Loading...
05-23-1989 PC MIN MINUTES OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MAY 23, 1989 ~ Members Present: ~ . Chairman Kimball, Commissioners Johnson, Schroeder, Eberley, Morton and Fuchs; Nick Olsen arrived at 9:00 p.m. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Stephen Rohlf, Building & Zoning Administrator; Steven Bjork, Zoning Assistant 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. 2. Consider 4/25/89 Planning Commission Agenda Items added to the agenda: Item No. 12.5 - "Discussion of 4/25/89 Planning Commission Minutes", Item No. 12.75 "State Conference Handout", Item No. 13.5 - "Planning Commission Conferences", Item No. 13.75 - "Discussion of Staff's Memo and Agenda." COMMISSIONER MORTON AGENDA AS AMENDED. CARRIED 6-0. MOVED TO APPROVE THE 5/23/89 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION 3. Consider 4/25/89 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE 4/25/89 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Variance Request by Sherburne County/P.H. At this time Chairman Kimball read the five standards for a variance. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, explained that Sherburne County Highway Department is requesting a variance to allow a proposed garage to encroach 15.5 ft. on the 50 ft. front yard setback and a 30 ft. encroachment on the 50 ft. exterior (side yard setback) for a governmental facility. Steve Rohlf further explained that all governmental facilities require a conditional use permit. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Harvey Richner was present to discuss with the Co~ission his reasons for the variance request. The County also provided a letter outlining these reasons. Mr. Richner further indicated that, because of the soil conditions, the County could not build back further on the lot. Mr. Richner indicated there is still plenty of room in front to park vehicles. He also explained that the area in front of the building will be blacktopped, so there will be plenty of parking space. Outside storage on this site will consist of a pile of sand mixed with salt which is used in the winter only. The sand will only be on site during the winter months. Storage in the building will consist of one truck and one motor grader. There will be minimal movement on the property by these vehicles. . . . Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY SHERBURNE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW A PROPOSED GARAGE TO ENCROACH 15 .5 FT. ON THE 50 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 30 FT. ENCROACHMENT ON THE 50 FT. EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A GOVERNMENTAL FACILITY BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO. COMMI SSIONER SCHROEDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that staff would initiate an ordinance amendment changing the setback requirement for conditional uses for churches, public buildings, etc. because of the number of variance requests that we have had regarding these structures. 5. Conditional Use Permit Request by Sherburne County/P.H. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against this matter, Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PUBLIC FACILITY (COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE BUILDING) IN A C-1 ZONE REFERENCING THE FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THAT THE VARIANCE REQUIRED TO LOCATE THE BUILDING AS PROPOSED IS GRANTED. 2. THAT THE BACK PORTION OF THE LOT BE SEEDED WITH GRASS. STORAGE OF DIRT WILL BE PERMITTED ON THIS LOT. 3. THAT A 4 FT. AREA IN FRONT OF THE MAINTENANCE GARAGE IS LANDSCAPED WHERE IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH GARAGE DOORS ETC. 4. THAT THE SIGNAGE IS AS PER CITY CODE. 5. THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECEIVE A TWO YEAR REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS SET ON IT. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Variance Request/Tim Smith/P.H. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Steven Bjork explained that the applicant (Tim Smith) is requesting a 48 ft. encroachment on the 160 ft. minimum frontage requirement for property within the R-b zone. Mr. Bjork further noted that the administrative subdivision is contingent upon the variance request being granted. Therefore, staff felt it was only appropriate for the Planning Commission to also review the administrative subdivision request in conjunction with the variance request. The Planning Commission will not act on the administrative subdivision request, but may make recommendations to the Ci ty Counc i1 . Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 . Tim Smith eXplained his request and felt he met the standards for a variance. Originally, when this property was divided to what it is now the requirements were 125 ft. of frontage per lot. The City changed the minimum lot width requirement to 160 ft. Properties within the R-1b zone that were split prior to this change were not required to have 160 ft. of frontage. Therefore, the lot width is short by some 40 feet. Lot C and A are in keeping with the frontage requirement. Lot B is the only lot we have a problem with and we felt it was better to leave only 112 ft of frontage on the one lot than try and split them up evenly. Mr. Smith further exp1aind that this way two of the three lots would meet the frontage requirement. Concern was raised dealing with future City sewer and water to the area. Steve Rohlf addressed this concern. Steve Rohlf explained that there are two ways that sewer and water are assessed; one is per unit (each lot is a unit) the other is frontage. If the assessment is done by frontage, 112 ft. is not necessarily an overabundance of frontage to pay for. I feel it is appropriate to leave the lack of frontage on one lot versus creating two non-conforming lots. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. . Commissioner Fuchs indicated he had a problem recognizing the need for a variance when the whole layout doesn't make a lot of sense. I am trying to look down the road when sewer and water come to this area. I do not feel this is feasible at this time. This was also the general consensus of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Morton was concerned about the potential linking of 190th Avenue and County Road 35. He further indicated there appears to be a problem with accessing Lot D. He indicated he did not like the layout of the proposed splits, therefore, I'm not convinced of a hardship. Commissioner Kimball was in agreement for similar reasons. Steven Bjork, Zoning Assistant cautioned the Planning Commission that we can not approve a variance because of an economic hardship. . Tim Smith indicated that he had the acreage but not the frontage requirement. I did not have this problem a few months ago, but I do now since the frontage requirement has been changed. Mr. Smith indicated that it doesn't do any good to ask for future overlays if your're going to keep switching the requirements all the time. I feel that this is a hardship. Steve Bjork noted that if Mr. Smith came in with the roads and the structures in place then the standards changed, then this would be a hardship. However, Mr. Smith does have a reasonable use of the property, if the variance is not granted. He could still create two lots on County Road 35 as opposed to the three proposed lots. Commissioner Fuchs indicated he was uncomfortable with the three accesses onto County Road 35. Commissioner Fuchs suggested that if you made one access and came in with a short road to a cul-de-sac you could access lots A, B. and C and have one access onto the County Road instead. Mr. Smith indicated this was not economically feasible because I'm only creating three lots. . . . Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 Commissioner Kimball felt after discussing this issue in depth we would be setting a precedent, if we approved this request. Commissioner Johnson was in agreement and felt that economic hardship is not a reason for approving a variance. COMMISSIONER MORTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY TIM SMITH BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. THIS WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP IN THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD STILL HAVE THE PROPERTY AND CAN SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO MORE THAN ONE ONE LOT OFF OF COUNTRY ROAD 35. 2. THAT THE OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE 160 FT. FRONTAGE. 3. THAT THERE IS CIRCUMSTANCES ACTION. A IS HARDSHIP CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONERS OWN NOT WHICH 4. THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. COMMI SSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 7. Preliminary Plat Review/Chris Bu1ow/P.H. Chairman Kimball left the table at this time because he felt this was a conflict of interest as he knows Chris Bulow personally and lives close to the proposed plat. Vice Chairman Morton took over the meeting at this time. Vice Chairman Morton opened the public hearing. Building and Zoning Administrator, Steve Rohlf, explained that the applicant had submitted a new drainage plan. He indicated the reason there is a holding pond created on this site is because there is no positive outlot to 190th Avenue. Legally there is no place for the water to run. Therefore the applicants had to address the increase in drainage. Staff feels the drainage plan adequately addresses the drainage. Vice Chairman Morton closed the public hearing. Steve Rohlf reviewed The Commission was necessary. the three considerations as outlined in his memo. in agreement with staff that they were not Chris Bulow indicated that he was in agreement with the conditions and stipulations as outlined in staff's memo. COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "OAK HOLLOW" BY CHRIS BULOW WITH THE TWELVE STIPULATIONS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF' MEMO DATED MAY 18, 1989. ALSO THAT THE THREE CONSIDERATIONS IN STAFF'S MEMO WERE CONSIDERED AND IT WAS DECIDED THAT THEY WERE NOT NECESSARY. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. . . . Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 Commissioner Olsen arrived at this time. 8. Conditional Use Permit Request by Juetta Goddard and Jim Miller/P.H. Steve Bjork, Zoning Assistant, reviewed the conditions that relate to the operation as stated in his memo dated May 23, 1989. He indicated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a truck terminal. Truck terminals are classified as a conditional use within the C-3 zone. Staff has reviewed City records and found two conditonal use permit requests for truck terminals. Staff will review these requests in order to stay consistent in reviewing the proposed truck terminal. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. Following the discussion on landscaping, it was the consensus of the Commission that the areas not occupied by building or drive be landscaped with at least grass. Also discussed Commission felt appropriate. was the number of trucks allowed for this site. The that limiting the site to a maximum of five trucks was Commissioner Fuchs questioned the hours of operation and if this would be maintained on a 24 hour basis. Mr. Miller indicated that this would not be a problem as this will be a small operation. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY JUETTA GODDARD TO OPERATE A TRUCK TERMINAL BASED UPON THE SEVEN STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED MAY 23, 1989 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. ALL DRIVING SURFACES AND OFF STREET PARKING STALLS SHALL BE HARD SURFACED AND DUST FREE. 2. THE SITE SHALL PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST THREE OFF STREET PARKING STALLS. THE STALLS SHALL BE STRIPED. 3. ALL AREAS USED FOR THE MANUEVERING OF TRUCKS SHALL BE SURFACED WITH CRUSHED BITUMINOUS. 4. THE SITE SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE EMPLOYEES. THE SITE SHALL ALSO HAVE NO MORE THAN FIVE TRUCKS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. 5. THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SHALL INTERSECT THE FRONTAGE ROAD AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE. 6. ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN A SCREENED AREA. 7. SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SHALL HAVE BARRIERS INSTALLED PERIMETER TO PREVENT VEHICLES FROM DRIVING ACROSS THE THE ON-SITE AROUND THE SYSTEM. 8. ALL SURFACES NOT OCCUPIED BY BUILDING OR DRIVE BE SEEDED WITH AT LEAST GRASS. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 23. 1989 . ,-' 9. THAT ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THI S SITE BE AS PER CITY CODE. 10. THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES. 11. ALL HARD SURFACING BE INSTALLED WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 12. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE SUBJECT TO A TWO YEAR REVIEW. COMMISSIONER FUCHS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 9. Variance Request by Mike Trunnell/P.H. Zoning Assistant. Steven Bjork explained that Mike Trunnell of 18565 Simonet Drive is requesting a variance for a 20 ft. encroachment on the 30 ft. m1n1mum front yard setback to accommodate a garage. This requirement is contingent upon a hardship being found for this property. Mr. Bjork reviewed the Findings of Fact as outlined in his memo dated May 23. 1989. and indicated staff is recommending denial based upon the five stand-ards. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. . Mike Trunnell (the applicant) explained that both my wife and I work. therefore. we feel there is a safety problem with snow and ice on our vehicles in the winter time. The majority of the houses in the neighborhood have two car garages. We have an unusual shaped lot making it hard to build on. With the shape and size of the lot. narrow in front. we do not have a lot of options. We did not close in the one stall for living space. Being on a cul-de-sac traffic will be slow. therefore. I feel safety is not a problem in this issue. Harry Kreuser of 1910 6th Lane was in favor of the request. Mr. Kreuser explained that Mrs. Trunnell is a school teacher and Mike works for UPA plus drives an ambulance along with being on the fire department. He is not going to have time to scrape windows to get to an ambulance run or fire call on time. Likewise. Mrs. Trunnell should not have to scrape windows to teach our kids. I feel this is a hardship. Mr. Kreuser further indicated that the situation of the lot should be taken into consideration. Mr. Trunnell did not enclose one of the stalls for additional living space. Mr. Trunnell bought the property assuming he could build a garage. I consider this a hardship for the Trunnells. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of the cul-de-sac having a diameter of only 80 ft. Based on this. they felt that the small diameter of the cul-de-sac could create a safety problem in the area. By allowing this variance. snow plowing may be obstructed. . Commissioner Johnson indicated that she was not convinced this was a hardship based on the findings of fact. They bought the home knowing that there was only a single car garage. Because the applicant is proposing to locate the garage 10 ft. from the front property line. I feel that the vehicles will extend out into the surfacing of the cul-de-sac creating a safety problem. Commissioner Morton was in agreement with Commissioner Johnson. . . . Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 Following the discussion Commissioner Schroeder indicated the applicant could have a hardship considering the shape and size of the lot. All the homes were built before there were regulations. In this particular case, I feel there may be a hardship from the standpoint of a need for fast exiting by the homeowner taking care of his supplemental job he has as an ambulance driver and fire fighter. Therefore, I have to vote in favor of the request. Mr. Olsen was in agreement with Mr. Schroeder. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY MIKE TRUNNELL BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO: 1. THE INABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A TWO CAR GARAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP. 2. ALL PROPERTIES ALONG SIMONET DRIVE ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONSTRAINTS AND THIS PARCEL IS NOT UNIQUE IN NATURE. SAME 3. ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION ALONG SIMONET DRIVE HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO MEET THE 30 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. 4. THE APPLICANT MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO PURCHASE A HOME WITH ONE GARAGE STALL. 5. BY ALLOWING THE VARIANCE, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND SNOW PLOWING MAY BE OBSTRUCTED. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-2. Commissioners Olson and Schroeder voted against the motion. At this time a short recess was taken. 10. Conditional Use Permit by Larry Roh1f/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator left the table at this time because the applicant was his brother. Mr. Rohlf did not want his presence as Building and Zoning Administrator perceived as a personal interest conflict. Chairman Kimball read the standards for a conditional use permit. Chairman Kimball indicated that in order for a conditional use permit to be granted the seven standards must be met. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Steve Bjork, Zoning Assistant, indicated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a mini storage facility in the R-3 zone. The Zoning Administrator indicated that Counci1member Schuldt had contacted City Staff regarding his concern with this request. Gene Schuldt was present to discuss his concern regarding this issue. Mr. Schuldt gave some background information on when m1n1 storage was before the City Council a few months ago as an ordinance amendment. When this was before the City Council we were thinking in terms of mini storage around apartment buildings, such as Larry Morrell's property. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1989 . There was not a whole lot of discussion at the time this was before the City Council. At the time none of us had any problem with mini storage around apartment buildings. As Steve Bjork indicated in his memo, apartment complexes generally do not provide enough storage space for the residents. Counci1member Schuldt noted that at the time the ordinance amendment was approved, I did have some misgivings, but did not know what they were at the time. But I do now. What wide range impact will this have on the City? I would recommend that the Planning Commission as one of their options table this until the ordinance can be reexamined. At this time, Larry Rohlf submitted a letter from Terpstra, Black, Fitzgerald and Brade11, Attorneys at Law, regarding his conditional use permit request. Mr. Rohlf asked that Chairman Kimball read his letter as submitted addressing his concerns and conditions. The letter stated how Mr. -Rohlf met all the these conditions. Larry Rohlf also submitted a letter from Thomas Zerwas, Chief of Police addressing crime problems in regards to mini storage. Mr. Zerwas indicated in his letter that there has not been an unusual or significant amount of crime that has occurred regarding mini storage. We experience considerably more crime in apartment complex parking lots than from mini storage units. . Larry Rohlf also provided the Commission with letters from White Dove Appraisals and Edina Realty explaining their views that mini storage would not affect the value of surrounding property, either in a negative or a positive way. The chair received and accepted the documents from Larry Rohlf to be made part of the the public record. Jim Rossman Rossman felt addressed. Mr. of Mr. Rohlf's of 19702 NW Irving that drainage could Rossman indicated property. Street was opposed to the request. Mr. be a problem and would like this issue that his twim home abuts the back side Mary Jo Swanson of 11922 192nd Ave. NW was opposed to this request. Ms. Swanson addressed the items listed in her letter to the City regarding her concerns. Ms. Swanson was concerned for the safety of children in the neighborhood as strangers come into the neighborhood for the purpose of storing their property. This could endanger the people in the neighborhood with the possibility of injury. What control will the City have on what can be stored in these facilities? The stated purpose is not incongruent with m1n1 storage which is considered a commercial building. No study has been done regarding storage in a residential area. Ms. Swanson indicated she would like to have seen a study done before mini storage was allowed in this zone. Ron Myhre of 17340 Wolverine St. NW was opposed to this request. . Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. . . . Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes May 23. 1989 Chairman Kimball indicated that the Planning Commission has devoted a considerable amount of time on this issue of mini storage when it was before the Planning Commission a few months ago. The applicant has spent a considerable amount of money on this decision. After talking briefly about the current status of this issue with attorneys. land use attorney and city planner we should not consider whether this is appropriate or inappropriate since the Planning Commission recommended it and the City Council acted on it several months ago. The decision before us now is under what conditions do we allow this use. We made this a conditional use so we could have control over this use. This is allowed in industrial zones and commercial zones as a principal use. After extensive discussion regarding this issue. it was the consensus of the Commission that they would have to approve this request based on the decision that mini storage recently went through an ordinance amendment to allow this use as a conditional use in the R-3 zone. Commissioner Morton addressed each of the seven standards and found that Mr. Rohlf met each of the seven standards. COMMISSIONER OLSEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING PAST 12:00 O'CLOCK MIDNIGHT. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7- O. COMMISSIONER MORTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY LARRY ROHLF TO CONSTRUCT A MINI STORAGE FACILITY IN THE R-3 ZONE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. SECURITY FENCING TO COMPLETELY SURROUND LOT 3. A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET IN HEIGHT WITH LOCKABLE GATES. AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. NOT COMPLETELY OPAQUE. IN ORDER TO ALLOW AREA WITHIN TO BE COMPLETELY VIEWED. 2. LIGHTING SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE STORAGE BUILDING WITH NO GLARE SPILLOVER TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES. 3. REDUCED SECURITY LIGHTING AFTER HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL ALSO ALLOW NO GLARE SPILLOVER TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES. 4. BUILDING MATERIAL ENVIRONMENT. AND SHALL BE SUBDUED COLORS. COMPATIBLE WITH THE ARCHITECTURALLY HARMONIOUS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 5. THE DESIGN AND FINISH OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 6. THE BUILDING SHALL HAVE A SHINGLED ROOF. 7. APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DRAINAGE RETENTION EASEMENT ON LOT 2 APPROVED THE THE CITY ENGINEER. 8. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.DAILY. 9. SPEED LIMIT OF 5 MPH SHALL BE POSTED ON LOT 3. Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 23. 1989 . 10. THE DRIVEWAY ON LOT 3 SHALL BE ONE WAY ONLY. 11. DRIVEWAY AND PARKING STALLS SHALL BE HARDSURFACED WITH ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. 12. AREAS NOT PAVED OR BUILT UPON SHALL BE SEEDED IN GRASS. 13. TEN TREES SHALL BE PLANTED ON LOT 3. TYPES AND LOCATIONS PER DESCRIPTION ON DRAINAGE PLAN. 14. BUILDING AND GROUNDS SHALL BE KEPT WELL MAINTAINED. CLEAN. AND FREE OF DEBRIS. 15 . SIGNAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM OF FOUR SQUARE FEET. 16. THE PROJECT'S APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN BY THE CITY ENGINEER. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6..;.1. Commissioner Olsen disagreed with the recommended course of action and felt it would be better to table this issue until the ordinance can be reexamined. . 11. Variance Request by Lloyd Anderson/P.H. Building and Zoning Administrator. Steve Rohlf. stated that the applicant (Lloyd Anderson) is requesting an encroachment of 60 ft. on the 75 ft. setback required from a general development water (Lake Orono) to adjacent structures. Steve Rohlf indicated that Dale Homuth from the Department of Natural Resources had submitted a letter regarding the variance request for Lloyd Anderson. Mr. Homuth was in agreement with staff's comments and conditions regarding this request. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Lloyd Anderson explained his request in that the house encroaches on the 75 ft. setback from a drainage ditch that was dug a number of years ago to handle storm drainage which was man made. Mr. Anderson indicated that it would be impossible to meet the 75 ft. setback from the drainage ditch and still construct a structure. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. . COMMISSIONER OLSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN ENCROACHMENT OF 60 FT. ON THE 75 FT. SETBACK REQUIRED FROM A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT WATER BY LLOYD ANDERSON BASED UPON THE FIVE STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO. ALSO BASED UPON DALE HOMUTH'S LETTER IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMI SSIONER SCHROEDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. 12. Ordinance Amendment/Maximum Slope for Driveways/P.H. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. . . . Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 23. 1989 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 900.20 "STRUCTURES TO HAVE ACCESS". COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7- o. 12.5 Discussion of 4/25/89 Minutes Mary Eberley felt there was a misunderstanding with Item No. 7.5 "Accuracy of Information Received" in the 4/25/89 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Eberley indicated that Commissioner Fuchs concern was that the plans submitted for the record must be accurate and complete. 12.75State Conference Handout & Seminars Chairman Kimball if material and Conferences. indicated it would be in the best interest of everyone handouts were shared with everyone from Planning 13. Planning Commission Representative to Attend Council Meeting on June 19. 1989 It was indicated that Commissioner Morton and Eberley would attend the June 19. 1989 City Council meeting. 13.5 Policy on Attending Conferences Steve Rohlf indicated that staff would like their input into the budget for Planning Seminars. 13.75Discussion of Staff's Memo and Agenda It was discussed that the Planning Commission should consider a mechanism for them to add additional items to the agenda. 14. Adjournment There being no further business. COMMISSIONER OLSEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7- o. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at approximately 1:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted. 817M on fJ1tULZ fiv Sharon Maue Recording Secretary