting, and that if he had concerns, it would be up to the property owner to provide additional lighting. Commissioner Stevens asked if the City could require upgrading of this site. Ms. McPherson stated that such a requirement would be beyond the scope of this request; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY WILLIAM MATTHEWS FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO REPAIR FAQLITY, CASE NO. CU 04-42, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. NO MORE THAN TEN (10) RETAIL AUTOMOBILES SHALL BE ON SITE. 2. IF MORE THAN TEN (10) RETAIL AUTOMOBILES ARE TO BE ON SITE, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FORAN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 3. THE DISPLAY AREA FOR TEN (10) RETAIL CARS SHALL BE CLEARLY DESIGNATED IN THE LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED SITE SKETCH. 4. IF THE DISPLAY AREA IS TO BE RELOCATED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FORAN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 5. THE DISPLAY AREA SHALL MAINTAIN A 10-FooT SETBACK FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.8. Request by Commonweal Development for Preliminary Plat Approval (Carson Business Park). Public Hearing - Case No. P 04-11 . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 8 Senior Planner Scott HarIicker presented the staff report. Commonweal Development requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide 10.59 acres located at the southwest comer of Main Street and Highway 169 into 5 lots and 1 outlot. He reviewed the existing site conditions, billboard location, layout of the proposed plat, lot line adjustment with Great River Energy, street layout and access issues, and traffic impacts. Mr. HarIicker discussed the transportation issues as outlined in the City Engineer's memo dated January 19, 2005. Assistant City Engineer John Anderson discussed issues regarding the close proximity of the entrance! exit for the plat to the Highway 169 intersection and concerns with the left turn lane on Main Street. Mr. Anderson reviewed the Level of Service (LOS) for the various turning movements at the intersection. He stated that 2 of the 3 movements at the Carson/Main Street Intersection were at LOS F, the lowest level, which is typically not acceptable. As indicated in the City Engineer's memo, his recommendation is that platting of this property have a condition on it that the uses and! or mixes of commercial development results in a LOS D in the worst case scenario for all movements in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour at the intersection of Main Street and Carson Avenue. He concluded by stating that knowing upfront that an intersection is not going work is not a good basis for approval. Commissioner Stevens asked if a right-in, right-out from Main Street would work. Mr. Anderson stated that it would greatly improve the movements for this site, but that it would negatively impact other sites in the area. Commissioner Offerman asked if there would be business park uses on the site. Mr. HarIicker explained that the Carson Business Park is only a name and that the site is zoned Highway Business. Discussion followed regarding the left turn lane for Highway 169 on eastbound Main Street. Commissioner Lemke asked for clarification on turning movements with the LOS F designation in the traffic study. Ms. McPherson explained the movements were: 1) coming from the site and making a left turn onto Main Street; 2) coming from the site and going straight across Main Street on Carson Street (Burger Time!SuperAmerica location); and 3) the reverse of this - coming from Carson Street (Burger Time/SuperAmerica location) to access the site. Further discussion followed regarding the traffic movements. Chair Ropp questioned whether or not the length of the cul-de-sac met the City's requirements. Mr. HarIicker stated that the ordinance does not restrict longer cul-de-sacs in cases such as this. Commissioner Stevens asked about staff's recommendation. Mr. HarIicker stated that the Commission needs to determine if they are comfortable with the traffic issues. He noted that if the Commission were to recommend approval, he suggested the following conditions be added: . A wetland mitigation plan be approved prior to final plat. . Park dedication in the form of cash be paid prior to recording the final plat. . The subdivision exemption for the lot line adjustment with the adjoining property be recorded prior to final plat. . Great River Energy's signature is required on the subdivision exemption. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2005 Page 9 Commissioner Lemke asked what staff's recommendation would be. Mr. Harlicker stated that the plat meets the Gty's subdivision requirements, but they need to look at the amount of traffic that will be generated. He noted that the City Engineer did not recommend approval unless the Level of Service at the noted intersections could be reduced below an LOS of D. Mr. Harlicker stated that the property is zoned for Highway Commercial use, and that permitted uses do not require Gty Council approval, and would be reviewed administratively. He noted that it would be difficult to assess and control traffic impacts. Commissioner Lemke questioned why a decision was required from the Commission; given the fact that staff was uncomfortable with the traffic issues and potential congestion. Mr. Harlicker stated that from a technical standpoint, the plat meets the Gty's requirements, and that the issue is "how can we prevent a LOS F from occurring?" Stewart Schaeffer, representing Commonweal Development - Explained how the LOS was impacted by construction of the left turn lane on westbound Main Street. Mr. Schaeffer stated that this comer is an exceptional site for commercial use and warrants development. He stated that they are willing to develop the site responsibly and they realize that traffic is a big issue. He explained that the traffic study was done drawing very general conclusions, and that there may be things that could be changed to improve the traffic issues. Mr. Schaeffer stated that the only real issues are the left turn movements during peak hours. He stated that it is difficult to get commitments from potential tenants until city approvals have been secured, therefore, making it difficult to know what types of uses will be located there. He stated that they are willing to avoid uses such as fast food, gas stations/convenience stores because of the amount of traffic these uses generate. He did not feel that they should be expected to absorb all of the traffic density for this area and that the problems are not entirely caused by them. Mr. Schaeffer stated that the traffic will continue to increase and the Level of Service will deteriorate whether or not this site is developed. Mr. Schaeffer discussed issues regarding Great River Energy, the wetlands, and access issues. He asked that the Commission not to restrict development of the property and felt that the traffic issues could be dealt with. He felt that it was onerous to place the traffic problems for this area solely on them. Commissioner Stevens asked if the developer was willing to scale back the types of uses to lessen the traffic impacts. Mr. Schaeffer stated that they would like to include a pharmacy and felt that this type of use has more of a steady flow. He noted that general retail also has a flatter flow with less "peak hour" traffic. Mr. Schaeffer noted that they are also considering a national retail "drive-up" coffee type of business. Mark Urista, Coldwell Banker - Asked what the two outlots would be used for. Mr. Harlicker stated that one is non-buildable and the other would be used for storm water ponding. Ms. McPherson noted that the remainder of the piece on the north side could be used as green space, unless there were some type of agreement of the property owners to expand the parking lot. There being no further public comment, Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. Chair Ropp stated that he agreed with the property owner that it makes sense to develop the property for commercial use. He felt it would be difficult to make sure that at LOS of D or better was maintained. He stated that he was not prepared to vote against the request solely on the basis of the traffic study. . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Offerman stated that he felt Commonweal was an outstanding developer. He agreed that the traffic conditions were not caused by this development, but that changes and improvements need to be made. Commissioner Offerman stated that right of way for the future interchange needs to be preserved. He stated he supported denial based on transportation issues and inadequate infrastructure to support the development. Commissioner Stevens stated that he supported the concept and shared the developer's frustration to develop the site. He suggested the possibility of purchasing properties to the west to provide access for the development, to move the access further away from the Highway 169 intersection. Commissioner Offerman stated that a right-in, right-out would affect other businesses, and that he did not see a "quick fix" for the traffic problems. Commissioner Scott stated that he concurred with Commissioners Stevens and Offerman, but that he also believes in property owner rights and did not feel good about a recommendation for denial. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY COMMONWEAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CARSON BUSINESS PARK, CASE NO. P 04-11, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS 2. INADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on 1/18/05 City Council Meeting Commissioner Scott provided an update on the January 18, 2005 City Council meetIng. 8. Adiournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, IJ~~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary