Loading...
08-09-2005 PC MIN - SPECIAL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2005 Members Present: Chair Anderson, Lemke, Offerman, Ropp, Scott, and Westgaard Members Absent: Commissioner Stevens Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting To Order Chair Anderson opened the workshop portion of the meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the Upper Town Conference Room. 2. Gateway Business Center Neighborhood Meeting Property owners present: John Weicht, Rick Morrell, Ronald Ebner, Penny LaPlante and Dean Jacobs, representing Cargill. Director of Planning Michele McPherson provided background information regarding the City-owned property proposed to be developed as Gateway Business Park. She identified the owners of the properties surrounding the site. Ms. McPherson explained that the zoning of the property is split, with part being zoned Highway Commercial and part Light Industrial. The City Council and EDA have indicated that they would like to see the City maintain as much commercial zoning as possible. The site has been offered to Great River Energy for their campus, but a decision has not been made at this time. It is the City’s intent to move forward with a development plan for the site while waiting for GRE’s decision. Ms. McPherson reviewed the two layout concepts, noting that they are very similar due to the location of the wetlands. Also, she noted that the street must line up with Ulysses Street to the north. The property to the west and south is currently zoned C3 Highway Commercial, and the property to the east and north is zoned I1 Light Industrial, which would allow light manufacturing uses with limited outdoor storage. Ms. McPherson stated that the Cargill property will remain Agricultural Research. She noted that the difference between Option A and Option B is the small cul-de-sac, which would allow access to Powell’s property, and differences in the lot layout. She explained that construction of the roads as shown would depend on whether or not the neighboring property owners show interest in development. Ms. McPherson stated that the City Council has also discussed the possibility of selling off the commercial piece to a developer. John Weicht, property owner - stated that he purchased the parcel of property located south of the Ebner Bait Shop property to develop it for Highway Commercial uses, and that he would be interested in petitioning for the street as soon as possible. Chair Anderson asked for clarification on the road shown on the drawings as a dashed line. Ms. McPherson explained that this road would provide a future connection to 165 Avenue th through the RDF property. She noted that the RDF owners have shown some concern Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- regarding the location of this road due to security issues. Commissioner Scott suggested the possibility of this road acting as a frontage road, if the Highway 10 access is closed at 165 th Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated that the City is not sure at this time where the State highway interchange will end up being placed. Ronald Ebner, owner of property at 17015 Highway 10 – Asked what would happen to the proposal if GRE decides to purchase the property. Ms. McPherson stated that it is her understanding they will make a decision tomorrow (August 10). She stated that if GRE th decides to purchase the site, they also may be interested in purchasing land from private owners. Mr. Weicht asked if the road to access his site would still be constructed. Ms. McPherson stated that accommodations would be made to provide access to the adjacent sites. Commissioner Offerman asked if the RDF trucks would then need to travel on Twin Lakes Road, if the Highway 10 access at 165 Avenue was closed. Ms. McPherson stated that she th was not sure what would happen at 171 Avenue and Highway 10, and that the access could st possibly be built further south. Chair Anderson asked if his understanding is correct, that either or both of the Highway 10 accesses at 165 and 171 Avenues could be closed. Ms. thst McPherson stated yes, that it is possible but that the City has no information at this time. Commissioner Offerman stated that it would be nice to know that information in planning the development of the Gateway property. Ms. McPherson stated that the City will have better answers when more detailed transportation studies are completed. Mr. Ebner asked if the large swamp would be drained or filled. Ms. McPherson explained that it is very difficult to obtain approval for filling wetlands and they must be replaced at a ratio of 2 to 1. She noted that the City does have some banked wetland credits that they could use. She stated that in drafting the concepts, staff tried to avoid the wetlands as much as possible. Commissioner Westgaard stated that the location of the Highway 10 access points is a very significant issue, since the transit station traffic needs access to the highway. Commissioner Scott stated that there are a significant access points that need to preserved, and recalled that this was done in the metro area. Commissioner Lemke asked if the EDA or the City owns the Gateway property. Ms. McPherson stated that the City owns the property, but the are asking for the EDA’s input due to the Light Industrial component. Commissioner Lemke asked if the City will propose the closing of any accesses. Ms. McPherson stated no, that that would be done by MnDOT. Penny LaPlante, representing Cargill, 10383 165 Avenue – asked how far the transit th station is from the Gateway Business Park property. Ms. McPherson stated that it is approximately ¼ mile north. Mr. Weicht asked if the wetlands have been delineated by the City. Ms. McPherson stated yes, that the information was taken from the CAD drawings provided by the City Engineer. Mr. Weicht stated that he felt the amount of wetlands shown was very aggressive from what is actually on site. Mr. Ebner asked if a service road is constructed, would all the accesses be taken out. Ms. McPherson stated that if a service road is constructed, MnDOT would eventually take out the Highway 10 accesses. She explained that the project could be constructed in phases, in Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- order to provide access to properties, such as in the case of Mr. Weicht’s property. Mr. Ebner noted that Mr. Weicht’s property goes all the way to Street A shown on the concept. Mr. Ebner asked if Mr. Powell’s property would have Highway 10 access. Ms. McPherson stated that there will be a right in-right out access off of 171 avenue. She noted that the st existing median in 171 avenue will be extended further east. st Mr. Ebner suggested that a road could be run along the property line where there is a jog in the lot line of Mr. Powell’s property, without destroying all the sites along there. Mr. Weicht asked if there was topography available yet. Ms. McPherson stated no, that no site work has been done yet. Mr. Weicht questioned why the City would have a drainage pond in a Highway Commercial area, since the property is worth four times what industrial land is worth. Ms. McPherson stated that the plan is simply a concept and they do not know at this time where the drainage ponds will end up. Ms. McPherson stated that the City Council is interested in creating a “hybrid” zoning district for this area called “Gateway Business Park”. Development of the property would not begin until at least 2006, since the City needs to figure out how to pay for the infrastructure. Ms. McPherson thanked the property owners for attending and stated that they will be advised of future discussions on the site. -------------- Chair Anderson adjourned the workshop at this time (7:10 p.m.) The Planning Commission moved to the City Council Chambers to conduct the special meeting. -------------- Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Special Meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 3. Request by L & M Development for Land Use Amendment, Pinewood Estates Second Addition, Case No. LU 05-04, Public Hearing Continued from July 26, 2005 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker reviewed the request to amend the land use for the Pinewood Golf Course property from OS (Open Space) to UR (Urban Density Residential). Staff recommended approval of the request based on the four findings listed in the staff report to the Commission dated August 9, 2005. Chair Anderson stated that the names and addresses of all the residents who spoke at the July 26, 2005 public hearing have been recorded in the minutes from July 26th. He stated that the public hearing would be opened for anyone wishing to provide any new information. Judy Thompson, 14122 182 Avenue – Asked for answers to the following four questions: nd 1) If the residents are forced to hook up to City water and sewer, would they be required to cap their wells, or could they use them for watering purposes; 2) will the developer be billed for the cost of bringing water and sewer to Pinewood First Addition; 3) if they are required to cap their wells, what is that cost; 4) who will maintain the open green space. Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that the Municipal Utilities prefers that wells be capped. She explained that deep wells may be in the same aquifer as the City wells and Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- there would be the risk of contamination if the wells were allowed to remain in use. Ms. McPherson stated that she would have a response from Bryan Adams, Municipal Utilities General Manager, for the August 15 City Council meeting. In regards to requiring the th developer to pay for costs to bring sewer and water to the existing Pinewood Addition, that question would need to be decided by the City Council, as it is a policy issue to leave the neighborhood as an island with private wells and septic. Chair Anderson stated that it is not within the Planning Commission’s role to decide these issues, and the City Council would make these decisions for inclusion in the development agreement for the plat. Andrew Brown, 19260 Yankton Street – Presented two petitions; one from the Pinewood Estates residents, and one from the users of the Pinewood Golf Course in support of allowing the golf course to remain. He stated that the Certificate of Title for the golf course property includes a memorial which binds the property to the restrictive covenants. He stated that the developer was asked to go back and look at the density of the plat, and that nothing has been changed. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Offerman stated that he struggled with the issue of the land use amendment. Senior Planner Harlicker stated that the situation is not unusual, and that there are other areas of the City with the Open Space land use designation, and that this is the first time the issue has come up. Commissioner Offerman stated he did not see it as a “housekeeping” issue as stated in Commissioner Steven’s comments, that the land use is consistent with the current use of the property, and would only become inconsistent if the plat were approved. He stated he did not support the land use change. Commissioner Westgaard stated he agreed with Commissioner Offerman. He asked what the zoning and land use was for the Elk River County Club Golf Course. Ms. McPherson stated that the zoning is R1c (Single Family Residential) and the land use is Open Space. She stated that golf courses are allowed by conditional use permit in the R1 Zoning Districts. She stated that a request could be made for another parcel guided UR and zoned R1c for a conditional use permit for a golf course. Commissioner Offerman stated that either way, the land use could remain for this golf course as it exists. Ms. McPherson stated yes, except that a request has been made for the use to change. Commissioner Scott questioned if the land use amendment should be considered after the plat. Ms. McPherson stated no. Commissioner Offerman stated that he felt he could approve the plat if the other issues were addressed, before the land use. Chair Anderson stated that the comments of Commissioner Stevens will be entered into the official record. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY L & M DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OS (OPEN SPACE) TO R1C (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY. Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Chair Anderson and Commissioner Lemke opposed. 4. Request by L & M Development for Preliminary Plat, Pinewood Estates Second Addition, Case No. P 05-13, Public Hearing Continued from July 26, 2005 Senior Planner Harlicker reviewed the layout, number of lots, access, and issues with non- conforming lots. Ms. McPherson asked what the length of the cul-de-sac was. Mr. Harlicker stated 900 feet, which exceed City standards by 200 feet. Mr. Harlicker reviewed a drawing provided by the applicant which eliminated the lots on the north side of Street A. Staff recommends that Lot 22, Block 3 be platted as an outlot unless access to County Road 30 is allowed by Sherburne County. He noted that the lot could possibly be utilized if the adjacent 20 acres in Big Lake Township were platted and access could be provided. He stated that the only alternative at this time would be to construct a long driveway to connect with Yankton Street. Staff recommended approval of the request with the 21 conditions listed in the staff report to the Commission dated August 9, 2005. Commissioner Ropp stated asked if the developer was aware of the recommendation of the Commission to increase the lot sizes. Mr. Harlicker stated yes, that the applicant was made aware of the request and chose not to do so. Chair Anderson asked how many lots are now being proposed. Mr. Harlicker stated 52. The developer noted that they lost 3 lots but picked up one additional lot. Commissioner Westgaard quested whether or not Lot 16 met the lot width and depth requirements. Mr. Harlicker stated that if the plan was accurate, Lot 16 meets the requirements. Chair Anderson stated that he would now open the public hearing for any new information. Maurice Kallman, 14198 182 Avenue – Stated that if the density were consistent with the nd Pinewood Estates density, he calculated that the developer could plat 33 lots. He felt this would be compatible with the existing homes. Bruce Anderson, 18261 Yankton Street – Stated that it appears that the new plan would extend the length of the cul-de-sac beyond the 900 foot length already proposed. Andrew Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Stated that if Mississippi Road (County Road 30) were widened, there would be a lot size issue for 3 or 4 of these lots. Jenny Hedrick, representative for the applicant – Stated that they did not change the lot sizes due to the value of the lots. She stated that the City’s ordinance allows the layout as proposed. She stated that she disagreed with the land use issue, and felt that it is inconsistent. Ms. Hedrick stated that golf courses all over the area are experiencing similar issues, and that judges are ruling in favor of the property owners and allowing them to develop. Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- Andrew Brown, 18260 Yankton Street – Stated that the developer was asked to put together a plan to increase the size of the lots and they have refused. He stated that because other golf courses are closing, that makes this one even more valuable. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ropp asked if there was any information available regarding the idea of the City purchasing the golf course and running it. Ms. McPherson stated that this is not an issue for the Planning Commission to address. She stated that when the neighbors spoke to the issue at an open mike portion of the July 18 City Council meeting, this idea was “hinted th at”, but that the City must balance this with other types of public community needs, such as purchasing park land, a YMCA, and other projects. Other issue include whether or not the City can afford to operate the site, and how the residents would be impacted by a more intensive public use of the course. Commissioner Ropp asked if it would be appropriate to condition the approval of the plat, providing that the City is not interested in purchasing the property. Ms. McPherson stated that she did not feel this type of condition was within the Commissioner purview, and they must only look at the land use and plat. Commissioner Offerman asked if this was the first time staff has seen the new layout. Mr. Harlicker stated yes. Mr. Harlicker stated that he would still recommend that the lot with no access be platted as an outlot. Commissioner Offerman stated that he felt it was the responsibility of the developer to make revisions to conform with the existing lots. He stated that he could only support approval of the plat with Condition #21 which requires a minimum of 20,000 square foot lots adjacent to the existing Pinewood lots. Commissioner Lemke stated that it is the role of the Planning Commission to look at the facts and make recommendations. He stated that he is generally in favor of the plat, but that he was disappointed the developer did not consider an option with less density. He stated he also supported approval with Condition #21. Commissioner Lemke asked what will happen if the City Council approves the plat with the larger lot sizes. Ms. McPherson stated that the plat would need to be revised prior to final plat approval. Commissioner Lemke stated that he felt the increased lot sizes as stated in Condition #21 is an acceptable compromise. Jenny Hedrick, representing the applicant – Stated that they ask the Commission to follow the ordinance. Commissioner Lemke stated that the residents are asking “think of us”, and they must also think of the landowners. He felt this was a good compromise and that he was generally in favor of the request. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he generally agreed with Commissioner Lemke’s comments. He stated that the 11,000 square feet lots for this district are a “minimum” and allows a developer to go above and beyond that size. He felt the intent of the ordinance is to provide consistency with existing residential neighborhoods. He stated he also would like to see the lots abutting the Pinewood First Addition lots matched in size. Commissioner Scott stated that the owner of the property does have the right to do what he pleases with the property within the rules. He felt the plan basically fits within those rules, Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- except for those lots which are nonconforming. He asked that the developer take a hard look at increasing the lot sizes. He stated that he could support a recommendation for approval with the conditions as stated previously. Chair Anderson stated that as he stated at the previous meeting, he did not feel the density was compatible with the existing neighborhood. He believed the transition between the old and new was not smooth. He was not comfortable with the length of the cul-de-sac. He felt that increasing the lot sizes should not necessarily have a negative impact on the bottom line, and that given the desirable location of the project, the lots should receive in a good price. He did not see any reason not to recommend approval with all of the conditions as stated. Commissioner Ropp stated that he was in agreement with all 21 of the recommended conditions and expressed his appreciation to staff for their effort in providing them. Chair Anderson reviewed the comments of Commissioner Stevens. He summarized the comments by stating that Commissioner Stevens felt it was unfortunate that the developer did not meet with the Planning Commission informally first to discuss the project. He did not feel the density provided an adequate buffer to the existing homes. He stated that Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 1, and Lot 22, Block 3 should not be allowed as they don’t meet the City’s requirements. He felt that he could support approval of the plat under the terms of Condition #21, since he felt this would be a better fit with the existing residential neighborhood. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO ACCEPT THE COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER STEVENS, THE PETITION FROM THE PINEWOOD ESTATES RESIDENTS, AND THE PETITION FROM THE PINEWOOD GOLF COURSE USERS INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST BY L & M DEVELOPMENT FOR PINEWOOD ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, CASE NO. P 05-13, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT APPROVAL PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 2.A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 3.SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE BE PAID IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 4.A SEALCOAT FEE IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- 5.WATER ACCESSIBILITY FEES IN THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE CITY BE PAID TO ELK RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 6.A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COSTS OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 7.UPON COMPLETING ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVING THEM ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, A WARRANTY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 25% OF THE IMPROVEMENT COSTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. 8.THE CITY ENGINEER’S COMMENTS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLANS. 9.STREET LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER UTILITIES. 10.A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 11.A DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 12.ALL GRADING BE CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 13.ALL MAILBOXES BE CLUSTERED. 14.A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN BE APPROVED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 15.ANY TREES OFF SITE OR ON SITE, NEAR THE LIMIT OF GRADING THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED, SHALL BE FENCED WITH A SNOW FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE TO PREVENT GRADING, COMPACTION, OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, DEBRIS OR MATERIALS. STAFF SHALL INSPECT THE FENCING PRIOR TO GRADING COMMENCING. 16.ANY ITEM OR CONDITION FOUND THAT INDICATES THE SITE IS LIKELY TO YIELD INFORMATION IMPORTANT TO PRE-HISTORY OR HISTORY SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CITY IMMEDIATELY. FURTHER, THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO STOP WORK AUTHORIZED IN ITS APPROVAL UNTIL THE SITE IS APPROPRIATELY INVESTIGATED AND WORK IS AUTHORIZED. 17.PARK DEDICATION CREDIT FOR THE INTERNAL TRAIL CORRIDOR. CASH, AT THE RATE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, SHALL BE PAID TO COMPLETE THE PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. 18.LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1 SHALL BE ELIMINATED. LOT 22, BLOCK 3 SHALL BE ELIMINATED. Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- 19. AN INTERNAL TRIAL SHLL BE PROVIDED FROM STREET A TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE PLAT, A TRAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG COUNTY ROAD 30 ALONG WITH A CONNECTION TO STREET B, AND A TRAIL OR SIDEWALK SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG WACO STREET 20.THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET B SHALL BE EXTENDED SO THAT IT ABUTS COUNTY ROAD 30. 21. ALL LOTS ABUTTING EXISTING LOTS IN PINEWOOD SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The special meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:32 p.m. 5. Discuss Use of Engineered Fabric Structures in the Light and Medium Industrial Districts Ms. McPherson stated that the Commission is asked to discuss a possible ordinance amendment to allow engineered fabric structures in the Light and Medium Industrial Districts. City of Elk River Street Superintendent Phil Hals and Assistant Street Superintendent Mark Thompson were present to discuss the possible utilization of an engineered fabric structure to be used for salt/sand storage. Mr. Hals explained that $160,000 was budgeted for a tip- up concrete panel construction building, but that the bids came in at $260,000. Mr. Hals discussed the photos of a fabric structure similar to what they propose. He reviewed the location of future buildings, and explained how these buildings would provide screening of the fabric structure. Chair Anderson asked if the Municipal Utilities would be moving from their site. Mr. Hals stated no, that only their material storage area would be relocated. He explained that the Utilities has possible plans for turbine generator in their current location. Ms. McPherson noted that the Utilities ultimately plans to expand their substation to the west. Mr. Hals explained that the Oak Knoll #3 ballfield will become the staging area for surplus materials. Ms. McPherson suggested that the ordinance amendment only allow the structures for governmental uses. Senior Planner Scott Harlicker suggested an ordinance amendment to allow them as a conditional use permit. Ms. McPherson asked, does the City want these types of structures popping up all over the I1 and I2 Districts. Commissioner Scott stated that he appreciates the tax savings of constructing the fabric structure, and that he did not have a problem with them being allowed. Commissioner Offerman stated that he has been inside a large fabric structure and that he did not have a problem with allowing them as a conditional use permit for governmental facilities. Chair Anderson concurred. Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- Commissioner Lemke asked for clarification as to why the City initially did not want the fabric structures. Ms. McPherson stated that it was mostly a matter of aesthetics. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he was not opposed to the structures. He stated he could foresee a company such as Cretex asking for one. He stated that if they are allowed for governmental use, why not the general public to use them as accessory buildings in the I1 and I2 Districts. Ms. McPherson stated that if fabric structures were allowed for accessory buildings, the principal structure would still need to meet the City’s standards of the I1 and I2 Districts. Commissioner Westgaard asked if accessory structures are allowed to exceed the size of the principal structure, and what is the size of the structure proposed by the Street Department. Ms. McPherson stated that there is nothing in the ordinance stating that an accessory building cannot be larger than the principal building. She stated that the structure will be 8,000 square feet. Mr. Hals noted that the existing principal building on the site is 18,000 square feet. Chair Anderson suggested that the ordinance amendment restrict the use to government uses, and an ordinance amendment could be processed if another type of user made a request. Ms. McPherson stated that if the structures were allowed by conditional use permit, the Commission would review each request independently, regarding issues such as screening. Mr. Thompson stated that a standard would be set by salt/sand storage facility, since it would be located well away from the street and would be screened by existing and future buildings. Commissioner Offerman stated he would prefer to see a fabric structure, versus an open storage yard. Commissioner Lemke asked if the fabric structure would be taller than the one shown on the photos. Mr. Hals stated, no. He stated the one shown is more functional and would allow them to maneuver trucks within more easily than a taller structure. Mr. Hals noted that the MPCA now requires loading of the salt/sand materials inside a building. Commissioner Lemke stated he would support drafting of the ordinance amendment. 6. Discuss Planning Commission Applicant Interview Questions Ms. McPherson explained that the City Council has expressed interest in interviewing all candidates for appointment to the Planning Commission, including Commissioners wishing to serve an additional term. She asked that the Commissioners review the sample questions and respond to her with any revisions or additional questions by August 31. st 7.Other Business Ms. McPherson noted that a joint meeting of all of the City’s Commissions and City Council has been scheduled for October 10, 2005. More information will be provided at a later date. Special Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 August 9, 2005 --------------------------- 8. Adjournment There being no further business, the work session was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary