Loading...
07-26-2005 PC MIN MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005 Members Present: Chair Anderson, Lemke, Offerman, Ropp, Scott, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: None Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Peter Beck, City Attorney; 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 6:49 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 2. Consider 7/26/05 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE JULY 26, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITION: ADD ITEM 5.9. – REQUEST BY CITY OF ELK RIVER TO REZONE PARCEL #6 FROM LI TO R4; AND TO REZONE PARCEL #8 FROM R4 TO C4, CASE NO. ZC 05-01. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3.1. Consider 6/28/05 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE JUNE 28, 2005 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3.2. Consider 7/12/05 Planning Commission Workshop Meeting Notes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE JULY 12, 2005 MEETING NOTES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend August City Council Meeting Commissioner Scott will attend the August 15, 2005 City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- 5.1. Request by L & M Development for Land Use Amendment from OS (Open Space) to UR (Urban Residential), Public Hearing –Case No. LU 05-04 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker introduced the request by L & M Development to amend the Land Use Map for the existing Pinewood Golf Course from Open Space to Urban Residential. He reviewed the location of the property and surrounding land uses. He noted that as part of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 2004, the land use designation of the parcel was changed from MR (Medium Density Residential) to OS (Open Space), to reflect the current use of the property as a golf course. Mr. Harlicker stated that the proposed UR (Urban Residential) designation would be consistent with the current R1c (Single Family Residential) zoning and the proposed plat. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Andrew Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Opposed. He stated that there are restrictive covenants recorded at Sherburne County which prohibit the applicant from developing the golf course into residential housing. He noted that the document states the minimum lot size is 18,000 square feet. Mr. Brown stated that the homeowners collectively plan to pay a retainer for a lawyer to fight the landowner. He requested that the City take over the property as a municipal golf course. He objected to the proposed land use change. Mr. Brown stated that the property was developed as a community golf course and should remain so. He stated that Mr. Krause made a profit on the golf course and now is walking away. He stated the residents feel that is unfair and that they will be greatly impacted by the proposed development. Barb Carlson, local resident – Opposed. She stated she is an active senior citizen and served on the Operation Elk River Board. She stated she represents the children that play golf on the Par 3 course, as well as the senior citizens. There are three senior citizen leagues that utilize the course, and many children and seniors are not capable of playing on a Par 5 course. She suggested that the City purchase the course and turn it over to the Parks Commission to run it. Judy Thompson, 14122 182 Avenue – Opposed to the land use change, and that she nd works for a park district that has several golf courses. She felt the Pinewood golf course is a great place for kids to learn how to play golf. Phil DeRosier, 18298 Yankton Street – Opposed. He stated he opposes the land use change, and that the School District uses the golf course extensively. He felt the course was perfect for children and seniors. Bob Saxon, 18044 Union Street – Opposed. He feels Pinewood is a classic community golf course, and is a good starter course for children to learn to play. Brenda Shirley, 14061 182 Avenue – Opposed the land use change. nd Ron Stricker, 14176 182 Avenue – Opposed. nd Dave Bleyhl, 540 8 Avenue – Coaches kids golf. Stated the course opens earlier in the th day than other courses, making it more available to them. Opposed to the land use change and would like to see the course left as it is. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- Maurice Kallman, 14198 182 Avenue – Opposed. Feels the proposed project is not nd compatible with what is there, and it would be like a bad jigsaw puzzle where the pieces didn’t fit together. Bruce Anderson, 18261 Yankton Street – Opposed. Wanted to clarify that the Phase 2 referred to in Article #11 of the covenants is not this proposal. The Phase 2 referenced purchase of additional land for homes and expansion of the golf course. Mr. Anderson stated that he spoke with Bill Maertz of the City’s Parks & Recreation Department, and was told that if the City “picked up” the golf course, that he would be able to identify how many rounds of golf need to be played to turn a profit. Larry Stevens, 14209 182 Avenue – Opposed. nd Ronald Cloud, 14229 182 Avenue – Opposed. nd Sue Cruise, 14145 182 Avenue – Resident of Pinewood for 17 years. People come to visit nd from all over the country, and all enjoy playing the course. Residents also enjoy watching seniors and children play. They welcome the buses of kids coming to the course. She felt the City should consider buying the course and keeping it as it is. Tasha Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Stated she did not golf before living here, but she does a lot now. She felt the course is a great place for friends and family to connect, and the people who play there are full of energy and good spirits. Harry Marohn, 14079 182 Avenue – Opposed. He has two children that play golf. nd Stated he read that a YMCA is coming and did not feel it was needed, since the community already has a Boys and Girls Club which is struggling. Felt the money would be better invested in a municipal golf course. Steve Nyquist, 18826 146 Street – Does not live on the golf course, but he and his son th have been members the past four years. Felt the course was a good place for a father/son game of golf. He has been impressed with the number of junior and senior high kids utilizing the course and learning the courtesies of the game. He works with young people in an Elk River youth program and their chief complaint is there is nothing to do here. He is opposed to the land use change. Al Viseth, 18238 Yankton Street – Opposed. Cheryl Isham, 14243 182 Avenue – Opposed. The golf course was reason they chose to nd move to Elk River. Felt it was important for the kids in the community to keep the golf course. Judy and Randy During, 14146 182 Avenue – Opposed. Felt it was a people-friendly nd recreational resource. Nancy Viseth, 18238 Yankton Street – Opposed. Stated she was told the golf course was taken over by the Girl Scouts and, that she was a member and was not allowed to play. Martha DeRosier , 18278 Yankton Street - Opposed. Stated that Pinewood Addition is a quiet neighborhood and that she enjoyed seeing the children and seniors playing golf. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- Mark Hewling, 14099 182 Avenue – Opposed. Felt it was a great community and he nd enjoys getting out on the course and meeting his neighbors. Don Heinzman, 13934 Riverview Drive – Opposed. Stated he realized it is the Planning Commission’s job to follow the City’s ordinances, and that they should not only take land development into consideration, but also human development. He stated that at full build- out, the Comprehensive Plan states there will be 35,000 – 40,000 residents in Elk River and that one golf course is not enough to serve them. David Palmer, 14189 182 Avenue – Opposed. He moved here from downtown Boston, nd Massachusetts and was impressed by the sense of community among the residents. Beverly Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Opposed. She stated that the City and its residents need to be responsible and show good stewardship of the land. John Kraljic, 14121 182 Avenue – Submitted letter of opposition. Reasons included nd preserving open space, recreation and relaxation opportunity, slowdown in housing market, lack of benefit to the community by developing the course into homes. He stated that the City’s Comprehensive Plan provides reasons for denial of the request. Linda Moll, 18280 Yankton Street – Opposed. Felt that golf course promotes community and family. Jan Anderson, 18261 Yankton Street – Opposed. Stated she used to work at the golf club and babysat for a number of the residents. She stated that the neighborhood kids are out on the golf course, not indoors watching videos and playing video games. There being no further public comment, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification as to why the land use was changed in 2004 from Medium Density Residential to Open Space. Mr. Harlicker stated that the change was made to reflect the current use of the property. Commissioner Stevens stated that the zoning is still R1c, Single Family Residential, and that the land use amendment would provide consistency with the zoning. Commissioner Offerman thanked the residents for their comments and appreciated that they were well-organized. He stated that although the City does not enforce covenants, he felt they had a very good chance of winning their case civilly, to enforce them. He stated he would like to discuss the issue at the Planning Commission’s August workshop to discuss options for the property. He stated that he was not ready to either approve or deny the application at this time. Commissioner Stevens stated that he felt the land use request was an issue of consistency with the zoning and could be acted upon. Chair Anderson re-opened the public hearing to allow a comment. Andrew Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Stated that Mayor Klinzing indicated she was disappointed that the property owner did not approach the City to discuss taking over the golf course. Mr. Brown stated that he has received supportive emails from two other Council Members. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ropp stated he found it troubling that they were already considering an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which was recently adopted. Also, he felt the golf course was an amenity to the City and he needed to know more about potential uses for the property. He concurred with Commissioner Offerman to table the issues. Commissioner Scott concurred with Commissioners Offerman and Ropp. He felt there were significant questions to be answered, and that he would like to explore the issue further. Commissioner Lemke stated he was in favor of approving the land use amendment. He stated that it was his understanding that the Comprehensive Plan was not a document that could not be changed, once it was adopted. He stated that if another business wanted to close and redevelop the property for another use, the City could not tell then they couldn’t do it, if they met the ordinance. He stated that it appears this project meets all the requirements of the ordinance. However, he stated that he would also be in favor of tabling the request to discuss the issues further. Chair Anderson stated that he would have preferred to discuss the proposal in a workshop meeting first, but that a developer is not required to request a concept discussion. He stated that the golf course operation is a business and that the City cannot dictate whether or not they can sell their property. He felt the Commission needs to act on the issues by either denying or approving the requests. The Commission is here to look at whether or not the application meets the City’s ordinances, and that the land use amendment simply brings the property into compliance with the zoning. Chair Anderson stated that the Commission does not have the option to say whether or not the City should purchase the golf course. He asked City Attorney Peter Beck if the issues could be tabled. City Attorney Peter Beck stated that the Commission could table the requests, and if necessary, extend the time to act by an additional 60 days. Commissioner Lemke asked if the applicant was present to ask if they were willing to have the items tabled. Mr. Beck stated that the Commission does not need the applicant’s permission to extend the 60-day time frame. Director of Planning McPherson stated that if the Commission wished to table the items to the August 9, 2005 workshop, a special meeting would need to be called, and that an extension would be necessary only if the Commission did not act upon the issues until the next regular (August) Planning Commission meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY L & M BY L & M DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OS (OPEN SPACE) TO UR (URBAN RESIDENTIAL), CASE NO. LU 05- 04 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1.THE PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. 2.CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED TO WARRANT A CHANGE IN THE USE; IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO CONTINUE TO USE THE LAND AS A PRIVATE GOLF COURSE. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- 3.THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY. 4.THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. MOTION FAILED 4-3. Commissioners Scott, Offerman, Ropp and Westgaard opposed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY L & M DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OS (OPEN SPACE) TO UR (URBAN RESIDENTIAL), CASE NO. LU 05-04 TO THE AUGUST 9, 2005 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5-2. Chair Anderson and Commissioner Stevens opposed. 5.2. Request by L & M Development for Preliminary Plat (Pinewood Estates Second Addition), Public Hearing – Case No. P 05-13 Senior Planner Harlicker reviewed the request by L & M Development to plat the 27-acre golf course site into 54 single family lots. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the layout of the lots and streets, Parks & Recreation Commission recommendations, and landscaping requirements. He noted that although all the lots meet the 11,000 square foot lot size minimum, but that Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1 do not meet the minimum lot depth requirement. Staff recommends that the plat be modified to eliminate these lots. Mr. Harlicker also noted that Sherburne County will not allow an access for Lot 22, Block 3 onto County Road 30; therefore, staff recommends that it be left as an outlot. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification on the letter from the County Public Works regarding access to Lots 25 and 26, Block 2 being denied. Mr. Harlicker explained that the plat reviewed by them has since been revised and the lot in question regarding access is Lot 22, Block 3. Commissioner Westgaard asked how the side versus the rear setback is determined for Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1. Mr. Harlicker explained staff’s interpretation, noting that the developer has a different interpretation. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Andrew Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Opposed the plat. He asked if there was adequate turn around space. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated yes, that the streets meet the City’s requirements. Mr. Brown stated that Elk River is not Los Angeles and he did not see the need for the excessive housing density. He stated that the City should not allow the additional 100 feet of cul-de-sac being proposed, or the lot frontage to be less than 80 feet. He felt the developer should be held accountable for desecrating the site and he would only “take the money and run”. Mr. Brown discussed the burden which would be placed on the residents of Pinewood Addition by water and sewer assessments. He stated that the residents are only on their third year of paying assessments for a street overlay and the developer would be tearing up the streets. Mr. Brown discussed impacts of the additional traffic, vacancy rate of new homes, and the need to preserve open space. Mr. Brown concluded by stating that the Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- residents of Pinewood have a nice community and they don’t want to see it spoiled, and they will take their case to the civil level. Barb Carlson, Elk River resident – Opposed to the plat. Stated that the City needs to follow the Planning Departments Mission Statement – “the orderly development of a livable and sustainable Elk River community.” Judy Thompson, 14122 182 Avenue - Opposed. She asked that the Commission nd consider requiring lot sizes similar to Pinewood 1 Addition and also had concerns with st traffic. Stated that the information regarding the septic systems was incorrect and that the oldest system in the development was perhaps 15 years old. She asked if the residents would be able to keep their wells for watering their lawns, if sewer and water were extended to their development. Ms. Thompson stated she was concerned about maintenance of the open space. Ron Gordau, 181168 155 Street – Asked if the developer was aware that County Road 30 th is scheduled for redevelopment in 2009 and is intended to serve as a major east-west corridor. He stated he had a letter from the Sherburne County Public Works stating this information. He stated that 100 feet of right-of-way will be required, which would be inside of the wooden fence of the golf course. Fay Sellner, 14099 182 Avenue – Opposed the plat. She had concerns with traffic nd congestion on Waco and Highway 10. David Hanson, 18338 Waco Street – Opposed the plat. Beverly Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Opposed the plat. Ms. Brown suggested that the Commission spend a Saturday out at the golf course before making a decision. Dave Anderson, 14845 County Road 35, Parks & Recreation Commission Member – Reviewed the Commission’s recommendation for park dedication and a trail along County Road 30. He stated that personally, he would like to see the golf course remain. Maurice Kallman, 14198 182 Avenue – Opposed the plat. He felt the snow plow drivers nd would struggle to clear the cul-de-sac. Larry Stevens, 14209 182 Avenue – Opposed the plat. He felt the residents’ property nd values will drop and asked who would “pick up the tab” for that. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens expressed his disappointment for all the time spent discussing the issues which could have been discussed in a workshop. He stated that he has concerns with the layout of the streets and lots and favor tabling this item for the workshop August 9. th Commissioner Westgaard stated that by tabling the request, City and County staff can look at the layout to see if there are any other options or a way to minimize the cul-de-sac length. Jenny Hedrick, representing the applicant, L & M Development – stated that they are asking for the same consideration given to any other property zoned R1c. She stated that they are waiting a third time for an answer from the County regarding Lot 22, but that they Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- have already said “no” to the access twice, and it may become an outlot. She stated that the land use amendment will bring the parcel into conformance with the zoning. ------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY L & M DEVELOPMENT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PINEWOOD ESTATES TO THE AUGUST 9, 2005 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Commissioner Lemke stated that although the plan meets the requirements of the ordinance, he would suggest that the applicant look at an option that is less dense, and more in comparison with the surrounding lots. Commissioner Stevens stated that he felt the applicant needs to work with the neighbors and reconfigure the lots. 5.3. Request by Dennis Wurm for Preliminary Plat (Kingdom Estates Second Addition), Public Hearing – Case No. P 05-11 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker stated that the applicant has requested preliminary plat approval of Kingdom Estates Second Addition. He reviewed the location, lots and street layout, landscaping, and Parks & Recreation Commission recommendation. Mr. Harlicker noted that the cul-de-sac exceed the City’s maximum length standard. Staff recommends approval of the request with the eight conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Stevens asked if the Natural Resources Inventory identified any sensitive sites in this vicinity. Director of Planning McPherson stated no. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Dennis Toth, neighbor to the west of the subject property – Stated that the drainage problems have not been taken care of, and the ditch cleaning has not been done. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that the developer of Kingdom Estates Second Addition and he have walked the site, and he is aware of the liability that remains. His engineer was advised in writing after the walk-through of the items left to be completed, including the final lift of blacktop and seeding. He stated that a condition of approval for this plat will be that these items must be addressed before any work on the second addition can begin. There being no further public comment, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Offerman asked if the 214 Avenue “temporary” cul-de-sac has been th constructed. Mr. Maurer stated yes, it has been surfaced with the first lift of blacktop. Chair Anderson asked if the property owners to the north would have adequate right-of-way to construct a road. Mr. Maurer stated that staff is not sure if a road could even be built, and he did not feel a road should be platted through a wetland. He explained that platting of a road would require the plat to go back to the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and would likely not be approved. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- Commissioner Lemke asked where the additional right-of-way would come from that is being requested by the County. Mr. Maurer stated that it would have to come from properties outside of the Kingdom Estates plat. Commissioner Stevens asked if an easement could be provided to the Scheel property (Olson Circle). He stated he would have a difficult time approving the plat if it were to be a permanent cul-de-sac. Chair Anderson asked for clarification on the issue of a road connection in the northern portion of the plat. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that the slope from this plat to the Scheel property goes down 20 – 25 feet. He stated that it has been the City’s policy to require road right-of-way to be built to the plat boundary, and in this case it is not known if the road could even be connected anywhere in the property to the north. Commissioner Lemke suggested that a Condition #9 be added to require a sign be placed at the 214 Street cul-de-sac, so that future residents would be made aware the road is th proposed to become a through-street. Mr. Maurer stated this issue has been discussed in the past, but has not become a City policy. He stated that at a minimum, a Type 3 barrier will be required so that someone does not drive off the end of the street. Commissioner Lemke questioned the legality of requiring a developer to buy right-of-way for County road improvements, when the plat does not abut a County road. Mr. Maurer stated that the issue has been raised and the County is researching whether or not there is any documentation that this was required for Kingdom Estates First Addition. Discussion followed regarding the condition to require that the County’s comments be addressed. Mr. Maurer stated that depending on the outcome of the research being requested from County staff, the City Council could chose to strike the condition. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY DENNIS WURM FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KINGDOM ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, CASE NO. P 05-11,WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2.ALL COMMENTS OF SHERBURNE COUNTY SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 3.A SEALCOAT FEE SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 4.A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 5.THE APPLICANT SHALL EXECUTE A DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 6.PARK DEDICATION SHALL BE IN CASH FOR 14 LOTS. 7.A BITUMINOUS TRAIL BE CONSTRUCTED AS INDICATED ON PARK TRAIL EXHIBIT A. 8.THE PLAT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE R1A SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 9.A SIGN SHALL BE PLACED AT THE 214 AVENUE CUL-DE-SAC TO TH ADVISE FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS OF ITS TEMPORARY STATUS, AND THAT A FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION IS PLANNED. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- 10.STAFF WILL INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS FEASIBLE, OR IF THE TERRAIN WOULD SUPPORT, A ROAD CONNECTION TO THE SCHEEL PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AND IF SO, THAT THIS ROAD CONNECTION BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAT. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.4. Request by Richard Kurth for Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Patio and 30-40 Accessory Structure (Broadway Pizza), Public Hearing – Case No. CU 05-13 Staff report presented by Senior Planner Harlicker. Richard Kurth of Broadway Pizza has requested a conditional use permit for an outdoor patio to be utilized in conjunction with Broadway Pizza and a 30’x40’ accessory structure. Mr. Harlicker described the project. Staff recommends approval of the request with the two conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Offerman asked if building standards would be required for the accessory structure and fence. Mr. Harlicker stated that the accessory structure would meet the building exterior standards, but that there are no standards for the fence. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Richard Kurth, 16754 Highway 10, owner of Broadway Pizza – Provided photos of the type of fence he proposed to install around the patio area. There being no further public comment, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY RICHARD KURTH OF BROADWAY PIZZA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 05-13, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THE PATIO SHALL BE FENCED WITH AN EMERGENCY EXIT GATE WITH REQUIRED EXITING HARDWARE, AS REQUIRED BY CODE. 2.THE ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.5. Request by American National Bank for Conditional Use Permit to Construct new bank facility, Public Hearing – Case No. CU 05-14 Senior Planner Harlicker presented the request by American National Bank for a conditional use permit to construct a bank at the southwest corner of 173 Avenue and Highway 10 rd (Lot 6, Block 1 Mississippi Ridge). Mr. Harlicker reviewed the site layout, parking and access, building elevations, and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the request with the three conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- Kathy Raivala, 17271 Yale Street, Mississippi Ridge resident – Asked why there were no sidewalks in the plat. She stated that the Saxon property has sidewalks. She did not feel it made sense to not have sidewalks for people to access the future train station from Mississippi Ridge. Ms. Raivala also questioned why there were no turn lanes to access Highway 10 from 173 rd Avenue, and questioned how clients of the bank would get to Highway 10. Mr. Harlicker stated that bank clients would access Yale Street to 171 or 173 Avenue. He noted that strd MnDOT plans to close the access at 173 Avenue at some point in the future. rd There being no further public comment, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Chair Anderson questioned why sidewalks were not required. Mr. Harlicker stated that he was not sure, but he did not recall sidewalks being included for the plat. Commissioner Lemke suggested that some of the overstory trees proposed to be located along 173 Avenue could be moved to provide more screening for the townhomes. Mr. rd Harlicker stated that this could be looked at. Commissioner Offerman asked if it was beyond the Commission’s scope to recommend sidewalks, since this request was for a conditional use permit., not a plat. He felt that it makes sense to have sidewalks since the property is so close to the proposed train station. He asked if it was too late to require them. City Engineer Terry Maurer suggested that the Planning Commission make a separate recommendation to the City Council to look at the overall area for a possible future improvement project to construct sidewalks. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BANK FACILITY, CASE NO. CU 05-14, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2.THE SOUTH ACCESS AND SOUTH PARKING AREA SHALL BE SHARED WITH THE ADJACENT PARCEL. 3.THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE REVISED TO INCLUDE SIZE OF TREES AND A INCLUDE A NOTE THAT ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE SOD AND IRRIGATED. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. --------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A SIDEWALK STUDY FOR THE MISSISSIPPI RIDGE PLAT, GIVEN ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR COMMUTER TRAIN STATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- 5.6. Request by City of Elk River for Preliminary Plat (Northstar Business Park), Public Hearing – Case No. P 05-12 Director of Planning McPherson explained that the Elk River Economic Development Authority (EDA) requests consideration of a preliminary plat for Northstar Business Park. The proposed plat is located west of Twin Lakes Road, south of Elk River Business Park. Ms. McPherson reviewed background information leading up to the EDA’s plans to develop the business park. She discussed the site constraints, number and size of lots, grading and drainage issues, and the Parks & Recreation Commission recommendation for cash park dedication. Staff recommends approval of the request with the two conditions listed in the staff report, with an addition to Condition #2 to include dedication of a trail easement over Outlot A. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens asked if there would be a curb cut at the northern access to allow a right turn lane. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that since there are already two lanes in both directions, staff did not feel a turn lane was necessary at this time. He noted that there is adequate right-of-way to add one, if needed in the future. Commissioner Offerman asked if the 175 Avenue residents received notification of the th public hearing for this plat. Ms. McPherson stated that property owners within 350 feet received notice of the public hearing, but that all the 175 Avenue area residents were not th contacted. She noted that information regarding the Northstar Business Park plat could be included in the mailing which will be sent to those residents. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FO THE REQUEST BY THE ELK RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR PRELIMNARY PLAT OF NORTHSTAR BUSINESS PARK, CASE NO. P 05-12, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE SHALL BE PAID IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 2.CASH SHALL BE PAID FOR PARK DEDICATION FOR THE DEVELOPABLE ACRES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.7. Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-895 and 1294, Public Hearing – Case No. OA 05-11 Director of Planning McPherson explained that the Commission is asked to consider an ordinance amendment changing the parking setback requirement and making use and setback adjustments to the Business Park District Standards. Ms. McPherson reviewed the proposed language changes. She explained that the City is trying to attract clients to the Business Parks and these changes will allow better use of the smaller lots. Ms. McPherson stated that the setbacks will not change on arterial and collector streets; only on the interior Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- streets; therefore, less landscaping will be required on internal streets and more on collector and arterial streets. Ms. McPherson also reviewed the proposed language changes to Section 30-1294. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as outlined in the staff report to the Commission dated July 26, 2005. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Scott asked if the ten foot setback would still allow for sidewalks. Ms. McPherson stated that there is also the right-of-way space between the curb and setback which should allow ample room for sidewalks. She noted for example, that the Northstar Business Park will include a sidewalk on one side of the streets within the plat. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 30-895 AND 30-1294, CASE NO. OA 005-11. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.8.Request by City of Elk River for Land Use Map Amendment to Change the Land Use of Parcel #6 from Light Industrial to High Density Residential; and Parcel #8 from High Density Residential to Community Commercial, Public Hearing – Case No. LU 05-03 5.9.Request by City of Elk River for Zone Change for Parcel #6; and Rezoning of Parcel #8 from R1c to R4, Public Hearing – Case No. ZC 05-01 Director of Planning McPherson stated that the Commission is asked to consider a land use amendment for Parcel 6 and 8 from the zone change request, ZC 05-01. She reviewed the location and current zoning of the two properties. Staff recommends approval of the land use changes as noted. Also, staff recommends withdrawing the request for rezoning of Parcel #6, and approval of the zone change for the two easterly parcels of Parcel #8 from R1c to R4. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE CHANGE FOR PARCEL 6 FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND PARCEL 8 FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CASE NO. LU 05-03. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. ---------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FOR THE TWO EASTERLY PARCELS OF PARCEL #8 FROM R1C TO R4, CASE NO. ZC 05-01. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 26, 2005 --------------------------- 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on June 20, 2005 City Council Meeting Commissioner Westgaard provided an update on the June 20, 2005 City Council meeting. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary