Loading...
03-26-1996 PC MIN . . . &~~~@W~~ MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1996 Members Present: Chair Dillon, Commissioners Anderson, Minton, Sullivan and Thompson Members Absent: Commissioners Kuester and Tacheny Staff Present: Steven B. Ach, City Planner; Scott Harlicker, Planning Assistant; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; 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 p.m. by Chair Dillon. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE 3/26/96 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3;C8Hsif:lerH2J15196SPecldIPldHHiHdC8mmissioHKM:!efiRdMihdt~@ COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE 2/15/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. ........."............. ____ __ ___ .dO...............___.......__.___.__........_______.........__....................................... .4............ .......COt'isk:Jer.2/27/96PldHhitla..COmmissi8H..MeefiHO..MtHilifes..... The following corrections were noted: Page 10 - Finish incomplete sentence by adding the words "the development be limited to one freestanding sign". Page 3 - Add the word "Commission" to the motion made by Commissioner Minton on this page. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE 2/27/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. SF ......1?IdHHthd...Goml1ii$$iBh..relSr~seHtdth)~tBdtteHd..$11s196CitvCBDH8il..MeetlHd................ Commissioner Sullivan will attend the 4/15/96 City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page 2 . Staff report by Steve Ach. Menards, Inc. is requesting a conditional use permit for site plan approval to construct a 160,680 square foot commercial building on Lot 1, Block 1, Hillside Crossing II. The subject property is an 11 acre site generally located at the southeast corner of Highway 169 and 197th Avenue. The Menards site will have access off Evans Street. which will extend from Sax Foods up to 197th A venue. Steve reviewed comments in the staff report relating to the site plan, traffic, access, parking, fencing, outdoor display, fire protection, landscaping, building materials, and signage. Steve noted 412 parking stalls have been included, with 9 of them being handicapped accessible. Steve noted that the 412 parking stalls are less than the ordinance requires; however, Menards has indicated that there will not be a problem. Also, he noted staff recommends a landscaping theme be continued throughout the PUD similar to the Hillside Crossing I PUD. Terry Maurer, City Engineer, indicated they have completed the grading and utility plan for the Hillside Crossing II plat and have submitted the plans to the engineer for Menards. He noted that he has received the plans back from Menards and anticipates there will be no problems with compliance. Commissioner Anderson asked if the 14 foot fence will be made of wood. . Marv Prochaska, Engineer representing Menards, Inc., explained the fence will be made of vertical 2' x 8' brown treated lumber. Commissioner Sullivan asked when the lights shown near the fence will be lit. Mr. Prochaska stated the lights will be lit during the hours the store is open. He noted the lights have visual side cut-offs and should not be visible outside of the fenced area. Commissioner Minton asked for clarification regarding the yard barn display. Mr. Prochaska stated the yard barns will be constructed, painted and decorated for display at the north end of the site. Commissioner Minton asked if the proposed metal cover for the storage racks located next to the fence would cause a glare problem into the residential area. Mr. Prochaska stated that he did not feel there would be a problem, given the 14 ft. height of the fence. Commissioner Anderson questioned if there would be any other outdoor displays, other than the yard barns. Mr. Prochaska stated the various types of fencing they sell will be displayed on the front of the building in the same area as the yard barn display. . Commissioner Minton asked for clarification on th~ underground sprinkling system. Mr. Prochaska explained that the system is an underground frost-free type system which is hooked up to garden hoses. Commissioner Minton asked if some trees could be saved in the triangular shaped area at the intersection of Evans and 196th. Steve Ach stated based on the grading plan there will be no trees remaining on site. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page 3 . Commissioner Sullivan asked for clarification on Terry Maurer's comment regarding the parking stalls near the yard entrance. Terry Maurer explained that he felt customers may have a problem backing out of these stalls if there were a line of cars waiting to access the yard. Mr. Prochaska stated these stalls will be used primarily by the yard attendants and should not be a problem. Commissioner Anderson asked if Menards planned to use speed bumps in the parking lot. Mr. Prochaska explained since the traffic will be entering off the street and making parallel routes throughout the lot, he did not feel there would be a problem. Commissioner Minton asked if the Police Department concerns had been addressed. Mr. Prochaska felt given the geometrics of the plan, there would not be a problem with lighting. Also, Mr. Prochaska stated the lighted product signs on the wall of the building would be set on a time clock to go off approximately 1 hour after store closing. Chair Dillon opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Dillon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Minton stated that two letters have been received which stated concerns regarding the proposed Menards facility; one from Cheryl Becker and one from Jeff Meyer. . Chair Dillon expressed his concern for hoses lying on the ground with the type of sprinkling system proposed by Menards. Chair Dillon felt the City should require the same type of sprinkling system for all developments to remain consistent. Chair Dillon also expressed concern for the yard entrance canopy and felt some type of building material which would be compatible to the Menards structure should be used. Discussion followed regarding the yard canopy, The Commissioners were in general agreement they did not have a problem with the yard canopy as proposed, with the exception of Chair Dillon. Chair Dillon stated he felt the outdoor display should be located within the outside storage yard. He noted Sax and Target requested outdoor displays and were denied. Discussion followed regarding the location of the yard barn and fencing display. Commissioner Sullivan stated she did not have a problem with the yard barn display. She felt the type of storage was unique. Commissioner Anderson stated when visiting other Menards stores, outdoor displays include patio and lawn furniture, patio brick and other items. Mr. Prochaska stated those stores had chain link fencing around the outdoor storage display area for security and this area would not: therefore, those items would not be displayed in the yard barn display area. Chair Dillon questioned if the display area could become a security issue in the future. Commissioner Anderson concurred with staff's recommendation for additional landscaping along the fence. . COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY MENARDS, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page .4 . FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96-2, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE CITY ENGINEER'S LETTER, AND THE FACT THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL OF STAFF'S COMMENTS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED MARCH 25, 1996, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE REVISED SET OF PLANS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. ALL OF THE CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS IN THE MEMO DATED MARCH 22, 1996, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 3. ALL OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. CHAIR DILLON OPPOSED. . Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Paul and Paula Kowalzek are requesting a 127.5 foot setback variance from the required 300 foot setback between an agricultural building and adjacent dwelling. They are also requesting a conditional use permit to have horses on a platted lot of less than five acres. The property (approximately 3 acres in size) is located at 14225 214th Avenue NW, North Meadows subdivision. The applicants received a building permit to construct a pole barn with the understanding it would be used for storage. When the applicants began construction of a split rail fence, the building inspector notified them that if the building was going to be used for agricultural purposes, it would have to be 300 feet from the neighbor's house, and the fence would have to be 200 feet from the neighbor's house. It was at this point that they applied for the variance and conditional use permit. A variance is required because the building is proposed to be used to house a horse. During the review of this request, several questions arose regarding agricultural buildings, fences, setbacks and the distinction between platted and unplatted property, as follows: . It is unclear if the 300 foot setback from the adjacent residence for agricultural buildings applies only if the building is constructed of metal. The Zoning Code lists metal skin agricultural buildings as requiring the 300 foot setback. It is not clear if agricultural buildings constructed of other materials, such as wood, require the same setback as metal buildings. It would seem that they should. . . If it is the intent to keep a 300 foot separation between agricultural activity and adjacent residences, the agricultural activity should be subject to the Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page 5 . 300 foot setback; there should not be a distinction between building types. It would also be easier to apply the setback requirement if the setback was measured from a fixed point, such as a property line. . Livestock fences are currently subject to a 200 foot setback. It is not clear why it is acceptable to have livestock 200 feet from the adjacent house if they are outside but they have to be 300 feet away if they are inside a metal building. The Zoning Code also makes a distinction between platted property and uplatted property. . In the R 1 a zone and A 1 zone agricultural uses require a CUP if they occur on a platted lot; it does not matter what size the lot is. A person could have a 10 acre platted lot and a CUP is required for agricultural uses. If that same person had a 5.5 acre unplatted lot, they could conduct the same activity without a CUP. It is not clear why there is a distinction between platted and unplatted property. If proximity to neighboring residences is the concern, lot size not based on platted or unplatted conditions should be a sufficient criteria for determining if a CUP is required. . Scott indicated there does not appear to by any constraints that would prohibit the applicant from complying with the 300 foot setback, which would place the storage building in the back yard. Staff was also unclear as to what undue hardship the applicant would face by complying with the required setback. Staff feels this request does not meet the five standards required to grant a variance. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow one horse on the property with the conditions that one acre of pasture are be provided and, that the fence enclosing the pasture must be at least 200 feet from the neighbor's house. Paula Kowalzek, 14225 214th Avenue NW, stated there was no home on the neighboring property when their metal building was constructed. Mrs. Kowalzek stated that complying with the setback from the neighbor's home would mean relocating the metal building where their current residence is located. She stated they are not able to relocate the barn in their back yard due to the location of the mound septic system. Mr. Kowalzek stated that in checking out the possibility of moving the metal building, he was told it would essentially destroy it. Paula Kowalzek explained they will also be requesting a variance for the fence. She submitted a letter from the adjacent neighbor which states they have no objection to the location of the fence. Paul Kowalzek stated that he would be willing to move the fence back 25 feet and plant a grove of trees to buffer the site from the neighboring residence. . Commissioner Anderson asked if the Kowalzeks planned to have more than one horse. Paula Kowalzek stated it would depend on whether or not the variance for the barn and fence were approved before they would know if they could come up with 2 acres of pasture area. She added that if the variances are not approved, they may not even have 1 acre of pasture. Commissioner Minton . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page 6 asked if the area where the mound septic system is located could be included in the pasture area. Scott stated the building inspector informed them to have a large animal walking on it would likely destroy the system. Mrs. Kowalzek stated the good pasture land is located in the northwest portion of their property. The Kowalzeks stated they were willing to move the fence, but their neighbor has indicated in the letter he has no problem with it remaining in its present location. Discussion followed regarding the setback requirement is determined for agricultural buildings from neighboring residences when an adjacent lot is vacant. Possible ordinance amendments were discussed to address the concerns pointed out by Scott. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION TABLE THE REQUEST BY PAUL AND PAULA KOWALZEK FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6~6.R@vl@wc:Wi%::l)(1r'\8remetifFinHl'ldnaFm:Jnf8l"'t8Xlnc;rem@hfFin8h8inO[)iSfri8tif14 Commissioner Sullivan excused herself from discussion on this item due to a conflict of interest. Steve Ach presented the staff report on this item. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 96-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 14 LOCATED WITHIN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN ABSTAINED. Steve Ach provided information for two different concepts for development of the Country Crossing 3rd Addition plat. Steve noted that a formal request for . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page 7 preliminary plat approval is expected in the near future. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to favor the concept with 14,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Minton requested that the row of trees be preserved if possible, and that the developer try to incorporate design techniques to add aesthetic interest to the development. Presented for information. There being no further business, COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~- Y{&~ Debbie Kleckner Planning Secretary