Loading...
02-22-1982 PC MIN ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY Monday, February 22, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Pearce, Fredericksen, Gunkel and Chairman Tracy MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Kreuser STAFF PRESENT: Rick Breezee, Building and Zoning Administrator 1. Meeting Called to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tracy at 7:35 p.m. 2. Agenda The following item was added to the Agenda as Item #3~: Mr. Ted Lundgren and Mr. Rick Foster asked to present their PUD Concept to the Commissioners for a possible variance at a later scheduled meeting. 3. Minutes Chairman Tracy asked the Commissioners if they approved of the minutes of the January 25, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Gunkel indicated that she would like Item #5 changed and re-worded as follows: 1) The ordinance states that a 'PUD shall be served by adequate '\vater and se'\ver system'. Does this mean City sewer and water? 2) The main purpose of a PUD is to plan a large tract of land in an orderly fashion. A PUD has no specific zone within its bound- aries. Allowing 10 acre PUDs would allow too many boundaries. Allowing 10 acre PUDs would allow too many spot-mixtures. 3) Most areas close to do\~to\vn are covered in the zone recommendations of the HRA. 4) A 10-acre minimum lead to too many PUD areas. This is a cop-out. 5) Much thought and discussion went into the decision that established the present PUD requirements. This also involved cnsiderable participation on the part of private citizens. The present require- ments should not be altered to accomodate a couple of developers. Commissioner Gunkel suggests that areas less than 20 acres should be specifically zoned. COMMISSIONER PEARCE ~ffiDE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CORRECT FOR JANUARY 25, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 3~. Consider Lundgren PUD Concept Mr. Rick Foster on behalf of Mr. Ted Lundgren, presented to the Planning Commis- sion on a concept basis for their review, a possible variance request to allow a l7~ acre PUD from the required 20 acre PUD in a totally land-locked situation. This area is north of the City of Elk River which is bounded on the south by High- land Road, on the north by 193rd Avenue, on the east by Jackson Avenue (County Road 201), and on the west by Highland Road. Mr. Foster indicated to the Com- missioners that because the land is totally land-locked by surrounding pieces of property which is not o'\vued by Mr. Lundgren, the only possible way of developing this area as a PUD would be to allow a variance to be granted. He proceeded to explain to the Commissioners that this area be totally City sewered and watered Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 Page Two and that the project would be built in phases with the first phase of the operation to be conducted on the south end of the development along Highland Road. The second phase of operation would consist of building a City street the entire length of Highland Road to 193rd Avenue m~ with the other projects being built as needed in relation to the economic growth. Commissioner Pearce asked Mr. Foster if he felt that the southeastern portion of the development would really be needed as commercial property and also if it was a commercial piece of property, what would be the concept that would be built there. Mr. Foster explained to the Commissioners that this was planned for a conven- ience type of store and that because of the amount of construction that is presently being proposed and the density that is within the area, this con-- venience type of store would be an asset to the surrounding property o\vners. Commissioner Gunkel asked whether or not the adjoining property owners would have any input on whether the area was to be rezoned or not. Mr. Breezee indicated to the Commissioners that if a variance was to be issued for a PUD and a conditional use permit was requested by Mr. Lundgren, then there would be the necessary public hearing notices in the local newspaper and mailed to the property owners within 350 feet of the area in question, so they would be properly notified. Commissioner Gunkel feels that the best way of developing this property is in a R-3 or R-4 zoned area which would have to meet the City's requirements relating to setbacks and density per acre. Commissioner Pearce indicated to the gentlemen that he would pe in favor of the development in regard to the location of the structu~es as they are laid out and of the concept. However, the convenience store in his opinion, is not in the best interest of the surrounding property owners and that he would like to see a section within our ordinance ~o allow a private road to be built to these units so that the necessary frontage and lot requirements could be met on a private road as opposed to a City road. Mr. Breezee indicated to the Commissioners that this change would be in the new ordinance that would allow private roads to be built to City standards for this type of property o\mership. Chairman Tracy informed the Commissioners that he was in favor of this PUD con- cept because of the fact that when a PUD is being planned or developed, the City has more control of the entire project as opposed to a regularly zoned area re- lating to landscaping, setback requirements, berming and buffers from one prop- erty to another. He felt that if it was done in a proper manner and the density unit per acre met the staff and the City's requirements, then a PUD can hopefully be an asset to the community rather than a hinderance. He also indicated that he agreed with Mr. Foster in that with the amount of construction that his plan will require and the amount of construction that is presently being done in the area, the convenience store could possibly make a good location for the total area. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 Page Three This item was on a concept basis only; there was no formal motion needed. However, it was the consensus of four out of the five Planning Commission members that they were more in favor of a zone change to allow an R-3 or R-4 type of zone, as opposed to a PUD to allow the commercial area to be built. 4. Consider Conditional Use Permit Request for Home Occupation for Bruce Genck Mr. Bruce Genck was present to explain to the Commissioners that he presently operates a full-time piano repair operation that covers approximately a 30- mile radius from his home. Mr. Genck informed the Commissioners that he dis- cussed the five standards that is required for a home occupation with Mr. Breezee and can see no problem in meeting them. Commissioner Gunkel asked Mr. Genck how the pianos were delivered and Mr. Genck informed them that any time when a piano is delivered to his residence for a repair, that it usually is done by a single-axle enclosed pick-up and that no large, moving tractor trailers or large double-axle trucks were used to deliver these items. Mr. Genck also informed the Commissioner that he only does one, maybe two pianos at a time. Never do the pianos build up for stock so that he would not have the necessary storage problems to cope with. COMMISSIONER FREDERICKSEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MR. GENCK'S HOME OCCUPATION AT 11681 194TH AVENUE, TO ALLOW HIM TO REPAIR PIANOS. CO}MISSIONER GUNKEL SEC01~ED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. There was additional discussion relating to the number of years this home oc- cupation should be granted before a review procedure is done. Commissioner Pearce asked Mr. Bob Middaugh, the City Administrator who was sitting in the audience, whether an additional $100 application fee would be needed when the two-year term expired when Mr. Genck would have to appear before the Commission for the review process. Mr. Middaugh gxplained that if they do put a time limit on the .permit and when the applicant does come in for review purposes, the additional $100 would have to be paid so that the necessary notices can be sent out and the paper work done. Mr. Middaugh also explained to the Com- missioners that the staff felt that a time span put on a conditional use per- mit would really not have to be done because of the fact that if at any time the applicant does not conform to the conditions that were set for the con- ditional use permit, such as the five requirements for a home occupation, then the City has the right to revoke such conditional use permit. 5. Consider Conditional Use Permit Request by Jon and Carol Lundberg Mr. and Mrs. Jon Lundberg were present to explain to the Planning Commission their request for a home occupation for a small electronic assembly work to be done out of their garage located at 20791 Elk Lake Road. The electronic assembly work would basically consist of small wire wrappings and doing some soldering of printed circuit boards. The tools that would be used would be small metal jigs and soldering irons. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 Page Four Commissioner Pearce asked Mrs. Lundberg what type of vehicles were used to bring the items to their home for the assembly work. Mrs. Lundberg in- formed the Commissioner that the items are brought in, she herself goes to the places that are requesting the work done, and brings them in her own personal pick-up truck. Commissioner Pearce then asked Mr. Breezee whether or not the structure was safe for this type of operation. Mr. Breezee in- formed them that the area Mrs. Lundberg would use for assembly procedures would be in the lower level of a two-level, span-crete type constructed garage and that the wall attached to the home was a one-hour fire wall with a solid core door and closer and as such, Mr. Breezee felt there was no pro- blem in meeting the code for the separations. Commissioner Pearce also asked whether or not there would be a problem with a requirement on the number of employees that they have requested. Mrs. Lundberg indicated that right now the very maximum that she would ever employ is two and if that number did exceed two, there would probably be a reason for her going to an area within the City of Elk River that is properly zoned for such operation. COMMISSIONER PEARCE RECOMMENDED APPROVING SUCH PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION FOR JON AND CAROL LUNDBERG, 20791 ELK LAKE ROAD, TO DO ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY WORK OUT OF THEIR HOME, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES DOES NOT EXCEED TWO. COMMISSIONER FREDERICKSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED3-0. 6. Consider Zone Change Request by Mr. John Plaisted Mr. John Plaisted was present to present to the Commissioners a map showing the area that he is requesting a zone change from an A-ljAgricultural Zone to an 1-2/Industrial Zone. Mr. Plaisted informed the Commissioners that he presently O\VTIS the Elk River Ready Mix located north of to\Vll on #169 and 205th Avenue. He then informed the Commissioners that on May II, 1972, the County granted him a zone change to allow this area to be used as industrial purposes and that he felt the City was wrong in re-zoning it back to agricult- ural without undue reasons. Mr. Plaisted went on to explain to the Commission- ers that the land surrounding the area that he is requesting for a zone change is presently used for mineral extraction purposes and that there was no real feasible or allowed residential construction or any other type of operations to be conducted other than mineral extraction for a period of between 25 and 30 years. As such, he felt that if his area was zoned 1-2, he would bring in operations that would be somewhat compatible to mineral extraction. Mr. Gary Santwire was present and stated that if Mr. Plaisted had a good reason to re-zone the area and that if it could be used for those purposes, it could bring in added jobs to the area and as such, it would be a possible influence on the economic growth of Elk River. Commissioner Pearce asked Mr. Breezee on what position the staff would take regarding this zone change as requested by Mr. Plaisted. Mr. Breezee indi- cated to the Commissioners that the staff is not in favor of the zone change because of the fact that if the area was allowed to be zoned 1-2, it would be difficult to regulate what type of operations could be in the area and as such, Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 Page Five would these 1-2 operations be compatible with the surrounding A-I zoned area? Mr. Breezee indicated to the Commissioners that the staff feels that a conditional use permit should be allowed that would make related operations to mineral extractions be allowed in this area and that way Mr. Plaisted would be able to have his operations for his concrete proc- essing plants. Mr. Plaisted then told the Commissioners that because he is the sole prop- erty owner of this area, that if he was allowed to develop an industrial park, as o\vuer, he could regulate \vhat is allowed to be built and what is not allowed to be built. As such, it would not be in his interest to allow some of the uses that are allowed in an 1-2 zoned area that would not be compatible with the surrounding property o\vners. Commissioner Gunkel indicated that she would rather see the area on the farthest outskirts of the City be zoned 1-2 so that this type of operation would not be determental to the densely populated areas surrounding the do\vntown and as such, she would be in favor of zoning that area 1-2 so that industrial operations culd be conducted away from the more densely populated portions of the City. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION THAT A ZONE CHANGE BE DENIED BUT THAT A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT BE ALLOWED FOR RELATED OPERATIONS TO MINERAL EXTRACTIONS SUCH AS tffi. PLAISTED'S CE~rnNT PROCESSING PLANT WITHIN THE AREA. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE FROM A-l/AGRI- CULTURAL TO 1-2/INDUSTRIAL FOR THE AREA INDICATED ON THE MAP. CO}lliISSIONER FREDERICKSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. CHAIR}~N TRACY DID NOT VOTE. 7. Consider Moratorium on Metal Skinned Buildings Mr. Breezee informed the Commissioners that because of the fact that the build- ing season will be upon us very shortly, that the moratorium that was placed on the metal skinned buildings must be resolved as soon as possible. He asked the Commissioners if they had any recommendations regarding requirements for such structures. Commissioner Gunkel said that she reviewed the outline that was presented by Mr. Breezee and was in favor of the 120 square foot requirement for any struct- ures to be built in any zone for the small utility type buildings. Co~~issioner Fredericksen asked Mr. Breezee if a person o\vued, for example, a 10-acre piece of property in which to build a 2,OOOsquare foot accessory garage on his property, would he be allowed to do so? Mr. Breezee informed the Commissioner that only if it were for agricultural purposes and it was zoned for such, would a 2,000 square foot building be allowed. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 Page Six Commissioner Gunkel suggested that the structure be of compatible color to the principle building so that it would blend in 'with the neighborhood. Mr. Breezee stated that the requirements for metal skinned buildings are: 1. Portable utility buildings not exceeding 120 square feet in size may be permitted in any residential or agricultural zoned areas and be constructed of metal, wood, or masonry and comply with required yard setbacks (presently 5' rear and 5' sideyard). These buildings must be anchored to the ground. 2. No metal skinned buildings (such as pole buildings) shall be allowed in R-lc zoned areas. Accessory buildings shall be constructed of wood and/or masonry and shall not exceed 30% of the rearyard area or 1000 square feet in size and comply with the 5' rear and 5' side- yard requirements. 3. No metal skinned buildings (such as pole buildings) shall be allowed in R-la or R~lb zoned areas except when used specifically for agricul- tural purposes. These structures, when allowed, shall be setback from the lot lines the same as the requirements for the principal building or be setback from a platted subdivision as required in principal uses in Section 900.12(3) on Page 9 of the zoning ord- inance. Section 900.12 states: 3. R-l single-family residential districts c) Agricultural uses on lots 2~ acres or larger in size except as follo"\vs: (1) Crop farming within 300' of platted subdivision. (2) Commercial animal farming within 600' of a platted subdivision. Accessory buildings may be constructed of wood and/or masonry and shall not exceed 30% of the rearyard area or 1000 square feet in size and comply with the same setbacks as the principle building requirements. 4. Metal skinned, wood, and masonry accessory buildings shall be allowed in A-I Agricultural zoned areas and shall not exceed 30% of rearyard areas or 1000 square feet. Such accessory buildings must also meet the required setback distance from platted subdivisions as outlined in Item 3. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED BY MR. BREEZEE FOR METAL SKINNED BUILDINGS. COMMISSIONER FREDERICKSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1982 Page Seven 8. Consider HRA Letter Mr. Breezee asked the Commissioners if they had an opportunity to review the rough draft letter that he sent to them regarding the BRA Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan. The Commissioners were in favor of finalizing the draft that was draivu up by Mr. Breezee except that Mr. Breezee informed them that Commissioner Pearce was in favor of an architectural review procedure to be done by the Planning Commission whenever a developer is to present or propose a project to be done within the dOivntOwn area. The other Commissioners were in favor of such a proposal and as such, they informed Mr. Breezee to add to the letter their concerns relating to architectural reviewal to be done by the Planning Commission. 9. Non-Con Items a. Before the meeting was adjourned, Commissioner Pearce wanted to make it public record that although he voted in favor of the Plaisted zone change, tha t \Vas not his intent and cannot explain \vhy he did such. Ho\vever, he informed the audience and the Commissioners that he was not in favor of the zone change and if it was to be voted on again, his vote would be to deny the request for a zone change from an A-I to an 1-2 as requested by Mr. John Plaisted. 10. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. submitted, Zoning Administrator RB:cl