08-28-1978 PC MIN
ELK RIVER PL4.NNING COlll~SSION ~1EETII'JG
August 28, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Co~missioners Zabee, Nelson, Fredericksen, Rootes,
Driessen, Toth, Fox, Lucas and Thompson.
Members Absent: Commissioner Holmes.
1. Meeting called to order by Chairman Toth at 7:35 P.M.
2 . I\1inut e s
The Com~ssioners asked that in the fourth paragraph of the
l'linutes of the l"1eeting of July 31,. 1978 that the sentence be
altered to read: For denial, rather than for approval.
COI~1MISSIO~1ER ROOTES r~O\TED THltT THE .1~NUTES, _A.S CORRECTED t BE
ft..PPRO'\TED. CO~1ivlISSIO~~ FOX SECO}JuED THE !\10TIOI\i. l'10TION PASSED
UNAl'jn~OUSLY .
-8'. Minutes of Special Planning Commission I'4eeting.
COlvfl\IITSSIOI\]ER l'TELSON" !\fOVED APPROVAL OF THE MII\1UTES OF THE
SPEer.At I\1EETING OF THE PLA..11fJING COI\illvlISS I ON" ON AUGUST 14, 1978.
CO!\1!'JlISSIO}TER FOX SECONDED THE r.10TION. 1~10T lON PASSED m\Tft..NIMOUSLYe
4. Consider Rezoning Proposal for Earpee Court.
Item deleted at the request of the petitioner.
5. Zone Change for Additional Parking for the Dairy Queen.
Chairman Toth opened the Public Hearing on the Zone Change and
the follovdng individuals spoke against the proposed cha,nge:
Harriet Siegler, Stan vfueaton, Robert McCartney, Loretta Moos
and Ben Sch\~jab. In the individ'8:e.l comments, the people speaking
against the zone change addressed areas such as:
a. Safety of individuals crossing from the parking lot to the
Dairy Queen establishment.
b. The proximity of residential developments.
c. Increased traffic and use on the street.
d. The precedent of placing an expanded commercial use in a
residential area.
e. Spot zoning.
f. Potential drainage problems p02.ed by the parking lot.
g. A potential decrease in property valuation.
h. An increase in noi~e and general nuisance generated by traffic
anc Dairy Queen clientele
Individuals speaking for the proposed zone change included:
Joe Rivers, Randy LindQuist, Jerry Smith and the petitioners,
Mr. & Mrs. Dahlheim. These indi,~duals addressed the following
areas in their comments:
1. The addition of a parking lot would reduce the hazard on the
road now caused by parked cars and constant traffic.
2. Property va.luations may not be decreased because of potential
for reducing traffic and congestion in the area.
3. The parking problem might be alleviated on the street.
4. The expansion 'I'Jould allovl for the more orderly conduct of
the Dairy Queen business.
During the Public Hearing, Commisioner Zabee, questioned the
o~~er of the Dai~J Queen, Mr. Scott Mitchell, why the property
to the west of his establishment had not been considered for
expansion for parking lot purposee. Mr. Mitchell indicated
the property to the west was too small to support a parking lot,
and as such, vIas not feasible. Commissioner Lucas asked r4r..
Mitchell if the Dairy Queen was of a comparable size to other
Dairy Queens and if he anticipated expansion in the future. Mr.
Mitchell indicated that his operation was small in comparison to
many others. At this point, Co~uissioner Toth closed the hearing
and confined the co.m.rnents to the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Rootes stated that the City must be concerned with commereial grot~h
in the City and should not limit, too severely, such grovlth expansion
but should consider ~"lhere this expa."1sion might be able to occur in
the future. Com~ssioner Lucas indicated he felt the parking was in the
vJrong ..1ocation but that he ~.upported commercial gro1r.7th, in general,
in the City of Elk River.
The City Planner, was asked if conditions could be placed on the
Zone Change, limiting the tJ'~e of use or the nature of the use
of the property. The City Planner indicated that the Planning
Commission could not place conditions on a Zone Change but the
Co~mission had the option of granting a variance for the con-
struction of the parking lot under the present .zoning, which
could allow the Commission to apply the necessary controls over
vlhat goes into the area.
COr.fi1ISSIONER LUCAS MOv~D THAT Tf1:E ZO!\TE CH..A..NGE FROM R-3 TO C-3
BE DENIED. COiv1MISSIO~~R ZABEE SECONDED THE r-10TION. MOTION"-
PASSED UNP..Nll1.fOUSLY.
6. Ridge'~lood East 4th Addition PreliminaI:1 Plat.
COmIT~ssioner Toth indicated that, inlight of the staff report on
the preliminary plat and the problems posed in the staff review,
that the p~at should be rejected and redone, taking into consid-
eration, the points raised by the staff report.
Neil Larson, representing the Ridgewood East 4th Addition Developer,
addressed the Pla~ning Commssion on the possibility of a series
of land exchanges to create park l~~d in the area and to cre~~e
additional residential area. in another location of the city,
PlaPJUng Commission Meeting
Page 2
rather than proceeding \-~Tith the plat as presented to the Planning
Commission. The Commissioners indicated that if the developer
\~Jished to pursue this line of thin..1dng, that it v~ould have to be
developed into a Prelimina~J plat and processed through the normal
channels in the Cityts platting process.
COI\ll'tiSSIOI'ffiR FREDERICKSEN ~10VED THAT THE PJ:;DGEl~IOOD EJi..ST 4TH
ADDITIOl'l PRELll\1INARY PLAT BE REJECTED fl]\Jl) TH.~T THE DEVELOPER
REDO THE PLOT DESIGN TO COI\1FORM -VlITH PROBLEr4S NOTED BY THE
CITY ENGmEER _4.~1) CITY PLANNER. t-10TION' SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FOX. l~OTION PJ.\..SSED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Final Pat for Greenhead ..t\cres Add.ition.
The petitioner, Mr. Lloyd Anderson, presented the final plat
to the Planning Commission and e}':plained that all pro"\risions
and requirements made of the preliminary plat had been
complied vrlth on his final plat. The City Planner suggested
that the plat reflect .a temporary cul de sac. easement., on'~ the
north end of the subdi\~sions road. COt1MISSIONER FREDERICKSEN
1~10\]ED APPROVAL OF. THE GP~El\THEP..D fl..CRES ft.DDITIOI\T FIN.4L PUtT.
"11TH T'tiE CONDITION THP.T ..4.J."J EASErwlENT FOR ..A. TElvfPORARY Cut DE SAC
ON THE NORTH END OF COr~CORD STREET BE Il\TCLUDED. l-l0TIOI~
SECOI\1DED BY CO!\1}lISSIOI\TER rmLSOI~. MOTION P.A_SSED UNJtNIi~OUSLY e
8. Land Use Grant liJork Program.
City Pl~th~er, Zack Jo~~son, presented a proposed work plan for
a land use planning grant be received from the State of
Minnesota. Mr. Johnson reviewed the tasks to be included in the
work program, as well as the financing and costs for the
completion of the proposed program. Mr. Johnson explained that
the program, as presented, would cost the Cityapproxirnately
$18,000, of 11'J'mch $10,000 \;Tould be received in~grant money from
the State of IlJlinnesota and $3,000 vlould be contributed by the
Ci t~r of Elk River in inkind match va th the remaining $ 5 ,000 to be
contributed by the City in cash. CO!~~SSIONER FOX MOVED THAT
THE \!10PJ\ PROGRAM ,AS PPtESE~rrrED p.T THE PROPOSED COSTS OF .
.A.PPROXII~1ATELY $18,000, BE RECot~}IDED FOR ft..PPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL. COlv!r:4ISSIONER LUCAS SECO~IDED THE MOTION e 1\10TIOi'J
PASSED UNft..Nn~'10USLY.
CO!\~1ISSIONER I'ffilSC!~j MOVED !\1EETING .ADJOUm1EDo 1\10TION SECONDED
BY COMt\'1ISSIOl\JER LUC..A.S. I~OTIOI\f PASSED UN..A..NIMOUSLY. Meeting
adjourned.
Respectfully SubIDitted,
dc, '~~~'--JL-
Robert c. l~ddaugh
City ..ftdroinistrator