Loading...
02-26-1991 PC MIN . . . MINUTES OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1991 Members Present: Commissioner Schroeder, Bischoff, VanValkenburg, and Spotts. Commissioner Eberley arrived at 8:00 p.m. Members Absent: Chairperson Johnson, and Commissioner Nadeau Staff Present: Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant; Tim Keane, City Attorney 1. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Schroeder at 7: 00 p.m. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER CHAIR THE MEETING IN THE ABSENCE OF CHAIRPERSON JOHNSON AND VICE-CHAIR NADEAU. COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 2. Consider 2/26/91 Plannin~ Commission Agenda Steve Rohlf added Item 14.5 "Landfill Tour Date" to the agenda COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO APPROVE THE 2/26/91 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 3. Consider 1/22/91 Planning Commission Minutes The following amendment was made to the minutes. Item #5, 4th paragraph, replace 1st sentence with "Tim Keane, City Attorney, stated that the biggest change staff has made, as compared with the model ordinance provided by the DNR is that there is more consistency with the City's existing ordinance". COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 1/22/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 4. Plannin~ Commission Representative to Attend 3/18/91 City Council Meetin~ It was indicated that Commissioners Schroeder and Spotts would attend the 3/18/91 City Council meeting. 5. Condi tionaJ-.l1J?e Permi t by.JL~~ooJ.L.P~-!.. This item was withdrawn at the petitioner's request. 6. Zone Chan~e ReQuest by James Peterson Sr. & Walter Piwowar/P.H. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 2 . Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicants, James Peterson Sr. and Walter Piwowar, are petitioning to rezone the affected property from R-Ic/Single Family Residential to R-2a/Two Family Residential. The R-2a zoning would allow duplexes in addition to single family homes. Ms. Szklarski urged the Planning Commission to consider this zone change as a separate issue from the other two requests (variance and preliminary plat) brought before the Commission by the same petitioners. Staff is recommending approval based on the findings of fact as listed in Ms. Szklarski's memo. Ms. Szklarski stated that she had received comments from Rita Johnson, Planning Commission Chair, who was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting, and requested that her comments be entered into the record. Commissioner Spotts suggested that staff summarize the petitioner's three requests and give background information for each. Ms. Szklarski explained the proposed subdivision would require a zone change, variance and preliminary plat. Tim Keane, City Attorney, explained that if the rezoning were denied by the City Council there would be no need for them to consider the variance or preliminary plat. However, the Planning Commission would need to make a recommendation on all three requests. . Chairman Schroeder opened the public hearing. Jim Peterson Jr. addressed the Commission explaining that he was the developer representing his father, Jim Peterson Sr. He explained the request indicating their intentions are to develop single level townhouses. He felt the townhouses would not be a detriment to the neighborhood or have an negative impact on property values. He felt the term duplex had a negative connotation. Mr. Peterson stated their intention for the site is individually-owned two unit townhouses. . Tom Johnson 508 Tipton - expressed his concerns regarding the rezoning. Mr. Johnson stated that they had lived in the area since 1974. When a person buys a house and it is zoned single family they rely on it staying single family. He stated that they have had everything from multifamily apartment buildings to commercial buildings requesting zone changes for this area. If it wasn't for the residents petitioning against these requests, they would have been approved. He further stated that there has been a number of fires in the neighborhood and every time there is a fire, they have to go through another zone change request. Mr. Johnson stated that he was opposed to the zone change request as they have enough mixed zoning in this area. He stated that what the petitioners are proposing will drastically change the character of the neighborhood. He felt the property was sui ted for single family homes and he did not want to see any more duplexes in the neighborhood as the property was already heavily weighted with multifamily. Raymond Zachman - 511 Tipton Ave. - Mr. Zachman stated that when they moved to the area it was zoned for single family and he couldn't Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 3 . understand why the City wants to rezone it. He went on to explain that they were assessed for Main Street and still do not have a sidewalk. If multifamily is allowed to go in, they will once again be assessed for additional sewer. Mr. Zachman concurred with Mr. Johnson's comments and stated he was opposed to the zone change request. Charles Brady - 1522 Main St. Mr. Brady also stated that he agreed with Mr. Johnson's comments. He stated the reason they moved into the area was because it was zoned single family. Mr. Brady further stated that he did not like the idea of coming to meetings every time there is a request for a zone change because someone wants to build something different. He stated that he was not against building on the site but he was against the zone change request. Delores Blocker - 538 Tipton - Ms. Blocker stated that they had lived in the area for 40 years and she supported the statements of Mr. Johnson. She was also opposed to the zone change request. . Ja!!1~'thomas______1536 Main Street Mr. Thomas stated that he was appalled that he had to be here again for another zone change request to rehash these issue all over again. He was also concerned with the addi tional vehicles and traffic this request would bring as a duplex would involve four or five additional cars per lot. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Brady's and Mr. Johnson's comments, and was also opposed to the zone change request. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator addressed their concerns. He stated that a person has the right to request a zone change. In addition, the adjacent property owners have the right to come and respond to that request. The City has no choice but to review their request as it is part of the process. Chairman Schroeder closed the public hearing. Chairman Schroeder asked Ms. Szklarski to review the permitted uses that would be allowed in the R-2a zoning district, if approved. She stated that if this zone change is approved all permitted uses would remain the same except duplexes would be allowed. Commissioner Spotts read a letter from an attorney representing another communi ty that explained zoning and rezoning issues. He stated that zoning and rezoning can be done by the property owner as long as there is a rational basis for the request. He stated that in order for the Commission to oppose the request, the Commission would have to have a rational basis pertaining to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public. . Patricia Brenteson - 548 Tipton Ave. - Ms. Brenteson questioned if any property owner can come and request a zone change. Mr. Keane, City Attorney, indicated they could as long as it was a rational request, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be approved. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the City can't stop a property owner from requesting a zone change. The City Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 4 . would have to process that request, but it doesn't necessarily mean the request will be approved. Commissioner Eberley arrived at this time. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-lC/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2A/TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 2/14/91 WITH THE FOUR STIPULATIONS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Spotts requested that additional findings of fact be added to the motion. Ms. Szklarski read Chai rperson Johnson's comments regarding the zone change at this time. (Her comments are attached to these minutes). COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 1988 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE WILL NOT BE AN ENDANGERMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION WAS 2-2, WITH ONE ABSTENTION. . Commissioner Eberley abstained from the vote as she was not present for the discussion. Commissioners Schroeder and VanValkenburg voted nay. 7. Variance Request (~ot Size in James Manor) by James Peterson Sr./P.H. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicant is requesting a variance on the size of lots in the proposed James Manor development. She stated that if the zoning is approved and the proposal goes through for the plat, the minimum lot size in an R-2a zoning district for duplexes is 6,000 sq. ft. Single family lots in an R-2a zoning district must be 10,000 sq. ft. The proposed development meets the City standards in the R-2a zoning district. However, because the property lies within 1,000 feet of Lake Orono, the DNR requires that all non-lake fronting lots must be at least 10,000 sq. ft. in size. Ms. Szklarski further stated that when the Planning Commission reviews a variance there are five standards set by the state that must be met. She read staff's interpretation of these five standards as outlined in staff's memo dated 2/14/91. The DNR was contacted regarding this variance and they did submit a letter in support of this variance. Staff is recommending approval based on the findings of fact as outlined in the memo dated 2/14/91. Chairman Schroeder opened the public hearing. . Commissioner Spotts asked the developer if it would be feasible to rearrange the lot lines as Lot 3 is almost 18,000 square feet. He stated this would make the other lots larger. Marly Glines of John Oliver and Associates, addressed Commissioner's Spotts question stating that it would be possible, but it would be a less desirable layout and Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 5 . the subdivision would end with twisted lot lines. The current layout was also for drainage purposes. Commissioner Spotts asked if the Commission could require and consider the townhouse Association's documents as part of the final plat and if the Commission could request to see the restrictive covenants as part of the final plat. Tim Keane, City Attorney indicated that they could. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, strongly recommended against either imposing or enforcing covenants as the zoning ordinance is City's tool for setting standards. Tom Johnson stated he did not feel very protected by the zoning ordinance setting the standards. Charles Brady felt that there had not been a hardship proven. Chairman Schroeder addressed Mr. Brady's concern stating that because of the shape and configuration of the land, the petitioner does have a hardship as the configuration of the land could force them to loose some of the value of the property, creating a hardship. He stated that even though a hardship cannot be based on economics alone, the property owner still has the right to attempt to get the most value out of his property. . Chairman Schroeder closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY JAMES PETERSON ON THE SIZE OF LOTS IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF JAMES MANOR BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED 2/14/91 TOGETHER WITH THE COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED IN STAFF'S MEMO. ALSO THAT APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE SHALL ONLY BE VALID IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF JAMES MANOR AND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE. COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 8. preliminary Plat (James Manor) by James Peterson Sr.fP.H. . Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicants are requesting preliminary plat review of the plat of James Manor which would accommodate 1 single family home and 6 duplex lots. All of the duplex lots meet the City's requirements for lot sizes in the R-2a zoning district. She stated that approval of the plat is contingent upon the rezoning and variance on lot sizes being approved. Ms. Szklarski stated staff was recommending approval with a number of stipulations if the plat is approved. She summarized the fourteen stipulations as outlined in her memo. Ms. Szklarski explained that there are some problems with the right-of-way of Upland Avenue. There is an easement vacation that the City Council will be discussing at their March 18 meeting, which should clean up that legal description by vacating the portion of the easement that lies within the proposed plat. Chairman Schroeder opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 6 . Mr. Jim Peterson Jr., stated that he agreed with most of the stipulations but was in disagreement with #10 regarding building permi ts. He stated that they should be entitled to one permit as he felt is was unfair to add extra costs to the developer by not allowing any building permits until all stipulations for the plat are met. Staff suggested that one building permit be issued but no others would be issued until the drainage and grading was approved. Tom Johnson was concerned with the plat layout as to where the single family home is located in conjunction with Mr. Zachman's driveway. He stated that with the proposed layout, two of the driveways would be positioned on the same corner. He felt from a safety standpoint, this was not a good arrangement. Marly Glines addressed Mr. Johnson's concern stating that the same situation exists on Lots 1 and 2 also. He stated that although the two driveways are very close at least they are on the outside of the curve where they can have site distance from both directions. Pat Brenteson - 548 Tipton was also concerned with the safety factor. She felt that Tipton was a very dangerous street because of the children in the area and the traffic speed. . After some discussion by the Planning Commission one of the biggest concerns was the safety issue in relation to the driveways positioned on the corner of Tipton and Main. The Planning Commission directed staff to look into the safety issue. Steve Rohlf felt that excessive speeds on the streets was an enforcement issue, not an issue of this request. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant read Chairperson Johnson's comments at this time to be entered into the record (see attachment to these minutes) . Commissioner Bischoff indicated he would like to see some preservation of trees. Commissioner Eberley was in agreement. A general discussion took place regarding this issue. Mr. Peterson indicated that he did not have a problem with a replacement policy except that the developer probably would not be taking the trees out. He raised the question as to how one distinguishes between developer compliance and builder compliance. Steve Rohlf suggested that the Planning Commission could require that both the developer and the builder replace trees taken out during the drainage and grading. It has been his observation that property owners do not cut down trees but plant them instead. The Planning Commission was in agreement. Mr. Peterson stated that he had no problem with this agreement. . COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES MANOR SUBJECT TO THE 14 STIPULATIONS REFERENCED IN STAFF MEMO DATED 2/20/91 WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 7 . 1. REPLACE #10 WITH THE FOLLOWING: THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL APPROVAL TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PLAT AND THAT ONLY ONE BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL STIPULATIONS ON APPROVAL OF THE PLAT ARE SATISFIED. 2. ADD STIPULATION NO. 15: THAT THE DEVELOPER IS TO REPLACE ANY TREES WHICH ARE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED DURING THE OVERALL GRADING OF THE SITE. TREES WHICH ARE BETWEEN 4 INCHES AND 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER CAN BE REPLACED BY ONLY ONE TREE. HOWEVER, TREES WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER SHOULD BE REPLACED BY AT LEAST TWO TREES. 3. ADD THE WORD "RECORDING" OF THE FINAL PLAT IN #12. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Eberley indicated she would like further discussion on the safety issue regarding the driveways. Staff suggested that the City Engineer look at the driveways to see if it is a safety issue and if he can come up with a solution prior to the preliminary plat going before the City Council. . Marly Glines suggested that the City Engineer look at what would be a safe speed according to the design speed standards for the radius of the curve. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission direct the City Council to authorize the City Engineer to look into the intersection of Tipton and Main to study what speed would be appropriate within the radius of that curve prior to the preliminary plat going before the City Council. The Planning Commission directed staff to have Terry Maurer, City Engineer look into this concern. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT TERRY MAURER, CITY ENGINEER LOOK INTO THE INTERSECTION OF TIPTON AND MAIN TO STUDY WHAT SPEED WOULD BE APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT GOING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 9. Z9mLChan~-R~Ql!~sj:;__bx_H!V..Y_._tQ__J>ropertjJ?s and_ Tim Shay /P. H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that two separate parcels of property are being considered for a zone change. The applicants are requesting a zone change from R-lc/Single Family Residential to C-3/Highway Commercial. Staff is recommending approval of this zone change request subject to the findings of fact as outlined in staff's memo dated 2/4/91. Chairman Schroeder opened the public hearing. . Shelden Vie stated that they concur with the recommendations made by staff based on the findings of fact. Mr. Vie stated that the two properties were not suited for residential use. They felt the two parcels would be more conducive to highway commercial use because of Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page B . the frontage on Highway 10. They were requesting that the Planning Commission grant their request to rezone the property to C-3/Highway Commercial. Tim Shay stated that when he invested money in the property it was for commercial use rather than residential. He stated that if the property remained residential it would be difficult to honor the agreement he made. Ron Crapser stated that he was not aware that the zoning had been changed at the time of the Focus Area Study. He was made aware of this at the time he went to pull a building permit and was told that the property was not zoned for commercial. Chairman Schroeder closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-IC/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-3/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL SITING STAFF'S MEMO AND FINDINGS OF FACT AS STATED IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED 2/4/91. ALSO, THAT THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN IN THE RECENT FOCUS AREA STUDIES. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Staff suggested amending the land use map as well. . COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE LAND USE MAP BE AmUSTED FROM MR/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HB/HIGHWAY BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. A 10 minute recess was taken at this time. 10 . Y~:rL~1}~~_~~gJL~~.t--.lLm).gth._o L~_.l2~_~ll.:-_En!i_.~oillI_iIL_J:Li1ID_tand Comme rc i a:t l?~rJd_.JtY.Sr.HLE~X'J,;I1~n?h!piJ:> ~Ji~. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, addressed both the variance and the preliminary plat at this time as he felt these two items were interrelated. Mr. Rohlf stated that staff is recommending approval of the variance based on the findings of fact as outlined in the memo. He addressed the plat stating that the plat does meet the City standards other than the length of a dead end road. Mr. Rohlf summarized staff's recommendations as outlined in staff's memo with a couple of changes (the motion will reflect these changes). Staff is also recommending approval of the plat contingent upon the variance being approved. Chairman Schroeder opened the public hearing for both the variance and the preliminary plat at this time. . Mr. Rohlf addressed the comments in Terry Maurer's letter so the developer would be aware of them. He further stated that he had recei ved a letter from Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to be incorporated into the final plat approval. Staff asked that MnDOT's letter be made part of the public record. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 9 . Steve Rohlf informed the Planning Commission that he had just received a letter from the Parker Parent Association (Patty LePage, Yvonne Curran and Ken Carr) stating their concern and comments regarding this issue. Mr. Rohlf asked that the Parker Parent Association's letter be made part of the public record. Staff addressed the five comments in their letter. Some discussion was held regarding the Parker Parent Association's concerns. Commissioner Eber ley stated that the Parker Parent Association representative did attend one of the Focus Area Studies and spoke to these issues at that time. Chairman Schroeder felt these concerns should be handled through the School District. Mr. Rohlf stated that staff will consider the comments raised in Parker Parent Association's letter. Commissioner Eberley raised the questions of possibly zoning this area PUD and would like to see the Planning Commission consider a PUD. Commissioner Eberley felt this area was a highly visible spot in the City of Elk River and should be carefully planned. Tim Keane, City Attorney, stated that a PUD was discussed at staff's concept review meeting with both the developer and the school district. The developers stated that they wanted to build a gas station and convenience store on the corner. . Leo Sand (SMS Partnership) stated that he concurred with staff's comments and recommendations and was asking the Commission to grant their request for a variance and also the preliminary plat (Highland Commercial Park). Mr. Sand stated that their purchase agreement states that the School District is in favor of this project and they are selling the property knowing that there is a concern with safety. The school district indicated that if there was a problem with safety (children) they would deal with it by fencing the school property. Commissioner Spotts asked what type of commercial development was the developer planning for the plat. Mr. Sand addressed his question, stating that some type of convenience store gas station operation was planned for the school district office site; they felt the adjacent lot would be sui table to some type of restaurant, the two most northern lots of the development would have office type development and some retail. Estelle Gunkel of 808 Gates Avenue, stated that she felt that the plat was a good use of the property. Ms. Gunkel was further concerned with the traffic congestion and safety issues on School Street. Mr. Rohlf suggested that the City Engineer address the traffic concerns prior to the City Council meeting. Chairman Schroeder closed the public hearing. . After some discussion by the Planning Commission one of the main concerns was the safety issue and the additional traffic on School Street. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 10 . COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE ON THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF A DEAD-END ROAD FOR HIGHLAND COMMERCIAL PARK BY SMS PARTNERSHIP SITING STAFF'S MEMO REGARDING THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 11. prelimin~Pl~~i~hland Co~mercial Park} by SMS Partnership/P.H. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SITING THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED 2/20/91 WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: STIPULATION NO. 6.D WAS CHANGED TO READ: THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN BE ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT AS SOON AS THE PLAT IS RECORDED, BUT NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CAN BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE PLAT ARE COMPLETED. STIPULATIONS NO. 8 WAS ADDED: THAT PRIOR TO OPEN CUTTING OF SCHOOL STREET TO CONSTRUCT UTILITIES, THE DEVELOPER MUST GET A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN APPROVED BY STAFF. THIS PLAN WOULD DEAL WITH ISSUES SUCH AS FULL RESTORATION OF THE STREETS WITHIN 48 HOURS OF CUTTING INTO THE STREET, MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC FLOW, AND BONDING TO ASSURE RESTORATION, ETC. . COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Commissioner Eberley voted nay as she felt the children's safety issue as outlined in the letter by Parker's Parents Association was not adequately addressed. 12. Ordinance Amendment/Section 900.l8/Schedule of Dimensional Re~ulations (R-4 Density) B~ John Weicht/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, reviewed the applicant's request. He stated that Mr. Weicht is requesting an ordinance amendment to increase the number of units allowed per acre for apartments only in the R-4 zoning district to 16 dwelling units per acre. John Weicht explained his request by showing a diagram of a 16 unit apartment building as to how it would fit on a one acre site. He explained that he had talked to the Russ Anderson, Fire Chief, who recommended some slight changes for safety reasons. Mr. Weicht further stated that he had also contacted Phil Hals, Street Superintendent, and the Police Chief in regards to this request. Chairman Schroeder opened the public hearing. . Commissioners Bischoff, Eberley and VanValkenburg stated that they had met with the petitioner prior to the Planning Commission meeting to discuss this issue. Commissioner Schroeder stated that he had also talked briefly with Mr. Weicht prior to the meeting. Tim Keane, City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission is asked to consider what potential impact this increase would have on the growth of the community. Mr. Keane suggested that if the Planning Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 11 . Commission is not sure whether a change is appropriate, they should study this issue and bring it back at another meeting. Commissioner spotts stated that he would like to see a study either by a task force or someone appointed by staff on the following items: 1) How many apartment units do we now have in the City? 2) What is the vacancy rate on all those different units? What types of people live there? (What is their occupation, age, etc. 3) What impact is this going to have on the school system? 4) What kind of additional traffic congestion would higher density units bring. Commissioner VanValkenburg stated that they were rushing through this issue and not being fair to Mr. Weicht. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant requested Johnson's comments be entered into the record. attached to this memo). that Chairperson (Her comments are After general discussion regarding this ordinance amendment, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that they would like more time to study this issue. . COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (MARCH 26, 1991). COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 13. Discussion Regarding Boulevard Signs in the C-2 District Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the City Council is directing the Planning Commission to review its provisions regarding freestanding or boulevard signs in the C-2 zoning district. Currently, the ordinance allows boulevard signs in the C-2 district 5 feet high and 32 sq. ft. in size. Staff is recommending that the boulevard signs remain as they are. Steve Rohlf explained that Mr. Chuba is his brother-in-law and he would therefore be excusing himself from the discussion as to avoid a conflict of interest. Dennis Chuba addressed the Planning Commission regarding the allowable sign height for boulevard signs. Mr. Chuba felt the height restriction was too restrictive for the C-2 zoning district and was requesting some flexibility to the height restriction. After discussing this issue it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that the height of boulevard signs was too restricti ve in the C-2 district and directed staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment. . Chairperson Johnson's comments regarding this issue were entered into the record at this time (see attachment for her comments). 14. ~+-dinance Amendment!Section__~Q~/Subdivision Ordinance ~dministrative Subdjvision Qx the City of Elk River/P.H. Regarding Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1991 Page 12 . Chairman Schroeder opened the public hearing. Because of the lateness of the meeting, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to table this item until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (MARCH 26, 1991). COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 14.5 Landfill Tour The tour date for the landfill tour was scheduled for Saturday, March 9, 1991 starting at 9:00 a.m. 15.Ad.iournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 11:45 p.m. · ShI/M1UYn~ Sharon Maue Recording Secretary .