Loading...
06-23-1992 PC MIN . . . MINUTES OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY JUNE 23, 1992 Members Present: Vice Chair Eberley, Commissioners spotts, Tveite, and Minton Members Absent: Chairman Nadeau, Commissioners VanValkenburg & Johnson Staff Present: stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, Sharon Building & Zoning Secretary; and Peter Beck, Attorney Maue, City 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. by Vice Chair Eberley. 2. Consider 6/23/92 Planning Commission Agenda Workshop Minutes 6/16/92 was added to the agenda. discussion items were added to the agenda: "Use Technique" and "Revisiting Neighboring Planning to the agenda under Item. 14, "Other Business". Also, the of the PUD as Commissions" Item 4.5, following a Planning were added COMMISSIONER MINTON AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. MOVED TO APPROVE THE 6/23/92 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE 3. Consider 5/26/92 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE 5/26/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. Vice Chair Eberley noted that on page 10, in the last paragraph "Mr. Szklarski" should read "Ms. Szklarski." COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-1. Commissioner Tveite abstained from the vote as he was not present at the 5/26/92 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Consider 6/8/92 City Council/Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 6/8/92 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Minton added "public transportation" to Item 3, last sentence after non-motorized vehicle transportation. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION AS AMENDED. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 2 . 5. Planning Commission Representative to Attend 7/20/92 City Council Meeting. It was indicated that Commissioner Spotts would attend the 7/20/92 City Council Meeting. 6. Consider Ordinance Amendment Section 900.22 "Sign Ordinance" Regarding Large Commercial Signs, Window Signs, and Off Premise Signs/P.H. Vice Chair Eberley stated that the Planning Commission had reached a consensus on several of the items that were in question regarding the windows signs, off-premise directional signs, and larger commercial signs at their June workshop meeting. She further noted that the public hearing had been continued to this meeting. . Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that she had used the Prior Lake Ordinance and MnDOT regulations for "specific service signs" in her research. She stated that MnDOT allows several types of businesses to have off-premise signage in rural areas. Ms. Szklarski stated that some sort of criteria needs to be set up regarding the kinds of businesses that can receive these off-premise signs. Staff's main concern is that these signs are only given to businesses who must locate in a rural area and not those that choose to locate in rural areas. This ordinance should not create an unfair advantage for those businesses who choose to locate outside of the commercial district. Staff is in agreement with the Commission that off-premise directional signs be allowed, but staff is concerned with leaving the decision of whether a business meets this rather vague definition up to staff. At this time, Vice Chair hearing. She stated previous meetings. Eberley reviewed the procedures for a public that the public hearing is still open from the Carol Mills of the Guardian Angels Foundation stated that she had been asked by a number of people if the large commercial sign on the corner of Main Street and Highway 169 was legal. Ms. Szklarski stated that the large sign on the corner of Main and 169 is classified as a billboard and does meet all of the City's criteria. Donald Driessen, 324 Main Street, questioned whether that would limit the property from being used for anything else, other than a billboard. Ms. Szklarski stated that under the current ordinance one principle use per lot is allowed. Unless the billboard is removed, that is the only use allowed on that lot. WINDOW SIGNS It was the general consensus of the Planning that they would like to see window signs limited to a maximum the window area. They also indicated that no sign permit required for these signs. Commission of 50% of would be . OFF-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS There was a number of discussed regarding off-premise direction signs at the meeting. criteria included: criteria Those Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 3 . which cases should be handled administratively and which ones should be handled through the CUP process? Commissioner Minton stated that if the definitions signs could be reviewed on an administrative basis. any questions, bring it up through the conditional use are very clear, Where there process. most are how many signs should be allowed per business? It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to allow two directional signs per business that qualifies for an off-premise sign. the size of the signs and type of message? There was discussion regarding the size and content of off-premise directional signs. The Planning Commission was in agreement with MnDOT's size regulations that off-premise signs shall be no more than 9 sq. ft. with the message on the sign limited to the name of the establishment, a directional arrow, and the distance to the establishment. where should directional signs be located? . Location of the signs were discussed. Ms. Szklarski stated that staff is requesting that the signs be placed along highways with an arterial street status. The Growth Management Plan was referenced as to which roads were arterial streets (Highway 10 & 169, County Road 1, 32, 21, 13 and 33, Meadowvale Road, and School Street). These signs would have to be placed on private property with the permission of the property owner. LeeRoy Kennedy, 10205 201st Ave. NW, asked what MnDOT's regulations were regarding the setback of signs from the road. Ms. Szklarski stated that MnDOT's signs are actually in the highway right-of-way. The City requires a 10 ft. setback from the property line for placement of signs. Mr. Kennedy stated that his sign was set back 50 ft. as not to obstruct traffic. how many signs would be allowed in one location? Steve Rohlf, Building & Zoning Administrator, suggested that one post be allowed at an intersection. Commissioner Spotts felt that one post would not be enough. Mr. Rohlf then suggested that the signs be combined if possible and left up to staff's discretion and interpretation as to whether or not there are two many signs on a post. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to allow two posts per intersection. . LARGE COMMERCIAL SIGNS: Vice Chair Eberley stated that the Commission had reached a consensus regarding large commercial signs. She stated that the Planning Commission felt that no trade-off should be allowed between wall signage and freestanding signage at the discretion of staff. It was also agreed that the maximum amount of wall signage for large a commercial facility exceeding 50,000 sq. ft. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 4 . should be increased to 250 sq. ft. freestanding signage should not facilities. It was also agreed that be allowed for larger additional commercial The general consensus of the Planning Commission was that they would like staff to make the required revisions to the sign ordinance and bring it back to the Planning Commission for their final review at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO TABLE THE SIGN ORDINANCE UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 7. Consider Zone Foundation/P.H. Change Request (R-4 to PUD) By Guardian Angels . Janelle szklarski, Zoning Assistant, explained that Guardian Angels is requesting that their property be rezoned from R-4/Multifamily Residential to PUD/Planned Unit Development to accommodate the future expansion, and to consolidate this facility with their present campus facilities as one PUD. The applicants are requesting a Planned Unit Development because this would give them flexibility which is needed in providing senior housing. She further stated that there would be no change to the underlying land use. Staff is recommending approval of the zone change as it is consistent with the intent of the Growth Management Plan and also meets the demands for senior housing. Vice Chair Eberley opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or against the request, Vice Chair Eberley closed the public hearing. Commissioner spotts questioned the use of the PUD and felt that this warranted some further discussion as he felt that the PUD was being used to get around some of the regulations in the City code. Vice Chair Eberley also felt that the Planning Commission needed to revisit this issue to make sure that the PUD mechanism is being used properly. Ms. Szklarski stated that unless the City drafts that deals with senior housing specifically, mechanism to use. a special ordinance the PUD is the proper Steve Rohlf stated that this request is an example use of a PUD where you need flexibility because of Rohlf stated that he was strongly urging approval because a PUD is a good tool for senior housing. of an appropriate special uses. Mr. of this request Vice Chair Eberley asked staff to show her where in the Focus Area Study says that a PUD is a good tool for senior housing. . Mr. Rohlf explained that appropriate mechanism by during the Focus Area Study PUD's were specifically mentioned as an the City Council to address senior density discussion. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-4/MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD/PLANNED Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 5 . UNIT DENSITY BY GUARDIAN ANGELS FOUNDATION WITH THE UNDERLYING LAND USE REMAINING THE SAME BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 8. Consider Conditional Use Permit Request (Senior High-Rise) by Guardian Angels Foundation/P.H. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, introduced this item by stating that Guardian Angels Foundation is requesting a conditional use permit to accommodate a 53 unit, 4-story, senior high rise facility. The applicants will also be requesting plat approval through the administrative subdivision process in conjunction with this request at the July 20, 1992 City Council meeting. Ms. Szklarski briefly addressed the issues relating to the conditional use permit request. Ms. Szklarski then reviewed Mr. Maurer's comments regarding this request as submitted in his memo dated 6/22/92. One of Mr. Maurer's concerns was the 3 to 1 slope on the east side of the site. He felt that this would be difficult to maintain. . Ms. Szklarski explained that the final issue that needs clarification is the park dedication fee. She stated that a park dedication fee is required whenever property is platted. The total park dedication fee for this site would be $18,550. Guardian Angels is requesting that the City waive the park dedication fee because the tenants are the frail elderly who would not use the park facilities as normal residents would, and also to keep the cost down so the rent can be affordable for elderly tenants. Ms. Szklarski stated that she had talked to Pat Klaers, City Administrator, and they both felt that because this property has not paid park dedication in the past, the fee should be applied to this property. If a waiver is granted, it should be according to an established policy which spells out criteria for determining when to waive park dedication fees. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, recommended that park dedication fees be waived. The ordinance states that the City Council may require a park dedication fee. He went on to explain that the applicants did not have to plat their property. The applicants are not creating any new lots just rearranging the lot lines so as to clean up their legal description. He stated other than PUD flexibility with higher density, waiving park dedication is the only way for the City to encourage affordable senior housing, which the City Council has identified as a goal through the Focus Area Study discussion. Commissioner spotts agreed that senior housing is needed in Elk River, but stated it is the City's tax dollars being used for parks. After discussing this issue, it was the Planning Commission that they would like to place regarding the waiver of park dedication general consensus of the see some sort of policy in fees. . Peter Beck, City Attorney stated that this is not an issue for the Planning Commission and there is no need for the Planning Commission to make a formal recommendation on this issue. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 6 . At this time, Ms. Mills addressed the park dedication fee which she felt was outrageous. Ms. Mills stated that the elderly will be paying for this through a rent increase. She stated that Guardian Angels has their own park for the frail elderly as they are unable to go to the regular parks. Ms. Mills felt that the elderly have really paid their dues as they are paying $1007 in taxes for a 625 sq. ft. apartment. Guardian Angels will be asking the City Council to waive the park dedication fee. Carol Mills of the Guardian Angels Foundation, stated concurred with the stipulations in staff's memo except for addressed parking requirements. they #9 they which Sherry Emerson, Project Manager, addressed the parking requirements for Angel Ridge. Ms. Emerson passed out information regarding the Guardian Angels Senior Housing Study in regards to parking data. She stated that Bob Hoeppner, HUD Architect, has cautioned Guardian Angels against excess blacktop parking that is not being used so as to preserve the green area. Therefore, they are requesting to construct 17 proposed parking stalls in the northeast lot instead of the 31 parking stalls shown on the plan. She stated the proposed parking along the southwest driveway (14 spaces) will be held for later construction if a parking shortage is evident. . Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the City does have an ordinance (Proof of Future parking Provision) that addresses these types of future parking needs. If the City Council would determine that additional parking is needed the additional stalls would need to be built. Vice Chair Eberley opened the public hearing. Donald Driessen stated that he would like to see more green space and the parking area cut down until such time as it would be needed. Vice Chair Eberley closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY GUARDIAN ANGELS FOUNDATION TO ACCOMMODATE A 53 UNIT, 4-STORY, SENIOR HIGH RISE FACILITY AS THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. 1. THAT THE SETBACKS IN THIS PUD BE 30 FEET FROM THE FRONT, 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE, 25 FEET FROM THE REAR AS THEY ARE IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT. HOWEVER, A ZERO LOT LINE SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES CONNECT. . 2. THAT THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF 22.45 UNITS PER ACRE IS ACCEPTABLE IN THIS PUD. 3. THAT DRAINAGE AND GRADING IS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 7 4. THAT APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS ARE PROVIDED FOR UTILITIES SUCH AS SEWER, WATER AND ELECTRICAL LINES THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS. 5. THAT THE APPLICANT BRING THE SEWER LINE TO THE SECOND MANHOLE IN EVANS AVENUE. 6. THAT THE PRIVATE UTILITY LINES ARE MAINTAINED BY GUARDIAN ANGELS FOUNDATION. 7. THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN APPROPRIATE PERMITS REGARDING STREET REPAIR. 8. THAT THE FIRE HYDRANT BE ADDED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ANGEL RIDGE AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND THAT THE BUILDING IS FULLY SPRINKLED WITH STANDPIPES INSIDE THE BUILDING. 9. THAT THE SOUTHWEST PARKING AREAS BE RESERVED AS GREEN SPACE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NEEDED AND THEN BE CONVERTED TO ADDITIONAL PARKING. 10. THAT THE APPLICANT PLANT 17 TREES AS PROPOSED ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 11. THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND THE DUMPSTER ARE SCREENED ACCORDING TO THE ELK RIVER CITY ORDINANCE. 12. THAT LIGHTING MEETS THE ELK RIVER CITY CODE. 13. THAT SIGNAGE MEETS THE R-4 STANDARDS. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Vice Chair Eberley stated that Guardian Angels should keep the City informed of their future planning efforts and possibly coordinate these efforts with the City's planning. A short recess was taken at this time. 9. Consider Variance Request (Setback from Environmental Waters) By Bill Honek/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building & Zoning Administrator, stated that the applicants are requesting a 70 ft. encroachment on the 150 ft. setback from the ordinary high water mark of a natural environmental water to the adjacent septic system and house. He stated that the property is currently owned by Lawrence & Wendla Maupin. Mr. Honek is proposing to buy the lot from Mr. Maupin. Mr. Rohlf stated that they had received a letter from Dale Homuth, Area Hydrologist for the DNR, and he was recommending that the house and septic be moved back as far as possible from the pond. Staff is recommending approval contingent on staff seeing if the house couldn't be moved further back prior to the City Council meeting. Vice Chair Eberley opened the public hearing. . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 8 Kenneth Dohrmann, 12758 206th Avenue NW, questioned why they did not have any city services available to them, and further questioned why the City would allow another house to be built in this location? Mr. Rohlf addressed his concern stating that because they are private road and not a City street, they would not have some services, such as road maintenance available to them. He stated they could petition for the City to upgrade their road to meet standards, but they would be assessed for these improvements. applicant is not creating a new lot, but would be building on existing lot which is located on a private road. on a city that city The an Rosalind Hoglund, 12846 206th Ave., questioned the design of the septic system and whether it meet the City standards. Mr. Rohlf stated that the design of the septic system does meet the City and State standards. Vice Chair Eberley closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 70 FT ENCROACHMENT ON THE 150 FT. SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK BASED ON THE FIVE STANDARDS FOR A VARIANCE AND CONTINGENT UPON CITY STAFF APPROVING THE SEPTIC SYSTEM DESIGN AND THE HOUSE PLACEMENT. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 10. Consider Zone Change Request (C-2 to PUD) By Dennis Chuba/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building & Zoning Administrator, explained that the applicant (Dennis Chuba) is requesting a zone change from C-2/0ffice District to PUD/Planned Unit Development to accommodate a zero lot line situation for three office buildings that are proposed to be subdivided into three parcels. Mr. Chuba stated that the reason they were proposing to use the PUD mechanism was to address the zero lot lines that are need to accomplish this request. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the underlying land use would not change as offices are a permitted use with the current C-2 zoning designation. Vice Chair Eberley opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or against the request, Vice Chair Eberley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Minton questioned whether it was more feasible to change the ordinance to allow zero lot lines in commercial situations rather than use the PUD Mechanism. Mr. Rohlf stated that staff would look into seeing if the City ordinance can be changed to accommodate these types of uses, with City Council approval. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 9 . Vice Chair Eberley stated that she would also like to see the ordinance changed to accommodate these types of uses rather than using the PUD mechanism. Commissioner spotts stated that the City ordinance addresses the zero line situation for residential townhouses and duplexes and questioned whether the ordinance could be changed to include commercial zero line situations. Peter Beck, City Attorney, stated that the City would need a separate ordinance to address the issues of zero lot line development in commercial situations. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY DENNIS CHUBA FROM C-2/0FFICE DISTRICT TO PUD/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CITING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 6/3/92 REGARDING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY REVIEW THE ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL SITUATIONS. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. . 11. Consider Conditional Use Permit Request (Office Complex) by Dennis Chuba/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building & Zoning Administrator, stated that along with the conditional use permit request, an administrative subdivision to create three parcels is needed contingent upon the zone change and CUP being approved. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that she had received a call from Glenn Sundeen, Elk River Utilities Electrical Department stating his concern with the potential size of the green ash trees that the applicant was planning on planting that they are very fast growing trees which could interfere with the utility's overhead wires. Mr. Sundeen would like to see the applicant substitute some other type of trees, perhaps slower growing. Ms. Szklarski stated that she had talked with Gary Schmitz, Recycling Coordinator, and he had given her a list of slower growing and shorter trees that might meet this criteria. Vice Chair Eberley opened the public hearing. Donald Driessen, 324 Main Street, questioned whether the applicant had a building permit for this project. Mr. Rohlf stated that the applicant can be issued a building permit because office buildings under the current C-2 zoning are a permitted use, although the developer is at his own risk until the City Council allows the developer to build with a zero lot line. . Stewart Wilson, 18975 Troy Street, asked if you zone change to a PUD, does the developer have to enter into a PUD agreement with the City. Mr. Rohlf addressed his question, by stating that typically there is a PUD agreement, but staff is recommending that the conditions of the . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 10 conditional use permit be that PUD agreement. This would still have to be recorded with the County. Vice Chair Eberley closed the public hearing. Commissioner spotts asked about the upgrading of Evans Rohlf stated that the City has no immediate plans for Avenue. Commissioner Spotts was further concerned with truck traffic entering and exiting the site for removal being brought into the site. Avenue. Mr. upgrading Evans the amount of of dirt or dirt Commissioner Minton stated that the City's parking ordinances requires 26 parking stalls, the applicant is only showing 24 parking stalls. Mr. Rohlf stated that all three units could not be used for professional offices (doctor or dentist offices) without coming back to amend his original conditional use permit or adding an additional two parking stalls. He further stated that he had talked to the petitioner and he was aware that he needs two more parking stalls if he were to use the building for professional office only. Vice Chair Eberley questioned when there are three parcels under different ownership, would this be subject to only one conditional use permit? Peter Beck, City Attorney stated that they would all be subject to the same conditional use permit, but the City would amend that portion as the use changes, such as in a shopping center. COMMISSIONER TVEITE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY DENNIS CHUBA TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 21, VILLAGE OF ELK RIVER CITING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 6/3/92 ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THAT DRAINAGE, SETBACKS, BUILDING DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, PARKING AND DRIVES ARE BUILT AS PROPOSED ON THE SITE PLAN. 2. THAT PRIOR TO RECORDING AN ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT, IT IS REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. THIS AGREEMENT MUST SPELL OUT WHAT RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH WHOM REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF PARKING AND DRIVES, THE COMMON AREA, LANDSCAPING, AND UTILITIES. ALSO, THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE CLEAR THAT ALL THREE LOTS HAVE RIGHTS TO ACCESS THEIR LOTS WITH PARKING AND DRIVE AND UTILITIES. FURTHER, THE CITY MUST HAVE RIGHTS TO ACCESS WATER SHUT OFFS FOR THE VARIOUS LOTS. LASTLY, THE AGREEMENT MUST ASSURE THAT DISPUTES THAT COULD ARISE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS WILL NOT INVOLVE THE CITY. 3. THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL IS SUFFICIENT FOR A POD AGREEMENT. 4. THAT THE LANDSCAPING ALONG EVANS BE THE TYPE OF TREES THAT ARE SLOW GROWING SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE UTILITY LINES. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 11 . 5. THAT ALL THREE UNITS CAN WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE TWO NEEDED. NOT EXTRA BE USED AS PROFESSIONAL OFFICES PARKING STALLS THAT WOULD BE COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 12. Consider Zone Change Request (R-lb to C-3) By Wapiti Park/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building & Zoning Administrator, stated that the Planning Commission originally heard this request at their April 28, 1992 meeting and voted to recommended denial of the request. At the May 18, 1992, City Council meeting, the Council directed the Planning Commission to take another look at this issue because the petitioners indicated that they had new information related to the zone change request. The petitioners were requesting that this new information be consider in the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Rohlf stated that he has not received any new evidence of why Ms. White's zone change should be approved, but maybe a new approach to the zone change request (PUD). . Virgil Herrick, Attorney for Lorraine White, distributed three handouts to staff and the Commission which included: 1) a petition by the people using the campground in favor of the request, which included about 52 signatures. 2) a petition signed by two of the single family residents also in favor of the proposed zone change request. 3) a memorandum to the Planning Commission from Virgil Herrick, Ms. White's attorney, addressing some of the issues relating to this request. At this time the Planning Commission took a new documents. Vice Chair Eberley read petitions and their response to the zone documents were entered into the public record few minutes to both of the change request. at this time. review the resident's The three Mr. Herrick explained and addressed the following criteria as outlined in his memo dated 6/23/92: is the request a reasonable request? is a zone change warranted? is it feasible for Ms. White to develop her property with the present zoning situation? Mr. Herrick stated that they would like an opportunity to work with the City, Zoning Administrator and City Attorney to come up with some sort of development agreement that would allow for a mixture of commercial and residential uses on the property. . Mr. Rohlf stated that the property being rezoned is a part of a larger parcel. Mr. Rohlf questioned whether the portion of the parcel not being rezoned had a use already on it (ie. part of the campground). Ms. White stated that it was a separate parcel according to the tax records. There was further discussion regarding this issue, as staff was not sure this was a separate parcel from the campground parcel. Vice Chair Eberley opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 12 . Mr. Richard Swenson, realtor representing the prospective buyer, stated that the purchase agreement identifies the current parcel as a separate parcel from the existing campground parcel. He went on to explain the intended use of the property which would consist of retail sales of campers up front to blend in with the existing campground facility. Mr. Swenson stated that the property was worthless under the current zoning designation as the property cannot be developed as Single Family Residential while adjacent to a junkyard. He stated that maybe a PUD zoning would be better to protect the citizens and current land owners. Stewart Wilson, 17975 Troy Street, stated that he owned property directly south of the affected property along Highway 10 and he was unclear to as what the petitioners were requesting, a C-3 zoning or PUD? Mr. Rohlf stated that the original request was for C-3/Highway Commercial zoning for which the Planning Commission recommended denial. Mr. Herrick stated that they would be willing to discuss the PUD approach as it would give the City some flexibility and still provide protection against other uses that might be considered undesirable. . Stewart Wilson asked what the permitted and conditional uses were in the C-3 zoning designation. Mr. Rohlf read the uses that would be allowed in the C-3 zoning district. The Commission and staff proceeded to discuss the uses which would be permitted at this site. Mr. Wilson stated that he would like to see the areas north and south of Highway 10 stay consistent with other uses in the area. He felt that a PUD would give the City more control as to what uses would be allowed. Mike Klemz, 18540 Troy Street, was opposed to the request as he was concerned with his property values. He thought that the long range plan for the City was to stop this kind of development on the north side of the highway. Stephen Rohlf stated that the original request is for a C-3/Highway Commercial zoning not a PUD. If this property were zoned PUD, with the underlying land use of HB, it would still be a departure from the City's Growth Management Plan to accommodate a special interest. Ms. White was aware of the junkyard when she bought the existing campground. Staff is still unsure whether that part of the parcel that Ms. White is requesting a zone change on is devoted to part of the campground use. Rita Petkoff, Manager for ERA Lund Office, stated that the City's Comprehensive plan shows the affected property as a potential commercial site, and therefore, she felt it was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Petkoff stated that she differed with staff's comment that having commercial and residential traffic on the frontage road does not make for a good mixture. She stated that directly across Highway 10 on Waco Street there is a mixture of residential and industrial traffic. . Mr. Rohlf number of commercial addressed Ms. Petkoff's concerns stating that there were a sites looked at in the City that were not chosen as sites. He stated that the junkyard is zoned industrial but Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 13 . the underlying Residential. He the City tries traffic as close land use for this site is MR/Medium Density further addressed the traffic issue by stating that to keep the mixture of commericial and residential to arterial roads possible.. Peter Beck, City Attorney, stated that what the Planning Commission is asked to consider is the C-3/Highway Commercial zoning not a PUD request, development agreement or anything else. Mr. Beck stated that before the Planning Commission could consider a PUD request, the applicants would have to withdraw their original request and come back with a zone change request for a PUD. stewart Wilson stated he would like to see the property developed in an orderly consistent manner and not to approve a zone change to accommodate the sale of a piece of property. Carol Buschick, ERA Lund Realty, questioned whether the property was in the urban service district. Mr. Rohlf stated that the property was in the urban service district, but in order to develop Ms. White's property as a commercial use, it would first require City sewer and water. Further lots can not be split without having sewer and water being extended to the parcels being created. . Karla Laurent, 18568 Troy street, would like to see a meeting between the residents and Ms. White to help clear up some of the residents' concerns as they have not had any communication from Ms. White. Vice Chair Eberley closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY WAPITI PARK CAMPGROUND FROM R-1B/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-3/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL BY WAPITI PARK BASED ON THE RATIONALE IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED 4/28/92 AND THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The motion failed for a lack of a second. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO DENY THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY WAPITI PARK CAMPGROUND FROM R-1B SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-3/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AS IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 13. Discussion Regarding Rezoning Custom Motors Junkyard . Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, explained that the City Council at their May 18th meeting directed staff to have the Planning Commission review and make a recommendation on whether or not a zone change for the junkyard from 1-1 to R-lb should be initiated by the City so as to be consistent with the land use map designation of Medium Density Residential. Mr. Rohlf stated this would start a 5 year amortization of the junkyard. Currently, the junkyard is nonconforming because they are in violation of their original conditional use permit due to lack screening. The City Council has ordered the Custom Motors junkyard to be screened within 60 days. Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 14 . staff suggested that staff and the applicant be given some time to explore other options prior to initiating a zone change. Staff feels that the junkyard is in the wrong location. If Custom Motors were to relocate there is money available from MnDOT to do so. There is also money available from MnDOT to put up some sort of screening if they choose to stay in the same location and are zoned residential. Commissioner spotts was concerned regarding the junkyard, and was further the junk yard and property if they were with the environmental concerned with the clean to relocate. issues up of Robert Miller, attorney representing Joe & Sandy Roy, owners of Custom Motors, stated that his clients bought the property in late August of 1985 and were not aware of the screening requirements as all the correspondence from the City was done through the previous owner. Mr. Miller stated that they were asking the City and Commission for a reasonable amount of time to explore other options. He further stated that the owners bought the property on a contract for deed and have a financial deadline of August, 1993 for their balloon payment. . Ms. Szklarski explained that in staff's meeting with MnDOT and the owners, MnDOT stated that it could be 2 to 3 years before money would be available for screening because of Custom Motors having a lower priority than other junkyards. She further stated that money for screening would only be available if the property was in a nonconforming zoning district. Currently, the property is zoned industrial and would not qualify for MnDOT funding. Vice Chair Eberley stated that she was opposed to the zone change at this time, but would like to see this dealt with in a reasonable amount of time. She further stated that she would like to see some sort of action plan drawn up and reviewed by staff to identify tasks and periodic updates. After additional comments and discussion, the Planning Commission was also in agreement that they would like to see some sort of action plan drawn up as to how Custom Motors was going to resolve this issue. Mr. Miller stated that they have a lot of research and planning to do in regards to finances, environmental issues, and/or to meet the other two options of either relocating or screening of their property. He stated that they were willing to work with the City and the Commission to come up with an action plan and time frame needed to accomplish these tasks. COMMISSIONER TVEITE MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THIS PROPERTY NOT BE REZONED AT THIS TIME WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OWNERS OF CUSTOM MOTORS WILL HAVE AN ACTION PLAN AS TO HOW THEY ARE GOING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES BEFORE THEM IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN AUGUST AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEWS THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Page 15 14. Other Business Vice Chair Eberley stated that she would like to restudy the PUD zoning to look at its purpose and to see that this mechanism is being used properly. Commissioner Minton and Commissioner Tveite agreed to do some additional research and bring data back for a workshop discussion item. Peter Beck cautioned the Commission that the PUD situation is different in every City. Further discussion entailed revisiting other City's Planning Commission meetings. 15. Adjournment There being THE MEETING. CARRIED 4-0. no further business, COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO ADJOURN COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Slrd1t9fD VJ7~ Sharon Maue ~..{! j Recording Secretary .