Loading...
05-24-2005 PC MIN MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005 Members Present: Chair Anderson, Offerman, Ropp, Scott, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: Commissioner Lemke Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior 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 6:53 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 2. Consider 5/24/05 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE MAY 24, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3.1. Consider 4/26/05 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO APPROVE THE APRIL 26, 2005 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3.2. Consider 5/10/05 Planning Commission Workshop Meeting Notes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE MAY 10, 2005 MEETING NOTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend June City Council Meeting Commissioner Offerman will attend the June 20, 2005 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by STM Development to Amend the PUD Agreement for Elk River Crossing, Case No. CU 05-10 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker explained that STM Development is requesting that the Planned Unit Development Agreement for Elk River Crossing be amended to eliminate the freestanding sign and allow wall signs on the north and south elevations for the interior tenants and three wall signs for the end cap tenants. He explained that the current agreement allows one wall sign and a freestanding sign. Mr. Harlicker stated that the request is consistent with the other multi-tenant buildings on Zane Street, and he felt that the signs on the north side of the building would help dress up what is the rear of the building. Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that wall signs are sized and located in the spaces as shown on the building elevations, dated September 27, 2004. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- Commissioner Ropp asked if the reason for the request is visibility. Mr. Harlicker stated yes. Commissioner Stevens asked if the signs would be lighted. Mr. Harlicker stated that the signs would have individually lit letters, not box-style. Chair Anderson asked if the signs would be similar to those on the buildings west of Zane Street. Mr. Harlicker stated yes. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Jay Tutt, 11751 Troy Lane, Maple Grove, representing STM Development (applicant) – Stated that the reason for the request is there was an oversight in their original submission, and that they are asking to do the same type of signage that is on their buildings west of Zane. He stated that the “end cap” tenant spaces are a premium and they would like these tenants to be allowed additional signs for them. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Offerman stated that he is in favor of recommending approval of the request. He stated that he prefers this type of signage to a free standing sign and sees no problems. Chair Anderson asked if the signage request was for the entire building, or just Taco John’s. Mr. Harlicker stated that it is for the entire building. Chair Anderson stated that he would support the request. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESET BY STM DEVELOPMENT TO AMEND THE PUD AGREEMENT FOR ELK RIVER CROSSING TO ALLOW WALL SIGNS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS FOR THE INTERIOR TENANTS, THREE WALL SIGNS FOR THE END CAP TENANTS AND NO FREE STANDING SIGN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1.WALL SIGNS SHALL BE SIZED AND LOCATED IN THE SPACES AS SHOWN ON THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2004. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Request by Zylstra Harley Davidson for Land Use Amendment from Urban Residential to Highway Business, Case No. LU 05-02 5.3. Request by Zylstra Harley Davidson for Zone Change from R1c Single Family Residential to PUD (Planned Unit Development), Case No. ZC 05-02 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker stated Zylstra Harley Davidson is requesting that the land use designation of Outlot A, Hillside Estates 9 Addition be changed from Urban Density th Residential to Highway Business, and that the zoning be changed from Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development. Mr. Harlicker noted that the change in land use and zoning will provide consistency with Outlot B, Hillside Crossing 2. Staff recommends approval of the request. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- Commissioner Offerman asked if the easement issue has been resolved. Mr. Harlicker stated that the issue was part of the platting process and has been taken care of. Commissioner Stevens asked if the stand of trees is part of this property. Mr. Harlicker stated that the trees are part of the 50-foot ‘no cut” buffer zone. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Arthur Jackett, 19435 Dodge Street – Stated he was concerned that residential property is being rezoned to commercial and asked where it would end. He stated that he felt the same thing could happen by Coborns. Mr. Jacket questioned why the residents on Carson Circle were not sent notices of this application. Chad Carlson, 19428 Dodge Street – Stated he shared Mr. Jackett’s concern for commercial zoning “creeping” into the residential neighborhoods. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Chair Anderson asked if residents on Carson Circle should have been notified. Ms. McPherson stated no, that State Statute requires notification of property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. She stated that if Mr. Jackett meant Dodge Circle, they would have received notification. Commissioner Offerman stated that he could understand the residents’ concern that the buffer be maintained, but that this issue was not brought up during the platting of Outlot B. Commissioner Offerman felt the land use change and rezoning at this point were more of a “housekeeping” type issue. He did not feel they should be concerned about the commercial “creeping” further, since there was no where for it to go. Commissioner Stevens stated he concurred with Commissioner Offerman’s comments. Mr. Harlicker noted that the 50-foot buffer of trees extends into the residential lots and ensures its protection. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ZYLSTRA HARLEY DAVIDSON TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF OUTLOT A, HILLSIDE ESTATES 9 ADDITION FROM TH UR (URBAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO HB (HIGHWAY BUSINESS). MOTION CARRIED 6-0. ------------ MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ZYLSTRA HARLEY DAVIDSON TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF OUTLOT A, HILLSIDE ESTATES 9 ADDITION FROM TH R1C (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT). MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- 5.4. Request by Rock Solid Realty for Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, Case No. CU 05-11 Senior Planner Harlicker explained that Rock Solid Realty is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a 9,270 square foot outdoor storage area at 12669 Meadowvale Road. He stated that the outdoor storage will be accessory to an office/warehouse building that the applicant is planning to construct. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the existing site conditions, surrounding land uses, and staff’s recommendations for screening, wetland setback, runoff, water main, and platting of the property. Staff recommends approval of the request with the seven conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Stevens asked if the Commission is reviewing the site plan, or just the outdoor storage component. Ms. McPherson stated that Commission is asked to review the outdoor storage issue. She noted that the use proposed by the applicant is permitted and requires only staff review, and that the City Council will review the plat for the property along with the conditional use permit. Commissioner Stevens asked if staff was able to determine the wetland boundary in order to measure the setback. Mr. Harlicker stated that that there was not yet enough vegetation to determine where the edge of the wetland is. Commissioner Offerman asked for clarification on the screening and fencing. Mr. Harlicker explained, noting that the overall site meets the City’s requirements. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Mr. Ron Touchette, Rock Solid Realty, representative for the applicant – Stated that he had issues with several of the City Engineer’s comments. He stated that the storage area will be more than 20 feet away from the wetland, so there will be no problem meeting the requirement. Mr. Touchette stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to require screening to the west, since there was unscreened outside storage and a bus yard to the west. He stated that it was the applicant’s intent to construct a quality multi-tenant building and that it was important the entire business park look good. He stated that he did not mind screening as long as the same standard was required for the other properties. Mr. Touchette also objected to the requirement for hard surfacing of the outdoor storage area. He stated that equipment such as bobcat attachments and trailers would be stored in this area and would destroy the blacktop. Mr. Touchette stated that this is a $2 million project and they are already at budget and cannot afford to take care of the watermain problem by extending the watermain to the neighboring property, as suggested by the City Engineer. He stated that this should be a cost borne by the City. He stated that this project will take care of a blighted area in the City with private money and that they are not asking for any funds from the City. Regarding the fire hydrant issue, Mr. Touchette stated it was his understanding that the Fire Chief wanted a hydrant east of the building, not the west. He felt that the distance to the nearest hydrant was not unusual for a non-residential area. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens asked where the runoff would go. Mr. Touchette stated that it would go to the detention pond. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- Chair Anderson asked if the project would be fenced on all four sides. Mr. Touchette stated that there will be a boulder wall on the east side on top of a berm that extends up over grade, and a decorative wall along the wetland. Commissioner Stevens asked if any portion of the fence would be opaque. Mr. Touchette stated no, and that the other properties are not fenced. He noted that the berm will prevent vehicles from encroaching onto other areas. Commissioner Offerman stated that he felt Mr. Touchette’s proposal would be a great improvement for the site. He stated that he could appreciate his concerns, but that the Commission could not dismiss the City Engineer’s comments, and he would not be in favor of supporting this request unless the conditions were met. He stated that even though it may not seem necessary to screen the property to the west because of what is there now, that use may not always be there. Commissioner Westgaard stated that the Planning Commission is asked to address the issue of outdoor storage, and that the remaining issues would be addressed by staff, the City Engineer, and the applicant. Ms. McPherson noted that the City Council will be looking at the other issues, as well. Commissioner Stevens stated that he concurred the project will be a great improvement and that he would support recommending approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions as listed. He stated that the City Council will have an opportunity to hear Mr. Touchette’s testimony. Commissioner Stevens stated that he did not feel the conditions were that different from what has been required for the Light Industrial area on Jarvis Street. He stated that he supported Ms. Haug’s recommendations. Chair Anderson stated that he felt was important to pay attention to the wetlands and he also supported Ms. Haug’s comments. He stated that he would definitely support the request for outdoor storage with the recommendations of staff. Commissioner Westgaard questioned if Condition #5 could be tied to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Stevens stated that if the Fire Chief feels it is needed, they should support it. Mr. Harlicker stated that the Fire Chief wanted to be able have a strong water source at the rear of the building to fight a fire. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ROCK SOLID REALTY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED 2.SCREENING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE STORAGE AREA, ADJACENT TO MCCHESNEY INDUSTRIAL PARK. 3.THE STORAGE AREA SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET FROM THE WETLAND. 4.NO RUNOFF FROM THE STORAGE AREA SHALL FLOW INTO THE WETLAND. 5.THE WATER MAIN SHALL BE EXTENDED FROM MEADOWVALE ROAD, THROUGH THE SITE, TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. 6.THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PLATTED. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- 7.THE STORAGE AREA WILL HAVE TO BE AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.5. Request by the City of Elk River for Consideration of Modifications to Public Works Site and a Conditional Use Permit to Construct Salt/Sand and Cold Storage Buildings, CU 05-07 Director of Planning Michele McPherson reviewed the City of Elk River’s request for a conditional use permit to construct salt/sand and cold storage buildings, and modifications to the Public Works site at 19000 Proctor Road. She provided information regarding the existing site conditions, proposed new buildings, parking and circulation, landscaping, and grading, drainage and utilities issues. Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the buildings comply with the applicable building and fire codes. Commissioner Offerman asked if the City Engineer Terry Maurer and Environmental Technician Rebecca Haug have seen the plans. Ms. McPherson stated that they have been involved in the 8-month process to date and the plans comply with the City’s requirements. Ms. McPherson described areas to be screened and landscaped. She noted that there is already extensive landscaping on the site. Commissioner Sevens asked if the fencing would be opaque. Phil Hals, Streets Superintendent, stated no. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Ron Touchette, Rock Solid Realty, 22400 Meadowvale Road – Asked why the conditions for this application were so different from his, since the trades are similar. Chair Anderson stated that Mr. Touchette’s request was for outdoor storage. The application before the Commission was for two buildings. He stated that the buildings will be required to meet all Building and Fire Codes. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Offerman stated that he felt the fencing should be opaque to screen the northerly area from the Industrial Park. Chair Anderson stated that there is a walking trail in this area. Ms. McPherson explained that the trail will be removed to discourage walkers from crossing County Road 1 at an unsignalized point, and the trail along the main entry road will be maintained so that people will leave Oak Knoll Park, go to the signalized intersection at Proctor and County Road 1 to cross and pick up the trail on the northeasterly side of County Road 1. The fence will be installed somewhere in the vicinity of the existing trail. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he felt the City should be required to provide opaque screening for its outdoor storage, since the same is required of other applicants. Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification of the retention ponds. Ms. McPherson explained the location of an existing remnant of a wetland/ditch. She stated that the Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel has granted the City approval to eliminate the ditch, but instead they will expand it and build a detention pond that will collect any salt-laden runoff from the newly expanded asphalt area. Commissioner Westgaard asked if a 20-foot setback would be maintained from the wetlands. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- Commissioner Stevens asked what new areas will be blacktopped. Ms. McPherson explained how the expansion would occur. She noted that this is the reason additional ponding is needed to cleanse the runoff and control its rate from the new asphalt area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SALT/SAND AND COLD STORAGE BUILDINGS AND APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC WORKS SITE, CASE NO. CU 05-07 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1.THE BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. 2.ALL OUTDOOR STORAGE ARES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AS REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.6. Request by City of Elk River for Zone Changes of Multiple Parcels, Case No. ZC 05-01 Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that the Planning Commission is asked to consider rezoning nine parcels within the City of Elk River in order to achieve consistency between the adopted Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. She noted that parcels within the Commercial Reserve and Old Town land use area are not included, since each of these areas requires new official controls to be drafted prior to changes in the Zoning Map. Ms. McPherson reviewed the existing and proposed zoning for each of the nine parcels. Staff recommends approval of the zone changes based on the three findings listed in the staff report. Commissioner Westgaard asked if these parcels are being recommended for rezoning based on the Commission’s discussions in August 2004. Ms. McPherson stated yes. She explained that they have been approved in concept by adoption of the Land Use Map, and staff has carefully looked at each area to see which parcels are appropriate to rezone. Commissioner Stevens stated that he was in favor of keeping the R3 zoning for Parcel No. 6, since this parcel serves a buffer from the Light Industrial. Also, he felt that Parcel No. 8 should remain C4 Community Commercial. Ms. McPherson stated that this would require a Land Use Map amendment back to Commercial, since the land use has already been adopted. She stated that part of this parcel is zoned High Density Residential and could possibly be split into two zoning districts. She noted that in regards to Parcel No. 6, the City requires buffering and screening to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties. Commissioner Offerman asked if there would be any adverse impacts on any of the property owners by these rezonings; for instance, in refinancing. Ms. McPherson noted that is most case there would be a long-term benefit, since they would be “up-zoning” the property and increasing its value. She stated that there would be two areas in question. Parcel No. 6, since it is an existing single family home would become nonconforming by rezoning it to Light Industrial. Also, Parcel No. 5, which are existing single family homes on the west side of Proctor Avenue. She noted that she is aware there are property owners there who are biding their time and waiting for a redevelopment project. She stated that with the recent Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- passage of changes to the nonconforming legislation, there is not as great an impact on property owners when property is rezoned. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGES FOR THE PARCELS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PARCEL NO. 6 AND PARCEL NO. 8, AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED MAY 24, 2005, CASE NO. ZC 05-01, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1.THE ZONE CHANGE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE MAP. 2.THE ZONE CHANGE WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT ADJACENT PARCELS. 3.THE ZONE CHANGES PROMOTE THE VISION STATED WITHIN THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.7. Request by City of Elk River for an Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-01 “Definitions” and Section 30-795 “Yard Regulations”, Case No. OA 05-08 Director of Planning Michele McPherson reviewed the proposed amendment to Section 30- 01 “Definitions” and Section 30-795 “Yard Regulations”. She explained the existing and proposed language for both amendments. Staff recommends approval of the revised ordinance language as presented in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 24, 2005. Commissioner Scott asked if the setback is measured at the wall of a structure or the roof line. Ms. McPherson stated that measurements are from the building line, which is the foundation. Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification on retaining walls between homes. Ms. McPherson stated that retaining walls are allowed in the setback, but not in the easement. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he is aware of instances where homeowners have gone together to put one continuous retaining wall between two homes. Ms. McPherson stated that they try to catch these types of issues as building permits come in, but that no permit is required for retaining walls. Mr. Harlicker stated that an approved grading and drainage plan is required prior to issuance of building permits, and that if a retaining wall is shown on the plans, staff makes the builder/owner aware that retaining walls cannot be built in the easement. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he felt this issue would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Harlicker stated that if the drainage is altered and problems arise due to the retaining wall, a homeowner could be required to remove it. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 30-01 “DEFINITIONS” AND SECTION 30-795 “YARD REGULATIONS” AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED MAY 24, 2005, CASE NO. OA 05-08. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on May 16, 2005 City Council Meeting Commissioner Ropp provided an update on the May 16, 2005 City Council meeting. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary