Loading...
07-28-1992 PC MIN . . . MINUTES OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY JULY 28, 1992 Members Present: Chairman Nadeau, Commissioners Tveite, Minton, Eberley, and Johnson Members Absent: Commissioner spotts and VanValkenburg 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 Chairman Nadeau. 2. Consider 7/28/92 Planning Commission Agenda Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator added the following items to the agenda: Item 11.1 "Planning Commission Budget" and Item 11.2 "History Tour." COMMISSIONER MINTON AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. MOVED TO APPROVE THE 7/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE 3. Consider 6/23/92 Planning Commission Minutes the minutes: Page 6, add to a conditional use permit." Minton and Commissioner Tveite and bring data back for a The following amendments were made to motion "based on the findings of fact for Page 15, delete wording "Commissioner agreed to do some additional research workshop discussion item." COMMISSIONER TVEITE MOVED TO APPROVE THE 6/23/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-2. Commissioner Johnson and Chairman Nadeau abstained from the vote as they were not present at the 6/23/92 meeting. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend 8/17/92 City Council Meeting It was indicated that Chairman Nadeau would attend the 8/17/92 City Council meeting. 5. Consider a Zone Change Request (R-lb to PUD) by Wapiti Park/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that Wapiti Park has revised their original request to include rezoning to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) with an underling land use of HB/Highway Business. They had originally requested a C-3/Highway Commercial zoning. Staff is recommending denial of the request because the request is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 Page 2 . Mr. Rohlf further stated that Ms. White does have reasonable use of her property as currently the lot contains the offices for Wapiti Park Campground. Virgil Herrick, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that Ms. White can not develop her property under the present zoning because of the uses adjacent to her property. The petitioners feel that there would be an advantage to zoning the property to a PUD; it would protect the current land owners by limiting the permitted uses that would be normally allowed under the C-3 Highway Commercial zoning. He further stated that this would give the City more control as far as density, setbacks, how many units and where they would be located, etc. The applicants are asking the Planning Commission to consider a PUD zoning. They feel their request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the Plan had evaluated Ms. White's property as a potential commercial site. They further argued that the property was not suited for residential zoning due to its location next to Highway 10, the Custom Motors junkyard as well as the Sherburne County Government Center. Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. . Carol Buscheck passed out a four page excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan which showed the three possible zoning designations for Ms. White's property. After discussion of this issue, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that this request would constitute spot zoning and was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which has identified this area as residential property. Chairman Nadeau closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AND THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITING STAFF MEMOS DATED 4/20/92 AND 7/20/92. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Consider a Variance Request (Front Yard Setback) by Ken Dehn Jr/P.H. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicant is requesting a 13 ft. variance from the required 30 ft. front yard setback in order to construct a 10' by 12' entryway addition. Currently, the existing house is 27 ft. from the front property line, and therefore, encroaches on the required front yard setback. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request for the front yard setback encroachment as staff feels that the request does not meet the five standards for a variance. . Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. Ken Dehn stated that one of the reasons they wanted to add the entry in front of their house is because they have a split entry with a very Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 Page 3 . small landing which leaves them barely enough room to open the door. They felt that the hardship would come from a safety standpoint as they have had an individual fall down the steps because of the small landing. Chairman Nadeau closed the public hearing. Chairman Nadeau stated that he disagreed with staff's recommendation as he felt a variance on a house should be more flexible versus variances for storage garages, etc. especially when safety is the major concern. He also felt that granting this variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Minton suggested a compromise by making the entryway smaller based on the safety issue as he felt this would be setting a precedent. Mr. Dehn stated that it would not be economically feasible for them to build the entryway any smaller. steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the petitioners have asked for a 10' x 12' addition, and therefore, the Planning Commission is asked to act on that request. . COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FIVE STANDARDS ALONG WITH STAFF'S MEMO, ALSO THE COMMISSIONERS STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A NEW PLAN WHICH WOULD FOCUS ON THE SAFETY CONCERNS. COMMISSIONER MINTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Chairman Nadeau voted no. 7. Consider a Variance Request (Setback from the Elk River) by Bob & Louise Doncaster/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that Robert and Louise Doncaster of 18643 Yankton Street are requesting a 25 ft. encroachment on the 100 ft. setback from the ordinary high water mark of the Elk River to accommodate a garage. They are also requesting a variance for an encroachment on the front yard setback from Yankton. Mr. Rohlf explained that the Doncasters are proposing to build a 26' by 36' garage and gave some background information regarding the proposed garage. He stated that when the issue of the garage first came up, the setback was 75 ft. Staff is recommending approval as staff feels they meet the standards for a variance. Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Chairman Tralle closed the public hearing. Mr. Doncaster stated that due to their house being on a triangular lot and having set backs on all three sides, placement of their garage would better fit on the west side of their property. He stated that when they purchased the house it did not have a garage. At that time we were informed by the City that a garage is required to meet City code. . Mr. Rohlf stated that the DNR had reviewed the request and was also recommending approval. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 Page 4 . COMMISSIONER TVEITE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY MR. & MRS. DONCASTER OF 18643 YANKTON STREET FOR A 25 FT. ENCROACHMENT ON THE 100 FT. SETBACK TO THE ELK RIVER AND ALSO A 23 FT. ENCROACHMENT ON THE 35 FT. SETBACK TO YANKTON STREET TO ACCOMMODATE A THREE CAR GARAGE GARAGE CITING THE FIVE STANDARDS FOR A VARIANCE. FURTHER, REFERENCING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 7/20/92 ALONG WITH THE LETTER SUBMITTED FROM MR. & MRS. ROBERT DONCASTER. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 8. Consider Ordinance amendment to Section 720 (Mineral Excavation) and Section 900.31 (Grading, Filling and Excavating)/P.H. . Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the City Council had directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment regarding excavation activities which do not meet the intent of the mineral excavation ordinance. This was brought on by a request from several property owners in the Royal Oaks Ridge subdivision who wished to excavate a large marshy area behind their homes. Ms. Szklarski stated that staff would like to get the Planning Commissions and City Council comments before an actual ordinance is drafted. Ms. Szklarski, stated that staff is proposing to amend two Sections of the City Code: Section 720 "Mineral Excavation" which would involve removal of the product from the site, and Section 900.31 "Grading, Filling and Excavating which involves activities taking place on the site. She stated that a new definition for mineral excavation is needed. Ms. Szklarski then reviewed the 10 issues that staff would like to review when requiring an excavation, grading or filling permit as stated in her memo. Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. Steve Shoemaker, representing the property owners of Royal Oaks Ridge, showed a plan of the 5 acre area they wished to excavate. He stated that a mining permit would be too costly for the homeowners if their project was considered to be "on-going" as they would be subject to a zone change, mineral excavation license and conditional use permit Mr. Shoemaker did not feel they were an on-going mineral excavation activity because the project would be done in phases. Chairman Nadeau closed the public hearing. Steve Rohlf, Building & Zoning Administrator, stated not recommend approval because of the wear and tear disruption of the neighborhood in Royal Oaks Ridge. that maybe they could find an alternative route to from the site. He further stated that this activity precedence in a residential area. that staff could of the streets and Staff suggested remove the material would be setting a . The general consensus of the Planning Commission was that they would like to see a better definition of "black dirt" and "on-going." The Planning Commission also recommended that the general concept of the proposed amendments be approved. A short recess was taken at this time. . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 Page 5 9. Consider Ordinance Amendment Regarding Large Commercial Directional Signs/P.H. to Section 900.22 Signs, Window Signs, "Sign and Ordinance" Off Premise The Planning Commission briefly reviewed the four attached amendments and came to a consensus on all of these items. Nadeau stated that public hearing was continued from the meetings. ordinance Chairman previous Mr. & Mrs. LeRoy Kennedy were present for this issue and indicated they were in agreement with staff's proposed ordinance amendments. Chairman Nadeau closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 900.22 TITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS". COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 10. Review of Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the City Council will be conducting a public hearing to consider a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.9. The Planning Commission is asked to review and comment on the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan prior to the City Council conducting a public hearing. It was the general consensus of proper use of the Tax Increment complimented Mr. Rubin on his were easy to understand. the Planning Commission that this was a Financing District. The Commission memo along with the attachments as they COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 9 LOCATED WITHIN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 11. Other Business (PUD Discussion) Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that because the City has had a number of requests for PUD zoning, the Planning Commission felt they needed better clarification of the use of the PUD Mechanism to keep the City more consistent. Peter Beck, City Attorney, stated that he was also uncomfortable with the present PUD mechanism because of the numerous requests. He stated rezoning land to a PUD and then coming in with a development plan is not the typical situation. Mr. Beck suggested that the Planning Commission not create a PUD district unless they have a development plan in front of them. Planning should come first than the zoning. . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1992 Page 6 The Planning Commission suggested that staff create approving the use of a PUD. Staff suggested that questions be asked in regards to zone changes to PUD: standards for the following Is the development proposal a reasonable request? Is the PUD mechanism necessary proposal, or can the project be zoning district. to accomplish the development accomplished under a regular If the PUD mechanism is necessary, identify what makes the project sensitive or where flexibility is needed. Use normal zoning standards for all other areas. The Planning Commission was in agreement that these standards should be used to measure whether or not a PUD is an appropriate tool. 11.1 Budget Review steve Rohlf explained that they would be needing the Planning Commission's 1993 budget expenditures as soon as possible, which would include conferences, workshops, etc. 11.2 History Tour steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator explained that he would be conducting a historical tour of Elk River on Thursday, August 13, 1992. The tour will be leaving City Hall at 6:00 p.m. 12. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. CARRIED 5-0. TO ADJOURN THE MOTION The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C"'" J;~Vt;~ Sharon Maue Recording Secretary