Loading...
06-04-1991 PC MIN . . . MINUTES OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991 Members Present: Chairperson Johnson, Commissioners Schroeder, Spotts, Eberley, Nadeau and Bischoff Members Absent: Commissioner VanValkenburg Staff Present: Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; and Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant 1. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof; the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Johnson at 7:00 p.m. 2. Consider 6/4/91 Plannin~ Commission A~enda Commissioner Spotts added Item 7.1 "Tree Board Discussion" and Chairperson Johnson added Item 7.2 "Workshop Discussion" to the agenda. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE 6/4/91 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER NADEAU SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Consider 4/23/91 Plannin~ Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO APPROVE THE 4/23/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. COMMISSIONER NADEAU SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Plannin~ Commission Representative to Attend 6/17/91 City Council Meetin~ It was indicated that Commissioner Eberley would attend the 6/17/91 City Council meeting. 5. Consider Conditional Use Permit (Pi~ Feedlot) by Jerry Fast/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, explained that Mr. Fast is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a feedlot for pigs on his property located at 11337 Brook Road. The conditional use permit would also cover multiple agricultural buildings on the site. Mr. Rohlf also stated that Mr. Fast is requesting a variance on the rear yard setback for one of the proposed new agricultural buildings. Mr. Rohlf stated that he had received a petition from a number of neighbors requesting that the conditional use permit be denied. Reasons sited in the petition were the potential for odor and ground water contamination. Chairperson Johnson read the petition and entered it into the public record. Chairperson Johnson questioned whether MPCA had granted a permit for this feedlot as of yet. Mr. Rohlf explained that the MPCA had not yet granted a permit for the feedlot operation. Therefore, if the Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1991 Page 2 . condi tional use permit were approved, it would need to be contingent upon the MPCA granting such a permit. Chairperson Johnson opened the public hearing. Mary Becker of 21108 Brook Road - stated she was against the proposed feedlot as she felt this would be setting a precedent for additional feedlots to come into the area. She stated that Elk River is changing from predominately agricultural to residential, and that the Planning Commission should look to the long term future when deciding this case. Norm Lemon of 609 Elm Street, Anoka - stated he was also against this request. He indicated that the State was looking into animal cruelty legislation which would address the confining of animals in small areas. He felt that the proposed pig lot would not meet the proposed legislation. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, responded by stating that three sides of the proposed structure would be open and that he did not feel the animals would be too confined. Mr. Rohlf indicated that the proposed structure would not totally eliminate the smell. Therefore, odor was a concern that still needed to be addressed. . Marv Thibodeau of 11412 Brook Road values would substantially decrease also indicated that noise from detrimental to his property values. - stated that he felt his property if this feedlot were approved. He the proposed pig farm would be Mary Becker stated that Mr. Fast does not have enough land to properly buffer the feedlot from the neighbors as he only has five acres. Marv Thibodeau stated that when they moved into the area, there were existing farms which were grandfathered in and that they were fine with that. However, they were against an additional feedlot operation moving into the area. Gerald Fast 11337 Brook Road - stated that with all the recent rains it has been very hard to control the smell of his feedlot operations. His proposed new operation would include a cement slab which would help control the odor. Mr. fast also indicated that the pigs are noisy only when they are eating. Norm Lemon stated that he has visited other feedlots in Sleepy Eye and Alexandria and that they tend to produce a potential for rat problems. . Dennis Becker of 21108 Brook Road stated that he was concerned with the erosion from this site in the event of large rains. Mr. Rohlf stated wi th roofs over all areas containing pigs, nitrate contamination from any erosion should not be a concern. Mr. Rohlf questioned Mr. Fast on the number of pigs which would be accommodated by this request. Mr. Fast indicated that he would have 100 to 120 adult pigs in this operation. The baby pigs would be sold off when they are approximately 10 weeks old. Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1991 Page 3 . Marv Thibodeau questioned the variance from the rear yard setback. If the variance were not approved, where would the farm buildings go? Mr. Fast indicated that if the variance was not secured for the rear yard setback, the gestation barn would need to be moved closer to the road. Mr. Thibodeau stated that he felt the variance would affect the future development of the surrounding property, which violates the seventh standard for a conditional use permit Don Lemmon of 11369 Brook Road indicated that he owns property abutting Mr. Fast's. He also felt the proposed feedlot would affect future development of his land. Norm Lemmon stated that the proposed feedlot would definitely affect property values in the area. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the main reasons the proposed feedlot would affect surrounding property values were noise and odor, and that the Planning Commission should concentrate on addressing those issues. Mr. Thibodeau and Mr. Lemmon both indicated that just having the pig farm there would affect property values in and of itself regardless of noise or odor problems. . Dale Gazette of 11452 Brook Road questioned the manure disposal method that Mr. Fast would employ. Mr. Fast responded that he has an agreement from two separate farms to spread the manure on their property. Mr. Fast also indicated that the sol ids would be spread approximately one time per week and the liquids would be removed when a truck full was obtained. Steve Rohlf explained the MPCA requirements regarding spreading of manure on farm land. Mary Becker stated that she felt the proposed feedlot violated the first standard of the conditional use permit which refers to the enjoyment of property by others. Dale Cazett questioned how the baby pigs would be shipped from the si te. Mr. Fast stated he had a 22 ft. trailer which he pulls behind his pick-up. There being no further comments, Chairperson Johnson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Spotts questioned if the Schultz pig farm, which is grandfathered-in, is similar in operation to the proposed Fast pig farm. Steve Rohlf explained that the Schultz' have an open feed lot and that rain will come in contact with the manure, whereas Mr. Fast is proposing a roofed structure which would eliminate water coming in contact with the manure. . Commissioner Schroeder stated that the City in the past has received many complaints on odors from the Schultz pig farm, and that they increased during wet weather. Commissioner Schroeder also questioned whether Mr. Fast has a permit right now for his operation. Mr. Rohlf indicated that Mr. Fast has not secured a permit from either the City or MPCA for the feedlot which he is operating, therefore, his use is Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1991 Page 4 . nonconforming. site. Currently Mr. Fast has 39 sows and 20 guilts on his Commissioner Schroeder questioned whether the proposed operation would be better at controlling odor. Mr. Fast stated that it would control odors, due to the cement floors and the roof overhead. Commissioner Schroeder stated he was uncomfortable with the small size of the parcel. Commissioner Nadeau questioned if Mr. Fast would have to discontinue his hog operation if the conditional use permit was denied. Mr. Rohlf stated that Mr. Fast would need to discontinue the operation if a conditional use permit was not approved. However, Mr. Rohlf also stated that he would like to work with the neighbors and Mr. Fast on an appropriate time frame in which to discontinue the use. Mr. Rohlf also stated that Mr. Fast was grandfathered-in for an agricultural use under 10 animal units. (10 animal units is approximately equal to 20 pigs). . Commissioner Eber ley questioned what the MPCA' s position on a nonconforming feedlot is. Mr. Rohlf stated that the MPCA is requiring that Mr. Fast obtain a feedlot license in order to continue his operation. Commissioner Eberley stated that the technological changes such as the manure disposal method would still need to be addressed by the MPCA even if the City were not involved in this discussion. Therefore, she felt that the issue was more a question of where this operation belongs and not so much the technology which is mandated by the MPCA. Commissioner Bischoff stated that he did not feel that there were any stipulations which could be attached to this permit to alleviate the concerns of odor and noise. Therefore, he felt that this permit should be denied. Commissioner Spotts stated that the residents have testified that the existing feedlot already has problems with noise and odor and that to increase the intensity of that operation would create additional problems. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that he felt this was the proper location for a feedlot operation as it is an A-1 agricultural district. However, he felt that the lack of buffering and the small size of the parcel created a problem. Commissioner Schroeder questioned how long the existing operation has been going on. Mr. Fast stated that he has operated his existing feedlot for approximately three years. Chairperson Johnson stated that she felt future development would be impeded if the conditional use permit and variance were approved. . COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PIG FEEDLOT BY GERALD FAST SITING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: THAT THE STANDARDS REGARDING ODOR, NOISE, AND THE POSSIBLE DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES HAVE NOT BEEN MET BY THIS REQUEST, AND THAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT BLEND WITH THE . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1991 Page 5 OVERALL LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Commissioner Nadeau was opposed to denying the request as he felt that this was an agricultural zone and could accommodate such a use, and that the applicant had taken precautions to alleviate the concerns. Discussion ensued on the proposed 38 ft. variance from the required 50 ft. rear yard setback. Commissioner Spotts stated that due to the trees and the roadway between the house and the barn, the only location for the barn was as proposed. If a variance were denied, the building would need to be moved closer to the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Bischoff stated that if the barn were reduced in size, it would eliminate the need for a variance. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR GERALD FAST SITING THE FIVE STANDARDS OF A VARIANCE AS HE FELT THE OPERATION WAS TOO LARGE IN SIZE AND THAT IF THE OPERATION AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING WERE REDUCED A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE NEEDED. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Commissioner Spotts was opposed to denying the variance. He felt there was no other place to put the agricultural buildings. Mr. Rohlf emphasized that the denial was due to the small size of the parcel and not because of the location in the agricultural zone. The commission agreed with Mr. Rohlf's statement. 6. Ordinance Amendment/Section 900. 22/Si~ns Permitted in C-lICentral Commercial Zone/BY the City of Elk River/P.H. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the proposed amendment would allow two wall signs per occupant in the C-l zoning district. This would accommodate buildings who have visibility from more than one street. Chairperson Johnson opened the public hearing. Commissioner Eberley stated that she felt this would also given an incenti ve for some businesses to dress up the back sides of their buildings. Dave Plude of Elk River Hardware, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their foresight in addressing this issue, and was in agreement with the proposed ordinance amendment. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the C-2 district would still be allowed only one wall sign per occupant as this was more of an transitional zone than the C-1 district. Chairperson Johnson questioned the definition of "building frontage" as it is used in the determination of the amount o'f signage. It was . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1991 Page 6 agreed that the attorney should review the wording of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Nadeau stated that although the size of signs is determined by the amount of building frontage, perhaps businesses should be allowed at least 32 sq. ft. of wall signage regardless of the dimensions of their building. The commission was in agreement. Chairperson Johnson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NADEAU MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 900.22 AS DRAFTED BY STAFF WITH THE ADDITION OF A 32 SQ. FT. MINIMUM SIZE SIGN IN THE C-1 DISTRICT. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 7. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT/SECTION 900. 24/PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS/BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that this ordinance was intended to address the number of stalls required for certain categories of uses which are not currently found within the parking regulations. It was the consensus of staff and the commission that the following requirements for parking be added to the City code: a. Furniture store. appliance store. wholesale. and furniture and appliance repairs: One space for each 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus one additional space for each 800 sq. ft. of gross floor area over 6,000 sq. ft. with a minimum of 6 spaces. b. Auto sales. trailer sales. marine and boat sales. implement sales. ~arden supply stores. buildin~ material sales. auto repair: One parking space for each 500 sq. ft. of floor area. Open sales or rental lots shall also provide one parking space for each 5,000 sq. ft. of land which is to be used for sales and display area. c. Supermarkets. discount houses: each 200 sq. ft. of floor area. At least one parking space for d. Drive-In restaurants: At least one parking space for each 25 sq. ft. of customer floor area, but not less than 6 spaces, plus 5 off-street parking spaces per drive thru lane. e. Convenience store: At least one space per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area, but not less than 6 spaces. f. Nursin~ home: One space for every four (4) patients or residents based on the maximum capacity of the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building management. . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1991 Page 7 g. Daycare. nursery and preschools: One employee, plus one space per twelve (12) fraction thereof receiving care. space per teacher or individuals or major h. Banks: One space per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus five off-street parking spaces per drive-thru lane. i. Commercial recreation: General standards: One space per four (4) expected patrons at capacity. Archery or golf driving range: One space per tee or target, plus one space per employee on the largest work shift. Skating Rink, Ice or Roller: One space per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus one space per employee on the largest work shift. Private swimming facility: One space per 75 sq. ft. of gross water area, plus one space per employee on the largest shift. Tennis, Racquetball, Handball Courts: Four (4) spaces per court, plus one space per employee on the largest work shift. Miniature Golf: One and one-half (1.5) spaces per hole, plus one space per employee on the largest work shift. j. Golf course. ~olf clubhouse. country club: Thirty (30) spaces per 9 holes, plus one space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area in the principal structure. k. Public swimmin~ pool: Twenty (20) spaces, plus one space for each 500 sq. ft. of floor area in the principal structure. 1. One parking space for each 200 Athletic club fitness center: sq. ft. of floor area. m. Funeral home: One space per four (4) visitor seats n. Senior Citizen Housinlil: One space per unit, plus one space for each employee who is not a resident of the building. o. Hospitals: One parking space for each two (2) hospital beds, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. p. Stora~e or Warehouse Establishments: One parking space for each two (2) employees on the major shift, or one parking space for each 2,000 sq. ft. of floor area which is greater, plus one space for each company motor vehicle when customarily kept on the premises. These requirements shall not apply to mini storage buildings. q. Manufacturin~ or Processin~ Plants: One off-street space for each 1.25 employees on the major shift, and one off-street parking . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 1991 Page 8 space for each company motor vehicle when customarily kept on the premises. r. Senior HiJth: It was the concensus of the Planning Commission that the schools should have input on whether the parking requirement should be raised to reflect the increase in the number of students driving to school or kept at the minimum to try to encourage students to find alternate forms of transportation. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, summarized two proposed flexible parking requirements which would be treated as conditional uses: the joint parking agreement and proof of future parking. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that both of these flexible parking provisions should be included in the ordinance and treated as conditional uses. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 900.24 "PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS" AS PER THE CONSENSUS REACHED AT THIS MEETING AND THAT STAFF DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 7.1 Tree Board Discussion Commissioner Spotts stated that the tree board will be meeting on June 20, 1991 to discuss guidelines in writing a county-wide tree ordinance. 7.2 It was the. consensus of the Planning Commission that the June 18th workshop would include discussion of adult related land use issues. It was also indicated that Commissioner Nadeau would chair that meeting. The Planning Commission also stated that there would be no workshop scheduled for July. 8. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER EBERLEY ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. CARRIED 6-0. MOVED TO THE MOTION The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. q~~ Janelle Szklarski Zoning Assistant