Loading...
04-28-1992 PC MIN . . . MINUTES OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY APRIL 28, 1992 Members Present: Chairman Nadeau, Commissioners Spotts, Eberley, Johnson, Tveite, and VanValkenburg Members Absent: Commissioner Minton Staff Present: Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant 1. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof; the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Consider 4/28/92 Planning Commission Agenda Item 9.1 Item 9.2 Item 9.3 Item 9.4 Groundwater Standards Growth Management Plan/Dickenson Letter New Elementary School as it relates to SOLU Workshop Issues COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE 4/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Consider 3/24/92 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Eberley requested correction to item 9, page 8. This should include her statement, for the record, regarding direct inconsistencies with commitments made through the adoption of Focus Area Studies. The study for this area named the area a "community treasure" with its virgin timber growth and that every effort would be made to preserve this treasure. This proposal looks like clear cutting and does not speak to the preservation of our rural, green environment and image. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3/24/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1. Commissioner Johnson abstained from the vote as she was not present at the 3/24/92 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Consider 3/31/92 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 3/31/92 MINUTES. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. 5-0-1. Commissioner Johnson abstained from the present at the 3/3/192 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION THE MOTION CARRIED vote as she was not 5. Planning Commission Representative to Attend 5/18/92 City Council Meeting It was indicated that Commissioner VanValkenburg would attend the 5/18/92 City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 2 . 6. Consider Zone Change Request (R-lb to C-3) By wapiti Park/P.H. Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that Ms. White is requesting a zone change from R~lb/Single Family Residential to C-3/Highway Commercial on the south 1265.73 ft. of their property. He then reviewed the three situations when a zone change can be approved. He briefly explained the reasons why Ms. White felt they met the requirements for a zone change: 1) They felt the Comprehensive Plan for this area is in error. 2) That the junkyard located to the east prohibits her property from being developed as residential. 3) That the flood fringe limits residential development. Staff is recommending denial because the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that it would be considered spot zoning. Mr. Rohlf stated that he had received a letter from Michael Klemz, 18540 Troy Street, stating his opposition to the request because Troy Street is a private road and neither Troy nor the adjacent frontage road are suited for commercial traffic. He was further concerned with his property values if the zone change were to be approved. Ms. White stated that the junkyard was there prior to her owning the parcel in question. She stated that anyone building a house in this area does not want to overlook a junkyard. She felt commercial was a better use for their property. . Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. Dick Swenson, Edina Realty, stated he was representing a client interested in purchasing the property for the purpose of camper sales. Mr. Swenson felt that trying to put any kind of residential housing next to the junkyard would be considered a folly. He stated this was an extreme hardship for the existing owners. He felt that campers on this site would be a plus to that corridor as this would buffer residential from the existing junkyard. Mr. Rohlf cautioned the Planning Commission that with a zone change they must consider all the uses that could be allowed in the C-3 zoning district. If this parcel were rezoned to C-3 it could not be split off from the larger parcel without extending City services to that area. Karla Laurent, 18568 Troy Street, was opposed to the request as she was concerned with the uses that could be allowed in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Swenson commented on Troy Street and the amount of traffic their use would generate compared to the junkyard. He felt their use would not generate any more traffic than what is already being allowed by the junkyard. He felt that any type of use would form a good buffer from the junkyard. . Mr. Rohlf addressed his concern stating that you should not mix residential traffic and commercial traffic especially on a frontage road that was not designed for commercial traffic. The junkyard is currently a nonconforming use because it is not screened. He suggested staff will look into screening with direction from the City Council. . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 3 Chairman Nadeau closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson questioned the junkyard property that was zoned industrial and why this wasn't changed to comply with the underlying land use for this area. Mr. Rohlf explained that it was probably zoned industrial when they first adopted the zoning maps to accommodate the existing uses. Commissioner Johnson indicated that she would like to see if staff could pursue bringing that strip in line with the current land use plan as it doesn't serve any purpose to have that parcel zoned industrial. Mr. Rohlf stated that he would send a message to the Council that the Planning Commission would be in favor of sending a notice of amortization and rezoning. Once again, staff would like direction from the Council because it is a controversial issue and would most likely take legal action. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1B/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-3/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL BY WAPITI PARK BASED UPON THE RATIONAL AS PUT FORTH IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED 4/20/92 AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT IT WOULD CONSTITUTE SPOT ZONING. ALSO TO ENCOURAGE STAFF TO PURSUE COMPLIANCE OF THE JUNKYARD PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 7. Consider Site Plan Review by Linda Norha/Gary Santwire for an Addition to Building and Property Line Adjustment Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, explained that the applicants are requesting to adjust their lot lines to accommodate a 14' x 14' addition to the north side of their existing building in Barrington Square. Mr. Rohlf stated that the property lies within a PUD and requires a site plan review. The City Council heard this request at their 4/20/92 City Council and waived the Council authority to review the site plan and referred the site plan to the Planning Commission for their review and final decision. Mr. Santwire stated that John Oliver has prepared the legal description of the new parcels. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN BY LINDA NORHA WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THAT THE 8 FT. SETBACK IS ACCEPTABLE. 2. THAT THE EXTERIOR FINISHES OF WALLS AND THE ROOF OF PROPOSED ADDITION MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING. 3. THAT ANY ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS SCREENED. 4. THAT THE EXISTING LARGE OAK IS RETAINED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION IS LANDSCAPED. Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 4 . COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 8. Consider Ordinance Amendment/Sign Regulations/Section Portable Signs, Home Occupation Signs, window signs, Large Commercial Business/P.H. 900. 22/Temporary and Signs for Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the sign ordinance is once again scheduled for review by the Planning Commission. Staff felt that four specific areas should be addressed during Planning Commission's review of this ordinance: off premise portable signs, off premise home occupation signs, window signs, and large commercial signs. OFF PREMISE PORTABLE SIGNS: Ms. Szklarski, stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed this item last year, they were uncomfortable with the term "non profit". Staff suggested that the City should use the same criteria which the IRS uses to determine whether a business is non profit. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment which would allow non profit groups to advertise fund raising events off premise, but feels a cap should be put on the number of signs that these organizations can have at one time. Ms. Szklarski suggested that nonprofit organizations be limited to four signs per event. . The question was raised who was responsible for the removal of these signs. Ms. Szklarski stated that staff has never had a problem with their removal because the applicant is required to leave a $50 deposit. Commissioner Tveite stated that a $50 deposit would go a long way to assure accountability. Steve Rohlf stated that the Building and Zoning Administrator has the authority to cause removal of these signs if they were to cause a dangerous situation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they were in agreement with staff's memo and the proposed ordinance amendment language as proposed by staff with the inclusion of a definition of "non profit" status as outlined by the IRS determination. HOME OCCUPATIONS SIGNS: Ms. Szklarski stated that the issue of off premise home occupation signs was raised when the Kennedy Garden Greenhouse case was before the Planning Commission and City Council last summer. The City Council approved their conditional use permit request but directed staff to investigate alternatives available in regards to the existing off-premise signs advertising their business. The City attorney reviewed this and felt that there was no provisions in the City's ordinance to allow seasonal off-premise signs for home occupations. . LeeRoy Kennedy, 10205 201st Ave. NW, indicated that there are four 201st Avenues in Elk River that are not connected and he stated that without the signs, people would not be able to locate their business. He further stated that these are directional signs in a rural area and they would only be up a couple months out of the year as they are a seasonal business. Mrs. Kennedy stated that a sign on their building would not do them any good because they do not live on a main highway. Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 5 . Ms. Szklarski suggested some sort of compromise because the Kennedy's situation is unique because of their location, being in a rural area, its a temporary business, and also seasonal. She felt that this is something that the Planning Commission should consider. Commissioner Johnson stated adequate to deal with the community and suggested maybe to certain zones. that maybe one ordinance may not be variety and diversity of businesses in our limiting off premise directional signage Mr. Rohlf stated that he felt a little flexibility was warranted because there are certain commercial uses that do not lend themselves to being in a commercial zone. There are a number of business that are not suited for commercial areas located in the A-l and R-la zones such as golf courses, the Kennedy greenhouse, tree farms, the landfill, etc., but do not allow off-premise signs through the home occupation section of the ordinance. . Commissioner spotts questioned whether the Kennedy Gardens greenhouse was a home occupation or a commercial enterprise that can not be in a commercial zone. He felt that seasonal type businesses such as greenhouses, tree farms, etc. are a commercial enterprise rather than a home occupation. He noted that other northern tier suburbs have a special category for commercial enterprises such as trees farms, fruit farms, etc. Commissioner spotts was opposed to off premise signage under the category of home occupation. Commission Johnson concurred with Commissioner Spotts. After a lengthy discussion on this issue, the Planning Commission felt that a new category should be developed for rural commercial businesses that need to be in the A-lor R-la zones. It wouldn't matter if they're a home occupation or not, if they fit the definition of a rural commercial business. Staff agreed to research this and try to have some information available for the Planning Commission's workshop in June. A short recess was taken at this time. WINDOW SIGNS: Ms. Szklarski stated that staff is asking for an interpretation or clarification from the Planning Commission as to whether or not signs placed on the inside of windows, which would include writing on windows, are violating the intent of the City's sign ordinance. Should window signs be counted as wall signage? Staff is recommending that window signs or window displays be allowed with only 25% of the window to be covered with signage. Gary Santwire, felt that there displays as he felt they were the piece of glass separating them. outside but not inside. should be some regulations on window same as outside displays with just a He stated that they are being enforced . Discussion took place regarding the regulation of window displays as to whether they should be subject to the regulations of the sign ordinance. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 6 . that they would like staff to check with surrounding communities as far as their definitions and how they are being regulated. LARGE COMMERCIAL SIGNS: Ms. Szklarski explained that the City Council is requesting that the Planning Commission review the amount of signage, both freestanding and wall signage, which should be allowed for larger commercial and industrial uses in respect to what other cities allow. Staff was recommending that after commercial uses exceed 50,000 sq. ft. they should be allowed 500 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Mr. Santwire suggested using a sliding scale in which the size signage would be pro rated according to the size of the building. Rohlf stated that he felt it was a reasonable approach. of the Mr. After discussing this issue, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that they would like staff to video existing large commercial facilities (Walmart, CUB, K-Mart, etc.) as to the size of their wall signage and freestanding signage in comparison to their building. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEIR DISCUSSION OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO THEIR JUNE 16TH WORKSHOP MEETING TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL WITH THE INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE MEETING TO THE JUNE 23, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. . 9. Other Business 9.1 Groundwater Standards Commissioner Johnson explained that she received some material regarding Health-Based Groundwater Standards for Minnesota in which the 1989 Groundwater Protection Act spells out the monitoring and regulating strategies for preventing degradation of our groundwater. This information was given to the recording secretary to be copied and given to the Planning Commission since this was one of the issues of concern of many communities. 9.2 Growth Management Plan Discussion Chairman Nadeau introduced the issue of a letter from the City Attorney, Peter Beck regarding the possible condemnation of property owned by Bill Dickenson, Jr. Chairman Nadeau stated that he did not know if this discussion fit under discussion on the Growth Management Plan, but stated his opposition to a letter of this sort being sent without input from the Planning Commission. Steve Rohlf, Building information on the condemnation with Mr. and Zoning Administrator, gave some letter stating that it was only a Dickenson's understanding of the intent. background threat of . Gary Santwire stated he was representing Roger Scherer, the Norhas, the Deckers, R.E.P. Ltd., G & A Development and George Dietz. He further stated his opposition to the City Council creating a situation with . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1992 Page 7 this letter of condemnation that produces an unfair advantage in favor of new business that would be competing with existing business. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this letter should happen only after community involvement, if at all. 9.3 New Elementary School as it Relates to SOLU Ordinance The Planning Commission had taken the location of the new school into consideration because the use requires a conditional use permit and there is a specified setback from schools, this concern was addressed. 9.4 Workshop Topics commissioner Johnson stated that the May include a concept of the City's tax base in been extended to Sherburne County, Big Otsego. The June workshop includes further sign ordinance. 10. Adjournment There being THE MEETING. CARRIED 6-0. 19th workshop meeting would which an invitation has Lake, Big Lake Township and discussion regarding the no further business, COMMISSIONER TVEITE MOVED TO ADJOURN COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~t~~ Sharon Maue Recording Secretary