Loading...
11-27-1990 PC MIN .. e . MINUTES OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1990 Members Present: Chairman Kimball, Commissioners Eberley, Bischoff, Johnson, VanValkenburg, Nadeau and Schroeder Members Absent: None Staff Present: Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator; Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant. Tim Keane, City Attorney arrived at 7:40 p.m. 1. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Kimball at 7:00 p.m. 2. Consider 11/27/90 Plannin~ Commission A~enda The following items were added to the agenda: 13.5 - "Discussion of Representative to attend City Council meetings in December", and item 14.5 - "Planning Commission Workshop and Related Items." . COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE 11/27/90 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3. Consider 10/23/90 Plannin~ Commission Minutes The following changes were made to the 10/23/90 Planning Commission minutes. On page 7, fourth paragraph add "not" after the word does. Item #8 to the motion add "siting staff's memo dated October 15, 1990." COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE 10/23/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Plannin~ Commission Representatives to Attend 12/17/90 City Council Meetin~ This item was changed to 13.5 for discussion. 5. Consider Conditional Use Permit for A~ricultural Use (Livestock) by Gerri Fisher/P.H. Chairman Kimball reviewed the standards for a conditional use permit and the procedures for a public hearing. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow an agricultural use on a 5.67 acre parcel. They are proposing a 440 sq. ft. accessory structure to serve as a shelter for their horses. The Fisher's are also proposing to have some goats and chickens on their property. Ms. Szklarski stated that staff felt that they meet the seven standards for Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 2 e a conditional use permit request and therefore, was recommending approval. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NADEAU MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY BRENT AND GERALDINE FISHER TO ALLOW AN AGRICULTURAL USE SITING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 11/13/90 WITH THE FOLLOWING ST I PULA T IONS: 1. THAT PROPER FENCING BE MAINTAINED TO ASSURE CONTAINMENT OF THE ANIMALS. 2. THAT THE FISHER'S KEEP THE USE CLEAN TO AVOID ODOR AND DUST AND FURTHER THAT IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT MET, IT COULD RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF THEIR PERMIT. . 3. THAT ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCING AND THE BUILDING BE MET. 4. THAT THE APPLICANTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE HORSES, TWO GOATS, AND TWENTY CHICKENS TO AVOID GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION. 5. THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE REVIEWED IN TWO YEARS. e COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6. Consider Conditional Use Permit for Increased Size of Accessory Buildin~ by Ted Nitz/P.H. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that Mr. Nitz is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 42' x 30' nonagricultural accessory building in excess of 1,000 square feet. She stated that Mr. Nitz will be using the proposed garage to store lawn care equipment, his show vehicle, and also as an extra stall for his car. Ms. Szklarski further stated that one of staff's major concerns with this request is that nonagricultural accessory buildings of this size have a tendency to become illegal home occupations. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Warren Klug of 18929 Boston Street asked what type of structures would be allowed in the R-Ic zoning district. Mr. Klug was also concerned with the appearance of the building. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, explained the building regulations for the R-Ic zoning district. Robert Hagen of 18913 Boston Street stated that his major concern was that the building would be used for a commercial business. Mr. Hagen was further concerned with the proposed size of the building in a residential area. e Mary Gappa of 18932 Albany Street was concerned with the junk on Mr. Nitz's property as she felt this was an eyesore. Ms. Gappa stated she e e e Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 3 would like to see a decent building put up, if it would help clean up the yard. Susan Hagen of 18913 Boston Street asked who enforces the stipulations if this conditional use permit were to be approved. Mr. Rohlf stated that this would be done through the zoning office, and the permit will be reviewed every two years to see that the conditions are met. Marlene Klug of 18929 Boston Street was concerned with the junk in Mr. Nitz's yard which included junk car parts, chassis for a car etc. Ms. Klug asked how many vehicles a residence would be allowed to have. Mr. Rohlf stated that three inoperable vehicles would be considered a junk yard. Mr. Nitz indicated they only have one inoperable vehicle. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that if they granted the conditional use permit they would like all junk vehicles and parts kept in the garage. Mr. Nitz stated that the reason for his request was to use the building for storage so he could clean up his property. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 1,260 SQ. FT. DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING TO BE USED FOR STORAGE BASED ON STAFF"S MEMO DATED 11/15/90 SITING THE SEVEN STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THAT THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT ENGINEERED DRAWINGS WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 2. THAT THE BUILDING IS TO BE USED FOR STORAGE ONLY. 3. THAT THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WILL MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE. 4. THAT WHEN THE NEW BUILDING IS COMPLETED, THE METAL SKINNED SHED MUST BE REMOVED. 5. THAT ALL INOPERABLE VEHICLES AND CAR PARTS BE KEPT IN THE NEW FACILITY AND FURTHER THAT IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT MET, IT COULD RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF THIS PERMIT. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 7. Consider Variance Request on Fronta~e for a Lot by Don Rahn/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, explained this request indicating that Mr. Rahn of 12992 Orono Road is requesting a 66 foot variance on the amount of frontage required for a lot in the R-lb zone. Mr. Rohlf reviewed both the lot split and the variance as stated in his memo dated 11/16/90. Staff felt that Mr. Rahn met the five standards for granting a variance and was recommending approval. ~ e "~ e e Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 4 Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE 66 FT. VARIANCE ON THE AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE BY DON RAHN REFERENCING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 11/16/90 INCLUDING THE FOUR STIPULATIONS FOR THE LOT SPLIT. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 8. Ordinance Amendment. Section 900.22 (Si~n Ordinance) by the City of Elk River/P.H. Steve Rohlf explained draft ordinance #1 indicating that this ordinance would be a mechanism to allow the continuation, alteration, reconstruction or relocation of legal nonconforming signs, which would lead to a better situation for the City. Mr. Rohlf stated that a number of businesses in town can not upgrade their signs, because the upgrading would still not conform with the City's sign ordinance. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Steve Rohlf submitted a letter from Houle Oil Company, Inc. to be entered into the public record. He stated that Mr. Houle was in favor of the request as approval of this request would be better for the city and businesses in Elk River. Commissioner Eberley raised the question at what point does a grandfathered- in sign lose its nonconforming status, such as a sign being blown down. Mr. Rohlf stated that the intent of the ordinance is that a, nonconforming situation could be altered bringing the signage closer to conformity without losing the grandfathered-in status. Mr. Rohlf stated that the sign ordinance currently states that if a sign is damaged by 50% or more it may lose its grandfathered- in nonconforming status. According to the City code, the word "shall" is mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. Chairman Kimball asked what is the purpose of a nonconfornming clause? Tim Keane, City Attorney stated that the intent is to allow the property owner the right to continue the use that they have invested in (signs) and hopefully to phase out nonconforming signs over time to be in compliance with the existing regulations. During discussion one of the questions raised was whether nonconforming sign requests should come before both bodies (City Council & Planning Commission) or just one. It was the general consensus that all nonconforming sign issues should come before the both the Commission and Council. Steve Rohlf explained that the signs in Elk River would move closer to conformity faster with the new ordinance. After discussing this issue, the Planning Commission also thought the ordinance amendment was appropriate and recommended approval. The Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 5 e Planning Commission made a number of modifications to the draft sign ordinance which will be submitted in ordinance form and passed on to the City Council. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT SIGN ORDINANCE SECTION 900.22, SUB. 5 RELATING TO THE ALTERATION AND RELOCATION OF NONCONFORMING CONFORMING SIGNS WITH THE CHANGES AS FOLLOWS: STRIKING THE WORD CONTINUATION AND RECONSTRUCTION IN BOTH PARTS OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND ADDING THE PROVISION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND DOUBLE PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY. ALSO INSERTING THE STATEMENT "IS IN GREATER CONFORMITY WITH THE EXISTING SIGN REGULATIONS." COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator explained the 2nd draft ordinance amendment which would allow one additional freestanding sign in the Highway Commercial zone if the parcel has in excess of 300 lineal feet of frontage. He stated that one additional freestanding sign is allowed in the industrial zones where a lot has in excess of 300 ft. of street frontage. Staff is proposing the same language be added to the Highway Commercial zone. e Scott Powell of Elk River Ford stated that he is requesting an addi tional freestanding sign advertising the Chrysler/Dodge dealership at the Elk River Ford site. This ordinance would allow him to do that. Steve Rohlf explained that this amendment would not increase the density of the signs. Lots in the C-3 zone are only required to have 100 ft. of frontage therefore, allowing larger lots (with over 300 ft. of frontage) to have an additional freestanding sign would not adversely affect the density of signs in that district. In addition, larger lots will often have more than one business on them and it is a hardship to advertise those additional businesses. Staff feels that it is a reasonable amendment. Commissioner VanValkenburg was in agreement with staff that additional signage was needed for larger lots. Mr. Rohlf stated that a number of businesses have contacted him regarding their particular situations that would be affected by this ordinance. Commissioner Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 900.22 (4D) "SIGNS PERMITTED IN THE C-3 ZONE". COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 9. Consider Variance ReQuest on the hei~ht of a si~n by Circle C/P.H. e Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant explained that Circle C. Convenience Center located at 356 Jackson Avenue is requesting a variance to allow the height of a freestanding sign to exceed the Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 6 e height of the roof line of the building. She stated that the proposed sign would measure 20 ft. in height. Ms. Szklarski stated staff does not feel that the hardship condition has been met. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of this variance request. However, she suggested that the Commission should review this request as a relocation of a nonconforming sign (see Item #8). Chairman Kimball reviewed the five standards for a variance. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Steve Schiminski of Circle C showed pictures of his current signage and where Circle C is anticipating to put their new signage. Mr. Schiminski stated that Gary Green, owner of Circle was present to address their concerns. Mr. Gary Green stated that Circle C can not survive unless they can advertise their business. They need signage that can be seen from the road. Mr. Green stated the new sign would also be safer for truck traffic by having a higher sign. A higher sign would also alleviate a lot of their problems as far as their driveway is concerned. e Steve Rohlf, stated that he agreed with Ms. Szklarski that the standards for a variance are not truly met. Staff felt that the first draft sign ordinance amendmednt that was dealt with would fit Circle C's situation. Staff felt the new sign would be in the best interest of the community as the signage would be out of the right-of-way and keeping it higher would be safer for the truck traffic. Staff stated the signage request was closer to conformity by removing the sign from the the right-of-way. He felt this was an example where the new ordinance works to alleviate a situation by making it better for the city and better for the business. Chairman Kimball stated he would like to see the variance request denied. He stated that this request is a very good example of what staff was attempting to accomplish with the recommended ordinance (Item #8) as to allow a nonconforming sign to be relocated. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CIRCLE C FOODS BECAUSE THE STANDARDS FOR A VARIANCE ARE NOT MET. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1. COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG VOTED NO AS HE WAS IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST FOR RELOCATION OF A NONCONFORMING SIGN FOR CIRCLE C CONVENIENCE CENTER BE GRANTED AND THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND MOVE THE SIGN BECAUSE IT WILL BRING THEIR SIGNAGE INTO BETTER CONFORMITY THAN IT IS, SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGES. COMMISSIONER NADEAU SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. e Ms. Szklarski stated that the Council will be acting on the ordinance amendment at. their December 3rd meeting, whereas the variance request will be acted on at the December 17th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 7 e 10. Variance on the Hei~ht of a Si~n by Joe BarsodyjP.H. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that Joe Barsody of 21438 Brook Road is requesting a variance on the height of a freestanding sign within the C-2 zoning district. The sign would be located at 503 Jackson Avenue. Mr. Barsody is arguing that the 5 ft. height limitation is too restrictive for this use. In order to the meet the 10 ft. setback from the right-of-way the sign would have to be placed within the parking lot in front of his building. Mr. Barsody is also asking for an increase in the size of his sign from 32 sq. ft. to 48 sq. ft. Staff is recommending approval of the variance for a 12 ft. high sign as it meets the five standards for a variance. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Mr. Barsody stated that he plans to limit the amount of wall signage on the building in order to preserve the residential nature of it. e Steve Rohlf stated that the parking lot is an existing situation. The City now has a 10 ft. setback from parking to right-of-way in commercial zones which would accommodate the boulevard sign whereas when Mr. Barsody's parking lot was built there was no such setback was required. The hardship therefore, was not a result of Mr. Barsody's own action. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE 7 FT. VARIANCE REQUEST BY JOE BARSODY ON THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREESTANDING SIGN SITING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 11/15/90. COMMISSIONER NADEAU SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0 Staff suggested it would be a fair compromise to limit the amount of wall signage and in turn allow a little extra on the freestanding sign. This would better reflect the intent of the C-2 district. Allowing 40 sq. ft. of wall signage per tenant on the building and limiting the size of the boulevard sign would not help to maintain the residential nature of the site. Steve Rohlf felt there was a hardship related to the size of the freestanding sign. In order to meet the intent of the C-2 district and maintain the residential nature of the building, the applicant would limit the amount of wall signage. Therefore a slightly larger freestanding sign would be needed to identify all of the tenants in the building. Staff felt the request was reasonable due to less wall signage which would give them additional freestanding signage. Mr. Rohlf suggested a trade off to meet the intent of the C-2 district. -- COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF FREESTANDING SIGNAGE TO 48 SQUARE FEET, ALSO THAT THE WALL SIGNAGE BE LIMITED TO 200 SQ. FT. TO BE DIVIDED AMONGST THE TENANTS AT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S DISCRETION BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 8 . 1. THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO KEEP THE BUILDING RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE TO REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE C-2 DISTRICT AND THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW HIM TO DO THAT. 2. THE AMOUNT OF WALL SIGNAGE ALLOWED IN THIS SITUATION WOULD BE EXCESSIVE FOR A C-2 ZONE. 3. BOTH THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER DESIRE TO LIMIT THE WALL SIGNAGE IN KEEPING IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 11. Alteration of a Nonconformi~ Si~n by Elk River Ford/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator explained Mr. Powell's request. He stated that Elk River Ford is requesting an additional freestanding sign on the Elk River Ford site to advertise a new franchise, Chrysler/Dodge dealership. He explained Elk River Ford currently has two existing signs which are grandfathered-in. He explained that the Planning Commission has to determine if Mr. Powell's request meets the draft ordinance amendment regarding alteration or relocation of nonconforming signs. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. e Mr. Powell stated that the Chrysler/Dodge sign is absolutely critical for the new franchise. He stated that they would prefer not to have to remove the Ford Truck sign as this is one of their best businesses. Mr. Powell explained that the two franchises would be taxed separately. Commissioner Eber ley stated that she was not opposed to the request, but was trying to look to the future, to see if the Planning Commission would be setting some sort of precedence. The Planning Commission's interpretation was that unless the Chrysler/Dodge sign is currently nonconforming adding this sign to Ford's site would not qualify under this ordinance. The Planning Commission requested that staff look into whether Elk River Ford is comprised of one or three lots. It was staff's interpretation that it appears that Elk River Ford may be able to put up the Chrysler Dodge Sign as a billboard because Elk River Ford is comprised of more than one lot. Mr. Rohlf stated that the freestanding sign would then meet the rules as an off premise sign or billboard. If this is the case, Elk River Ford's request for a nonconforming sign becomes void. e COMMISSIONER VANVALKENBURG MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT ELK RIVER FORD BE ALLOWED TO MOVE THEIR CHRYSLER/DODGE SIGN TO THE FORD LOCATION CONTINGENT ON THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT BEING PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IF THE CHRYSLER/DODGE SIGN IS CURRENTLY NONCONFORMING. COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 9 . 12. Con~ider Conditional Use Permit for Auto Body Shop by Elk River Chnsler/P.H. This item was withdrawn per petitioner's request. 13 IU!3cussion ReJ{arqin!t.lleetJ-JliL1)ate in December It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission not to hold a meeting in December as Ms. Szklarski stated that they have not received any applications for the December meeting. 13.5 Calendar After discussion regarding this Commissioners Eberley and Bischoff Council meeting and Commissioner 12/17/90 City Council meeting. matter, it was decided would attend the 12/3/90 VanValkenburg would attend that City the 14. J2lsqJ~~i..Qp. oCAnlLlJ.!!LPl1!-Il.ninlLQ..<LD.!mlssi9_n Meeti~J{ The annual Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for January 19, 1991 at Flagstix in Becker. The items for discussion were reviewed for the annual meeting. ~ 14.5 plannin~ Commission Work Sh~nd Related IteD.!~ Commissioner Eberley discussed the 1991 Planshare Conference. She stated that she felt the city should pursue the initiation of this conference and was looking for direction and support. The possibility of forming a subcommittee to work on the 1991 Planshare Conference. Commissioner Kimball explained that the next State Planning Conference was in Duluth. He encouraged the Planning Commission to attend and felt that there would be sufficient funds left in the budget for those who wanted to attend. Chairman Kimball also discussed the National Planning Commission Convention. He stated that one would have to attend the State Planning Commission Conference before they would be allowed to go to the National Planning Commission Convention as stated in the Elk River Planning Commission Rules and Procedures. Other education opportunities were also discussed. At this time, Chairman Kimball indicated that he was considering reappointment to the Planning Commission and discussed how this would affect the Planning Commission. The Commissioners expressed their opinions regarding Chairman Kimball's decision to seek reappointment. e . e e Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 10 15.Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, SA aJr/7iUrn~ Sharon Maue Recording Secretary