Loading...
09-27-2005 PC MIN MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 Members Present: Chair Anderson, Lemke, Offerman, Ropp, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Staff Present: Scott Clark, Community Development Director; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Anderson. 2. Consider 9/27/05 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ITEM 5.3. - REQUEST BY THE SINGER GROUP LLC FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (SINGER ADDITION), PUBLIC HEARING – CASE NO. P 05-15 – POSTPONED TO THE NOVEMBER 22, 2005 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3.1. Consider 8/23/05 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend October City Council Meeting Commissioner Stevens will attend the October 17, 2005 City Council meeting. 5.1.Request by City of Elk River for Land Use Amendment from Open Space to Urban Residential, Public Hearing – Case No. LU 05-07 Planner Chris Leeseberg reviewed the request to change the land use designation of the property located at 17797 Tyler Street from OS (Open Space) to UR (Urban Residential). He explained that the land use is not consistent with the proposed plat of Van Den Berg Addition, since the Open Space designation only references public and private recreational facilities. Staff recommends approval of the land use change in order to provide consistency with the current zoning and proposed plat. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO AMEND THE LAND USE FOR PROPERTY AT 17797 TYLER STREET FROM OS (OPEN SPACE) TO UR (URBAN RESIDENTIAL), CASE NO. LU 05-07. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Request by Robert Van Den Berg for Preliminary Plat Approval (Van Den Berg Addition), Public Hearing – Case No. P 05-17 Planner Chris Leeseberg reviewed the request by Robert Van Den Berg to subdivide 7.22 acres into 10 lots. He noted that there is an existing single family residence on proposed Lot 5, Block 1 and a pole building on Lot 6, Block 1. He discussed park dedication, access, and a recommendation by staff to plat right-of-way to the east property line for a possible future access to the Hillside City Park. Commissioner Stevens asked if there was a trail access to the west of the site. Mr. Leeseberg stated no. He stated that the Park and Recreation Commission did discuss a trail access to the park on the east side of the plat but that this was not included in their recommendation. He stated that staff was suggesting a vehicle access. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Robert Van Den Berg, 17797 Tyler Street, applicant – Stated that he purchased the original 80-acre parcel in 1988 and sold 73 acres in 2000 for the development of Elk River Crossing, and ghost-platted the remaining 7 acres in 2003. He stated that he would like the cul-de-sac to remain and did not wish to incur any further improvement costs by platting the roadway to the property line. Mr. Van Den Berg noted that he has found a buyer for the entire parcel and would be forced to re-negotiate their agreement. Jason McCarty, Westwood Professional Services, representing Mr. Van Den Berg – explained that the City was consulted during the platting process for Mr. Van Den Berg’s property and that utilities were constructed based on this plan. He stated there may be an opportunity to place a trail easement between Lots 3 and 4 for pedestrian access to Hillside City Park. Commissioner Stevens stated that if the outlot was restricted, an access could not be built there. he would prefer a park access be located to line up with the area that has been clear cut for the power line. Commissioner Offerman concurred with Commissioner Stevens. He asked if the only the road would be extended, and not the services. Mr. Leeseberg stated that was correct. He suggested trying to install and road access to the park on one side or the other of the power line easement. Chair Anderson asked if the old driveway to Mr. Van Den Berg’s home has been closed. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that the former driveway will be closed as part of the development of the subdivision. Chair Anderson asked Mike Niziolek, Parks and Recreation Commission representative, for input. Mr. Niziolek stated that the Commission decided to recommend cash park dedication and that they did not discuss a road access to the park. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- Chair Anderson asked if there were other options for access to the City park, other than off County Road 12, for emergency vehicles. Mr. Niziolek stated that he did not recall any discussion on that issue. Commissioner Westgaard felt that it would make sense to utilize the outlot as an access to the park, if the topography allowed it. He concurred with Commissioner Stevens’ comments. Chair Anderson asked if it was feasible to put a road access through the outlot. Mr. Maurer stated that it would be possible, but that it would require more trees to be cut. He stated that it may be possible to use the power line easement for emergency vehicle access to the park. Chair Anderson asked who owned the property adjacent to the power line easement. Mr. Maurer stated that the property is owned by LeRoy and Ruth Brown. Commissioner Lemke asked what is the level of usage for Hillside City Park. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the mountain biking trails are rated the best in the State, and possibly in the nation. Mr. Niziolek stated that the course is the rated at the top, and usage will continue to grow. Commissioner Ropp asked where the park users are parking. Mr. Niziolek state that they park on 181 Avenue. He felt it was adequate for now, but that there is very room for an st access to the south. There being no further public comment, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lemke stated that it appears a great deal of planning was done for Mr. Van Den Berg’s property, in which the City and Mr. McCarty of Westwood Engineering was involved in. He questioned if there was a need for a emergency access, why that was not foresee and why is the City switching its recommendation now. Mr. Leeseberg stated that staff saw an opportunity to provide an alternative access to the park, and felt it was worth discussing. Mr. Maurer explained that Mr. Van Den Berg went through every process with the City to layout his proposed plat and install the necessary utilities. He stated that the only thing left to be done is to build the road/cul-de-sac. Commissioner Lemke stated that he felt Mr. Van Den Berg has already been though the review process and that he was not in favor of extending the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Ropp concurred, stating that there may be an opportunity to utilize the outlot for a future park access. He indicated he was in favor of approving Mr. Van Den Berg’s request, if condition #12 is removed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY ROBERT VAN DEN BERG FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VAN DEN BERG ADDITION, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2.ALL REQUIRED SUBDIVISION/PARK INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT (.DWG FILE) AS REQUIRED BY Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- THE CITY ORDINANCE AND LAND USE APPLICATION PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE PLAT. 3.A SEAL COAT FEE SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 4.A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE RELEASING OF THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 5.THE APPLICANT SHALL EXECUTE A DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 6.PARK DEDICATION SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF CASH. 7.A PLAN NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED THAT INDICATES THE LOT SIZES AS WELL AS THE STYLE AND ELEVATION OF THE HOMES. 8.THE LOTS NEED TO BE A MINIMUM OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET. 9.THE POLE BUILDING SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO RECORDING THE PLAT. 10.THE PLAT WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. 11.THE PLAT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE R3 ZONING REQUIREMENTS. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.4. Request by New Century Land Development for Land Use Map Amendment from CC (Community Commercial) to UR (Urban Residential), Public Hearing – Case No. LU 05-05 5.5. Request by New Century Land Development for Rezoning from C3 (Highway Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), Public Hearing – Case No. ZC 05-03 5.6. Request by New Century Land Development for Preliminary Plat (Heritage Maples), Public Hearing – Case No. P 05-16 5.7. Request by New Century Land Development for Conditional Use Permit for Residential Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing – Case No. CU 05-17 Commissioner Lemke excused himself from discussion and action on these issues, due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner Scott Harlicker reviewed the requests by New Century Land Development for a land use plan amendment, zone change, conditional use permit and preliminary plat for Heritage Maples, a 52-unit townhouse development. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the location, land use and rezoning, site plan, townhouse elevations, the layout of lots, streets and parking, landscaping, preliminary plat, and park dedication recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the various with the findings and conditions outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 27, 2005. Commissioner Offerman stated he did not feel a zone change to Planned Unit Development is appropriate, and asked if they would need to go through the process to rezone the property to R3. Mr. Harlicker stated yes. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that there are two issues that need to be addressed; the wetland buffer and storm sewer. He stated that it some areas, there are units next to the wetlands. He recommends at least a 20-foot “no cut – no grading” buffer. Mr. Maurer also stated that if the storm sewer issues are addressed as he has recommended, the plat will not Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- look the same and there will be significantly less units. He recommended that the plat either be tabled for redesign or that it be denied. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Victor Pacheco, applicant, representing New Century Land Development – Reviewed the changes that were made to the plans, based on the staff’s recommendations, including the following – adding sidewalks, moving buildings to address wetland issues, moving Yankton Street further to the east, changing the location of lamp posts, design revision to meet the R3 standards, lowered the density, widened the right-of-way for the service road, moved the access for the first building to the frontage road, and creating additional parking. Mr. Pacheco stated that they have met with the neighbors and that they are trying to address some of their concerns. He discussed the need for this type of senior housing. He stated their goal is to create life cycle housing and that seniors are more interested in the interior of the buildings and having quiet, not the yard area outside. Mr. Pacheco stated that the wetlands, rights-of-way, easements, buffer, setbacks, and unusable corner space take up 68 percent of the property. He stated that they intend to preserve and enhance the wetlands. A plaza area will be created with crab apple trees and a park bench. He felt that the plan has a good mix of ornamental and overstory trees. Mr. Pacheco stated that by reducing the density even further, they would have less lots to amortize the development costs. Mr. Pacheco stated that he did not feel 10 feet between garages was significant, since single family homes only require 5 feet from the setback on the garage side. He state that there will be 30 feet between the houses. He stated that they would be willing to bring two buildings together and create an 8-unit building, but felt that the buildings would look better separated. He noted that they did not feel the site was suitable for commercial, since they were unable to find users. Michael Wallace, 18628 144 Street, Big Lake Township – Asked that the Commission th approve the residential zoning request, and that the neighbors did not support commercial use of the property. He stated that the residents would prefer that it be restricted to seniors. He stated that the developer answered their questions about the grading, but that they still would like a buffer or fence. Tonya Lestico, 18677 144 Street, Big Lake Township – Stated that she would rather th have a privacy fence installed than a buffer of trees. She hoped that the trees they have planted along Highway 10 will remain, and that the frontage road will be extended to Waco Street. Ms. Lestico stated she would like some type of guarantee that the residents of the proposed townhomes would be 55 and older. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens asked if the frontage road will be extended to Waco Street. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated yes, if all of his recommendations are adopted as part of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Stevens expressed his concern regarding lack of benefit to the City in granting the PUD zoning. He also was concerned about the impact on the wetlands. Commissioner Stevens felt that the proposed amenities are lacking from what was originally proposed. He felt that the project was too dense, and that the property was better suited for commercial development. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- Mr. Pacheco stated that if Outlot A were combined with the Beck property, a commercial site could be created, but it was his opinion that this was not a good idea. Mr. Pacheco stated that the existing wetlands are not attractive, but that they will be improved and enhanced with the proposed project. He stated that he was willing to work with staff in resolving the remaining issues. Commissioner Westgaard asked how many units infringed on the 20 foot wetland setback. Mr. Harlicker stated that the entire development would, but that there are no specific setbacks for PUD’s. He stated that if the property were zoned R3, five units would encroach the 20-foot no-cut no-grade setback. Commissioner Westgaard stated he agreed with Commissioner Stevens’s comments and he also was struggling with the zone change. He felt it the property would better utilized for some other type of use than townhomes and was not in favor of approval of the requests. Mr. Pacheco stated that they have attempted to find a buyer for the property as it is currently zoned and there was a strong lack of interest. He stated that this project is different, since it is for seniors. He explained that the builder has included community centers in other projects, but that there is a “threshold” of where it becomes valuable and that this project is not large enough for it to be a valuable asset. Mr. Pacheco explained how the grading would be done next to the wetlands and their plans to improve them by restoring them with native plants. Commissioner Offerman stated that he agreed the property was more viable as residential. He stated that it is unclear that the applicant can meet the requirements noted by staff. He felt that the enhancements proposed will benefit the development, but questioned what the benefit to the City is. Commissioner Ropp stated that he agreed that commercial was not the best use for the property. He stated that he was concerned with the City Engineer’s comments and whether or not the applicant would be able to address those issues. Discussion followed regarding the 60-day rule. Mr. Pacheco asked when the City Council would review the request, if the Planning Commission voted for denial. Mr. Harlicker stated that the items will be considered at the October 17 City Council meeting. Mr. Pacheco th asked that the Planning Commission act on the requests tonight. He asked if he would be able to revise the plans prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Harlicker stated yes, but that the revised plans must be received at least one week prior to the meeting. Chair Anderson stated he felt strongly there should be no grading next to the wetlands. He stated that he liked what the developer has done to improve the plan, but felt more could be done. He stated he also supported the land use change from Community Commercial to Urban Residential. Commissioner Offerman felt that the Commission should act on all four of the requests and not look at each one independently. He did not feel it would be appropriate to change the land use and zoning at this time, since they have only heard a proposal from one developer. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY NEW CENTURY LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- FROM CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO UR (URBAN RESIDENTIAL), CASE NO. LU 05-05, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1.THE PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Chair Anderson opposed. ----------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY NEW CENTURY LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROMR3 (TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT) AND C3 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT), CASE NO. ZC 05-03, OF THE SITE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE COMMISSION FINDS NO COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 2. THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS TOO HIGH. 3. THE PLAN SHOWS SIGNIFICANT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE WETLANDS. 4. THE SETBACKS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT ADEQUATE. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. ------------------ MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY NEW CENTURY LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE FACT THE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONING WERE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. ---------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF HERITAGE MAPLES, CASE NO. P 05- 16, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE PLAT IS TOO DENSE. 2. THE PLAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A COMMUNITY CENTER AS PROPOSED IN THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT. 3. WETLAND ENCROACHMENT. 4. INADEQUATE SETBACKS. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.8. Request by City of Elk River for Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of Jackson Avenue Fire Station, Public Hearing – Case No. CU 05-12 Planner Chris Leeseberg reviewed the request by the City of Elk River to construct a 4,300 square foot addition to the existing Fire Station #1 (415 Jackson Avenue) to house an ambulance bay and additional office space. He discussed the surrounding land uses, elevations, layout and building materials. Staff recommended approval of the request with one condition as listed in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE JACKSON AVENUE FIRE STATION, CASE NO. CU 05-12, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.9. Request by City of Elk River for Land Use Map Amendment to Change Land Use from Community Commercial to Highway Business (Lots 1 and 2, County Crossing Business Center), Public Hearing – Case No. LU 05-06 5.10. Request by City of Elk River for Zone Change from Business Park to Highway Commercial (Lots 1 and 2, Country Crossing Business Center), Public Hearing – Case No. ZC 05-04 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker reviewed a request by the City of Elk River for a Land Use Plan Amendment from Community Commercial to Highway Business, and a zone change from Business Park to Highway Commercial. Mr. Harlicker provided background information regarding the elimination of Highway Business uses in the Business Park zoning district. Mr. Harlicker stated that the subject property is fully developed with two multi- tenant buildings and described the current tenants. Since the property is along Highway 10 at a busy signalized intersection, staff feels it makes sense to recommend approval of the proposed land use amendment and zone change. Chair Anderson asked if the proposed changes will impact any of the existing uses. Mr. Harlicker stated no. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Tom Hartman, 18684 Lander Drive – Asked if no changes are proposed for the property north of Highway 10. Mr. Harlicker stated that was correct. There being no one else to speak to this issue, Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FIR LOTS 1 AND 2, COUNTRY CROSSING BUSINESS CENTER, FROM CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO HB (HIGHWAY BUSINESS), CASE NO. LU 05-06. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. ---------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A ZONE CHANGE FOR LOTS 1 AND 2, Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- COUNTRY CROSSING BUSINESS CENTER, FROM BP (BUSINESS PARK) TO C3 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL), CASE NO. ZC 05-04. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.11. Consider Concept Plan for 175 Avenue Area th Senior Planner Scott Harlicker reviewed the concept plan for the subject area which included a 7-acre mixed use component which could include commercial, office and residential uses, apartments, and townhomes. Mr. Harlicker discussed density of the site, possible access points, and location of a proposed greenway/trail. Staff recommends approval of the concept plan as presented. Commissioner Westgaard asked if the concept was approved, would there be inconsistencies with current zoning and land use maps. Mr. Harlicker stated yes, since the property is currently zoned R1a and the Comprehensive Land Use Map would need to be amended to include the property in the Urban Service Area. He explained that the property would need to be rezoned to be consistent with the proposed uses. Commissioner Offerman noted that a concept plan was requested by the City Council, in response to a property owner’s request to be included in the Urban Service Area. Mr. Harlicker stated that the Council has indicated they would like to see large areas be brought into the Urban Service Area, rather than by piecemeal, but that they did not quantify a specific number of acres. He stated that a group of property owners may decide to get together and develop a portion of the site. Commissioner Stevens stated that he felt the Commission has done what they were asked to do by the Council. He expressed his thanks to the residents for participating in the process. He stated that he would like to see this process done in other areas of the City, as well. Mitch Spargur, representative of Denny Hecker Realty – Asked if wetland delineation has been done. Mr. Harlicker stated that some wetland area has been delineated in the southwest portion of the site, and the rest of the wetland information for the concept was obtained from the County maps. Mr. Spector stated that he felt the concept plan was marketable. He asked if staff felt the Council would be interested in looking at a proposal for approximately 20 plus acres, if some of the property owners pooled together. Chair Anderson suggested that he talk with the City Council. Mike Niziolek, representing the Parks and Recreation Commission, stated that that the trail shown on the concept appears to be in the wetlands. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the concept is not that the precise location of a trail is not that specific. Ejaz Izati, resident – Asked if a proposal would be reviewed by the Planning Commission first. Mr. Harlicker stated yes. Mr. Izati stated that he would hope the concept plan is flexible enough to allow a developer to maximize the site. He asked if staff felt the project was “doable”. Mr. Harlicker stated that the developer who spoke has indicated that it may be. Chair Anderson stated that he felt the market will dictate whether or not a project is possible. He stated that it is not the City’s intent to force residents to develop their property, but if they do wish to proceed, there now will be a concept plan in place. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO ACCEPT THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF 175 AVENUE AS PRESENTED TH BY STAFF. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 27, 2005 --------------------------- 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on September 19, 2005 City Council Meeting Commissioner Anderson provided an update on the September 19, 2005 City Council meeting. 6.2. Request by Contractors & Consultants, Inc. for Extension of a Conditional Use Permit, Case No. CU 003-32 Planner Chris Leeseberg explained the request by Contractors & Consultants, Inc. for an extension of their Conditional Use Permit in order to complete their improvements. Commissioner Offerman asked if any complaints have been received. Mr. Leeseberg stated no, and that the applicant requested the extension on his own. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. CU 03-32. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 7. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary