09-24-1996 PC MIN
.
.
.
~ff.~
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24,1996
Members Present:
Chair Thompson, Commissioners Minton, Sullivan, Mesich and
Kuester
Members Absent:
Commissioners Anderson and Tacheny
Staff Present:
Scott Harlicker, Assistant Planner; Kendra Lindahl, Zoning Assistant;
Debbie Kleckner, Recording Secretary
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning
Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Thompson.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 27,1996, PLANNING
COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS
FOLLOWS:
6.1. HOMES PLUS, INC. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - WITHDRAWN
6.2. JOHN HITCHCOCK REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (ISLAND
VIEW 4TH ADDITION) - POSTPONED TO 10/22/96 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED TO AMEND THE AUGUST 27, 1996, MINUTES AS
FOLLOWS:
- PAGE 1 - ITEM 2 - MOVED TO APPROVAL (CHANGE TO MOVED APROVAL)
- PAGE 1 - ITEM 4 - AS
- PAGE 9 - SHOW PUBLIC HEARING AS CLOSED
- PAGE 4 - COUNTY ROAD NO. 30 (SHOULD BE COUNTY ROAD NO. 35)
COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1.
COMMISSIONER MESICH ABSTAINED.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 2
SLY.
.........................--....,-..........""""..............--------.--..---......--------.---.---.----..----..........""."...........""'.."'..........,.....
... .<....Plonhiha...Commissiot1ReSresent8fH,ie..to..Aftehd...lfJ/21f96...CItv..c8UhCiltVteefiho.....
Commissioner Thompson will attend the September 16, 1996 City Council
meeting.
Staff report by Scott Harlicker. OJ's is requesting a conditional use permit for a
second principle structure to be used as a storage building and variances for
the following:
1. To allow pavement within 10 feet of the east and west property lines
2. Temporary bituminous curbing
3. No curbing in the rear of the existing building
4. The exterior of the proposed storage building to be painted metal
Scott explained this item was tabled by the Planning Commission on July 23,
1996, with a request for further information. He noted the site plan being
presented is essentially the same site plan that was presented to the Planning
Commission at the July meeting, with the addition of the grading and drainage
plan.
Staff has made the following recommendations subject to the findings and
conditions as outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission:
. Approval of the 5 foot variance to allow pavement within 5 feet of the
property line along the north side of the existing building
. Recommends denial of the other variance requests
. Recommends approval of the conditional use permit
Scott explained OJ's request may be affected by a rezoning which will be
before the City Council at the October 21, 1996, meeting. If the property is
rezoned to light industrial, the applicant would only be required to use materials
from the approved list for 25% of the building exterior, rather than 75% as
required by the current zoning. Also, the applicant would not be required to
provide concrete curb and gutter from the rear of the building back, but the
Planning Commission may require bituminous curbing to control runoff.
Scott reviewed issues relating to parking and access, landscaping, signage and
storage, as explained in the staff memo.
Donald Savitsky, applicant, expressed his willingness to comply with staff's
recommendations, with the exception of the 5 foot driveway variance. He felt
he needs the full width of the property as a drive aisle between the existing
building an property line.
Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. There being no comments from
the public, Chair Thompson closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 3
-------------------------------------
.
Discussion followed regarding issues associated with the driveway including
necessary width, snow removal, and types of vehicles using the driveway. Mr.
Saviska noted there would be no semi-trucks using the driveway.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF A FIVE (5) FOOT VARIANCE FOR DJ'S TOTAL HOME CARE CENTER,
PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. V 96-9, TO ALLOW PAVEMENT WITHIN FIVE (5) FEET OF
THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE
HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THE ONLY REASONABLE ACCESS
TO THE REAR OF THE LONG NARROW LOT IS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
EXISTING BUILDING. IN ORDER TO PROVIDED THE NECESSARY ACCESS, THE
PAVEMENT WILL HAVE TO BE WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.
2. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THIS PROPERTY IS IT'S
LONG NARROW DIMENSIONS AND THE STEEP SLOPE DOWN TO THE REAR OF
THE OF THE LOT
3. LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WILL DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT
PROPERTY RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
4.
THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTIONS IN THAT THE LOCATION OF
THE BUILDING, SHAPE OF THE LOT AND TOPOGRAPHY WERE NOT A RESULT
OF ANY ACTIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT.
.
5. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS OR ADVERSELY
AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
PROVIDED DRAINAGE IS CONTROLLED BY CURBING AND AT LEAST 5 FEET OF
GRASS BETWEEN THE PAVEMENT AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES REQUESTED BY DJ'S TOTAL HOME CARE
CENTER:
· TO ALLOW PAVEMENT WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES
(OUTSIDE THE AREA IDENTIFIED ABOVE)
· CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REQUIREMENT (MAY NOT APPLY TO REAR OF PROPERTY
IF PROPERTY IS REZONED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
· ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR EXTERIOR BUILDING FINISHES
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1.
THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL NOT CAUSE UNDUE
HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL,
TOPOGRAPHIC OR VEGETATIVE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT COULD NOT
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
.
2.
Page 4
THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THIS
PROPERTY THAT WOULD IMPACT THE VARIANCE REQUESTS LISTED ABOVE.
3. LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WILL NOT DEPRIVE THE
APPLICANT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
4. THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTION.
5. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR
ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY OJ'S HOME CARE CENTER, INC. FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96-12, TO CONSTRUCT
A SECOND PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON THEIR SITE TO BE USED AS A WAREHOUSE,
CITING THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION FROM THE PUBLIC, WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
.
1.
THE PROPOSED 2 DRIVEWAYS WHICH PROVIDED ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM
THE FRONTAGE ROAD BE REDUCED TO ONE.
2. THE DEMONSTRATED PARKING AREA HAS TO BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
3. THE EXISTING PAVING SHALL BE PATCHED AND RESEALED.
4. THERE SHALL BE NO PAVEMENT WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANY PROPERTY LINE WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA TO THE NORTH OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
WHERE PAVEMENT WILL BE ALLOWED WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
. 10.
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER BE INSTALLED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF
THE FRONT PAVED AREA.
THE APPLICANT COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOUND
IN THE ZONING CODE.
SIGNAGE SHALL BE MADE TO COMPLY WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
THE SEMI-TRAILER CURRENTLY PARKED ON SITE AND USED AS STORAGE
SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
NO OUTDOOR STORAGE WILL BE ALLOWED.
THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN THE ZONING CODE.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 5
.
11.
IF THE PROPERTY IS REZONED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, SITE IMPROVEMENTS
AND EXTERIOR BUILDING FINISHES SHALL COMPLY WITH THOSE EFFECTIVE IN
THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
12. REVISED SITE PLAN INCORPORATING ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
BE PROVIDED FOR STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
13. THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHALL BE REVISED TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
14. ANY ENGINEERING RETAINER FEES BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A
BUILDING PERMIT.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
.
Staff report by Scott Harlicker. AT&T Wireless Services is requesting a zone
change to rezone property to Antenna Overlay District and a conditional use
permit for a 199' tall wireless communication antenna pole and a 12' x 24'
equipment building. Reason for the request is to provide improved service and
frequency coverage. The subject property is located east of Highway 10, south
of 175th Avenue alignment and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks.
The applicant proposes to lease an area approximately 60' by 57' for location
of the pole and building. The site will be serviced by a 12' wide gravel drive off
Highway 10, located within a 20' access easement over the adjacent properties
to the west. Scott reviewed the performance standards for the Antenna Tower
Overlay District. He noted that the overlay will not affect the underlying C3
(Highway Commercial) zoning.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and conditional use permit based
on the findings and conditions stated in the report to the Planning Commission
dated 9/24/96.
Ron Milke, real estate manager for AT&T Wireless Services, provided charts
indicating existing coverage and proposed coverage with the new antenna
pole. Mr. Milke noted the pole would be painted an "ice blue" color and the
equipment storage building would be designed to blend in with the
surroundings. The building will house computer equipment and will be
temperature-controlled. Mr. Milke explained the pole will be designed to
accommodate additional antennas for use by other cellular companies. If
another user wished to construct an equipment shelter, they would need to
apply for a conditional use permit.
.
Chair Minton questioned if the pole were to ever fall down, would the site be
large enough so that it would not fall on neighboring property. Mr. Milke stated
that the pole would be located 60-70 feet from the north property line and 45-50
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 6
.
feet from the railroad tracks to the east. Mr. Milke explained that the pole is
designed so that if it ever were to break or fall down, it would buckle within itself
and would not fall over the total length of the pole.
Chair Thompson opened the public hearing.
Mike Majkrzak, 17501 Highway 10, adjacent property owner representing himself
and his son, Dean Majkrzak, 17475 Highway 10, expressed his concern that the
easement mentioned was for his use and not for the property proposed to be
leased by AT&T. Also, he felt the antenna will interfere with satellite dish
receivers in the area. Mr. Majkrzak stated he opposes the antenna and
equipment building and felt it will detract from his property value.
Mr. Milke explained microwave antennas can cause the type of interference Mr.
Majkrzak was referring to and that the antenna proposed by AT&T is not a
microwave. Mr. Milke noted the driveway easement property is owned by Mr.
and Mrs. Kruse and Mr. and Mrs. Les Lundquist, and AT&T will be leasing the
proposed site from the Lundquists.
There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.,
PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. ZC 96-17, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
.
1.
THE REZONING WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROPERTY UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
2. THE REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES.
3. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING TO AT IS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROVIDED EFFECTIVE CELLULAR PHONE
COVERAGE FOR THIS AREA.
COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES,
INC., PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96-23, BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN
STAFF'S MEMO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. A SIX FOOT HIGH NON-CLIMBABLE FENCE SHALL ENCLOSE THE FACILITY.
2. THE TOWER SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY SIGNAGE, INCLUDING LOGOS,
EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 7
3.
THE TOWER AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING SHALL BE REMOVED WITH 6 MONTHS
OF CESSATION OF OPERATION UNLESS A TIME EXTENSION IS GRANTED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL. IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLE USERS OF THIS TOWER,
THIS CONDITION SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL ALL USERS OF
THE TOWER CEASE OPERATIONS FOR 6 MONTHS.
4. SHOULD BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD HAVE ANY CONCERNS, THEY
SHALL BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
6.8.Uim&l<.iHGb8r&stRe6U&sti8Hz8neGHdRo&,pubIiCl-ledril1dcdseNH.zG9641K
Staff report by Kendra Lindahl. Jim and Kirt Charest are requesting the following:
1. Zone change from light industrial (1-1) to medium industrial (1-2),
2. Comprehensive land use plan amendment from light industrial (L1) to
medium industrial (MI), and
3. Conditional use permit to operate a junkyard in the medium industrial (12)
zoning district.
The subject property is located northeast of Highway 10, southwest of the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, lying between the Fillmore and Cleveland
Street alignments and is served by a private road.
Kendra provided background information on issues associated with the Charest
property, as outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
September 24, 1996. Staff recommends denial of the three requested based on
the findings listed in the staff report.
Kirt Charest, applicant, stated they plan to construct a building and place a
fence around the site.
Commissioner Kuester questioned why the Planning Commission is being asked
to consider a zone change rather than reviewing a site plan, if the applicant is
planning to construct a building on the site. Kendra explained that the outdoor
storage has expanded beyond what is allowed. Even with construction of a
building, there will be considerable outdoor storage that would fall under the
definition of a junkyard.
Commissioner Mesich questioned whether there was some misunderstanding
between the applicant and staff, since it appears the applicant continued
activities at the site despite staff's order. Kirt Charest stated he did not feel the
amount of grading he was doing at the site was of significance, but did agree
that additional materials were brought to the site.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 8
.
Discussion followed regarding the types and quantities of the materials being
stored on the site.
Kirt Charest noted he plans to landscape the proposed building and blacktop
the drive.
Chair Thompson opened the public hearing.
Richard Baldwin, 4854 Thomas Avenue So., Minneapolis, MN, stated he owns the
farm west of the subject site. Mr. Baldwin described a problem he had with Mr.
Charest constructing a fence 40 feet onto his property. Mr. Baldwin contacted
John Oliver's office and the situation was resolved. Mr. Baldwin explained he
did not object to Mr. Charest operating a construction business but opposed
having a junkyard on the site.
Dave Merganthal, 21268 York Street NW, stated he owns the trucking company
adjacent to the Charest's property. Mr. Merganthal stated when the Charests
took over the subject property, he was told the site would be screened with a
berm and a row of fast-growing trees and to date, this has not been done. Mr.
Merganthal expressed his objection the grading Mr. Charest has done which has
caused drainage problems, and also, the unsightly fence which has been
started and not finished.
.
Jim Thompson, owner of Big 10 Auto Sales at 9945 Highway 10 stated he felt
there was a need for an auto salvage yard in Elk River, since the auto salvage
operations in Andover have been closed. He felt the Charests' site was
appropriate for this type of use since it was low land, city sewer and water was
not available, and the possibility the site may be contaminated from sewer
sludge being dumped there in the past. Mr. Thompson requested that the
Charests be required to blacktop the driveway to reduce the dust problems he
is experiencing. He explained that due to the increased traffic at the Charest
site, he now has to wash the cars on his lot every other day instead of once a
week. Mr. Thompson also felt the fence was unsightly.
Ed Schmik, 9975 Highway 10, expressed his opposition to the Charests' request.
He felt the current zoning was appropriate and conditions have not changed to
warrant a rezoning. Mr. Schmik expressed concern that a junkyard would
eventually cause contamination of the ground water. He felt the use proposed
by the Charests would devalue the commercial property in the area.
There being no further comments from the public, Chair Thompson closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Minton informed the Charests he did not support the zone
change request; however, if they were to construct a building on the site, he
would be willing to consider an application for a conditional use permit for
outdoor storage. Commissioner Minton stated it was important that the
applicants clean up the site and address the fence issue.
.
Commissioner Kuester indicated the city needs to address the issue of auto
salvage yards, but did not feel this site was appropriate. She explained it is one
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 9
.
of the city's goals to present a positive image at the east Highway 10 entrance
to the city.
Kirt Charest stated he did not feel the outdoor storage would be visible from
Highway 10.
Kendra Lindahl noted the building official has concerns regarding the custom
made fencing material being used by Mr. Charest. Staff has requested the
applicant provide information from the manufacturer regarding strength and
weathering capability and has not received it to date.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY JIM AND KIRT CHAREST, PUBLIC
HEARING CASE NO. ZC 96-16, AND THE LAND USE AMENDMENT, PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NO. LU 96-4, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. THIS PROPOSED JUNKYARD IS A VERY INTENSE USE FOR THIS LOCATION, AND
MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED IN ANOTHER AREA WHERE IT IS MORE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES.
2. THE PROPOSED REZONING AND LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD IMPACT
THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AND
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
3. THIS PROPOSED JUNKY ARD IS INCONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
EAST HIGHWAY 10.
.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY JIM AND KIRT CHAREST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96-17, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS, INFORMATION IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND INFORMATION RECEIVED
DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING:
.
1. IF THE ZONE CHANGE AND LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT ARE NOT APPROVED,
THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS A MOOT POINT. JUNKY ARDS ARE NOT
ALLOWED IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
2. A JUNKYARD AT THIS LOCATION WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT THE USE AND
ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
3. A JUNKY ARD IN THIS LOCATION WILL BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
4. A JUNKYARD WILL IMPEDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING VACANT
PROPERTY. IT IS UNLIKELY THAT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD TO
LOCATE NEXT TO A JUNK YARD. IT IS UNLIKELY THAT CLEAN, QUALITY INDUSTRY
WOULD LOCATE NEXT TO A JUNKY ARD.
5. THE SITE IS NOT EASILY ACCESSED BY THE NARROW PRIVATE DRIVE, AND
EMERGENCY VEHICLES MAY HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY ACCESSING THE SITE.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A
JUNKYARD THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THIS APPLICATION.
6. A JUNKY ARD WILL INVOLVE USES, ACTIVITIES, PROCESSES, MATERIALS,
EQUIPMENT AND CONDITIONS OF OPERATION THAT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 10
SURROUNDING PERSONS OR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC,
NOISE, FUMES, ODORS, DUST AND VIBRATIONS.
7. WHILE A JUNKY ARD WILL NOT DESTROY A NATURAL, SCENIC OR HISTORIC
FEATURE OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE, IN MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
APPEARANCE OF THIS AREA.
8. UP TO THIS POINT, MR. CHAREST HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH HIS APPROVED SITE
PLAN, THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE OR THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THEREFORE, STAFF HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE APPLICANT
WOULD COMPLY WITH THE STRINGENT CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A JUNKY ARD.
COMMISSIONER MESICH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
..-........-...--.-......-,-..........".",.",."","'.""""'.."""""""""..".......---------.--........."""."'....-.---------......................"......
6.10. @j#l()fElk~iy~rlReglJesffor()rclihdhcgAmehdmerHRegarajh9Cl~fil1ifk.>rlsfot
cOmme@m::llahclprtvofgRel1h@s>l?(jbIICl-h~()ril1deo$gNO.OA96M3
Staff report by Scott Harlicker. The City of Elk River is requesting an amendment
to Section 900.08 and Section 900.12 relating to definitions and allowed uses to
include definitions for commercial kennel and private kennel, and include
commercial and private kennels as an allowed use in the A 1 and R 1 a zones.
Scott explained the City Clerk has been working with the Police Department
Community Service Officers to clarify this section of the city's ordinance. Staff
recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as presented.
Discussion followed regarding possible changes in the language of the
proposed ordinance. Commissioners Kuester and Sullivan felt some clarifications
needed to be made in the definitions.
Commissioner Sullivan suggested two separate sentences be used in the private
Kennel definition and proposed the second statement read as follows:
-On a premise of 10 acres or more, up to 10 cats over the age of 6 months are
allowed as long they have been spayed or neutered.
Commissioner Mesich suggested the possibility of including an exemption in
Section 502.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the language be clarified
in the ordinance amendment for the following:
-an exemption for agricultural animals
-reason for use of the word" animal" in Commercial Kennel definition, and words
"cats and dogs" in Private Kennel definition.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO POSTPONE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,
PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 96-13 REGARDING DEFINITIONS FOR COMMERCIAL
AND PRIVATE KENNELS UNTIL THE OCTOBER 22, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 1996
Page 11
Scott Harlicker explained Mr. Gagne has offered to donate 48 acres of property
for park land, located north of Highway 10 and north of the Elk River along the
Waco Avenue alignment. The Park and Recreation Commission has indicated
their support for obtaining the property. The Planning Commission is asked to
determine if the use is consistent with the City of Elk River's Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THE USE OF
PROPERTY TO BE DONATED TO THE CITY OF ELK RIVER BY MR. GAGNE FOR PARK
LAND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF ELK RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
7.1. Plannina Commission Meetina Time Chanae
COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED APPROVAL OF CHANGING THE STARTING TIME
FOR ALL FUTURE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
TO 6:30 P.M. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 3-0-4. COMMISSIONERS MINTON, KUESTER, TACHENY AND ANDERSON
ABSTAINED.
There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MESICH MOVED TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~.. '&~~
Debbie Kleckner
Recording Secretary