Loading...
05-24-1982 PC MIN ELK RIVER PLANNING CO~rrSSION MEETING HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUELI C LIBRARY MAY 24, 1982 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Chairman Tracy, Commissioners Pearce and Gunkel Commissioners Kreuser and Fredericksen Rick Breezee, Building and Zoning Administrator 1. Call Meeting to Order Chairman Tracy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Consider Agenda COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AGENDA FOR THE MAY 24, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL. MOTION PASSED 3-0. 3. Consider Minutes of April 26, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION THAT THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 26, 1982 PL&~NING COMMISSION MEETING BE ACCEPTED AS PUBLISHED. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL. MO- TION PASSED 3-0. 4. Consider Concept - Retail Center - Gary Santwire Gary Santwire, developer of Barrington Place, explained the retail concept. Mr. Sant- wire indicated that the site plan of Barrington Place was approved prior to the final plat approval in 1980. Tonight Mr. Santwire is dealing with the entire commercial area. The site plan proposes a gross area of 67,100 square feet of commercial build- ings with a mixture of businesses. Mr. Santwire further indicated that, as per the developer's agreement, this has to fall into a C-l, C-2, or C-3 zone. Mr. Santwire also indicated that the two sites were consolidated and used for one restaurant (Mac- Donald's). The original site plan and the present square footage has changed. The square footage. presently runs approximately 7,000 square feet under the allowable square feet in the original site plan. Mr. Santwire is, therefore, now requesting the Planning Commission to incorporate the new amount of square footage of 47,000 square feet. There would be approximately 44,000 usuable square feet. Mr. Santwire then indicated that he was aware that any specific type of business would be subject to the Planning Commission's approval relating to landscaping, site plan, signage, etc. Murray Mills, a resident, indicated the concern of the impact of the proposed shopping center in relation to the downtown businessmen. He felt that they were concerned about some very large proposals for additional retail space in the Elk River area. Mr. Mills then introduced Mr. David Schowalter. Mr. Schowalter has an extensive background in urban planning. Mr. Schowalter has been asked by some of the downto\Vll area business- men to give some professional input on the impact of the do\vutown area that the shopping cen'ter may have. Mr. Mills indicated that Mr. Schowalter \Vas at the Planning Commission meeting tonight only to listen. The do\vutown wants a second opinion from someone who has no connection with the City at all. Rick Breezee asked Mr. Mills what basis Mr. Schowalter would serve. He then asked Mr. Mills \vhat the "bottom line" \Vas on Mr. Schowalter's presentation--does the do\m- to\Vll area approve or does the do\vutown area disapprove the shopping center. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Two Mr. Mills indicated that the do\vntown only was very concerned about what was happen- ing. Mr. Mills indicated that the only study available to them was the study done by Mr. Zack Johnson, City Planner, in 1979. The do\vutown felt that they needed some input on this whole area from some professional views. Chairman Tracy indicated that the Planning Commission had already approved the square footage in dealing with the concept being presented by Mr. Santwire tonight. Gary Santwire indicated that there were two 8,000 square foot buildings planned orig- inally; now the two 8,000 square foot buildings would not be there. Mr. Santwire is only changing the distribution of the square footage within the approved commer- cial area of the PUD. Chairman Tracy asked Mr. Sant\rire what would happen to the other areas that were originally being considered for commercial use, now that it is all being packed to- gether on one area. Chairman Tracy further asked Mr. Santwire if he anticipated more gro\vth corrunercially \vithin. that area in the future. Mr. Sant~ire indicated that two of the sites in question were no longer o\vned by him. Mr. Santwire further indicated that possibly both sides might be built on or marketed for further commercial development. General discussion was carried on where Mr. Santwire indicated that if you count every- thing that is being proposed, and if you were to use the maximum allowable footage for lots 3 and 4, you would then come up with the same amount of footage within 100 square feet of what was originally proposed. Since the original site plan was approved, some of the lots became somewhat smaller in size because of the expansion of the drainage area. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NEW CONCEPT PROPOSAL BY GARY SANT- WIRE FOR LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 6, BARRINGTON PLACE, ON THE BASIS THAT IT DOES NOT REP- RESENT AN INCREASE IN SPACE BUT IS RELATIVELY THE SAlvfE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. THE MOTION "(.JAS SECONDED BY COMM:TSSIONER GUNKEL. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 5. Consider Landscape Approval for Kentucky Fried Chicken Mr. Gary Santwire presented the information to the Planning Commission regarding the landscape approval for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Mr. Santwire indicated he was rep- resenting Mr. Bill Morrow, President of Anoka Kentucky Fried Chicken. The Elk River Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant is proposed to be built on Lot 1, Block 7, Barring- ton Place. Mr. Santwire further indicated that Mr. Morrow owns the site in question. Mr. Santwire explained the site plan and blueprint of the proposed building, includ- ing photographs of the ForrestLake Kentucky Fried Chicken. The Elk River Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be built similar to the Forrest Lake building. Discussion followed between Mr. Santwire and the Planning Commission regarding the site of the Kentucky Fried Chicken. Mr. Santwire further indicated that signage would not be a problem. Chairman Tracy asked Rick Breezee about the height of the sign for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Three Rick Breezee indicated that the Planning Commission should use the sign ordinance as a guideline in determining the size of the sign. The Planning Commission can also stipulate the height of the sign or as stated before, follow the ordinance. Mr. Santwire indicated that Kentucky Fried Chicken has proposed to have a drive-up window. Mr. Santwire then showed the Planning Commission the parking plan of the site, and further indicated that the building is under 2,000 square feet. Chairman Tracy asked for input from the audience. He indicated that tonight the Flanning Commission is not dealing with the fact of what is going there, but only with the landscaping and site plan for Lot 1, Block 7, Barrington Place. Mark Kuzik asked the Planning Commission \vhat kind of plans they have in regard to a controlled intersection at Highway 169. Rick Breezee indicated this item has been submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A study is presently being conducted but at this time the City has not heard one way or another from them. Mark Kuzik also asked the Planning Commission if it would be possible for the de- veloper to pay some of the costs for these lights. Mr. Santwire indicated that his company is presently in the process of getting a petition drawn up to help solve this problem. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 7, BARRINGTON PLACE, FOR KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN AS SUBMITTED BY GARY SANTI~IRE. COM- tIISSIONER PEARCE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 6. Consider Barthel PUD Preliminary Plat - Continued Public Hearing Chairman Tracy indicated that the Planning Commission is reviewing the PUD proposal and they will be making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Dick Larson, architect for Barthel Construction, showed the Planning Commission and the audience the particulars of the proposed PUD. It is essentially the same as sho\vu at the April 26, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Larson also indicated that a number of different uses would be involved with this PUD. Mr. Larson in- dicated the shopping center on the site would occupy about 10 acres of the PUD. Mr. Larson further indicated that because of the elevations of the proposed site, there would be substantial earth moving. Mr. Larson stated that the shopping center is roughly 95,000 square feet of gross leasible area. Mr. Larson discussed the loading area, the berms, and the parking areas of the shopping center. Mr. Larson also showed the Planning Commission the site plan and elevations of the 10 acre shopping center. Mr. Robert Middaugh, the City Administrator, indicated that he would like to address some questions that came up at the last Planning Commission meeting about why the Planning Commission was looking at this proposal in such detail. The City Administra- tor further indicated that the PUD process requires the developer to submit two major pieces of information to the Planning Commission and the City Council: 1) The Planning Commission Minutes ~~y 24, 1982 Page Four regular preliminary plat (in this case it requires information on building size, building use, and the phasing of the buildings) and 2) a conditional use permit. In the City's ordinance, there are 5 findings which the Planning Commission and the City Council must deal with in issuing a conditional use permit. The City Administrator further indicated that one of the findings of the C.U.P. was that the PUD or plat would not endanger or injure or detrimentally affect the use of other property within the vicinity. The City Administrator further indicated that over a period of years, there have been studies done that indicate that this site in question is an ideal site for a shopping center. The City Administrator indicated that in 1982 a market study was submitted by the HRA in which the average need for the City of Elk River ranges from 70,000 - 81,000 square feet. The average of 75,100 square feet is the need demonstrated or projected for retail space for the entire City of Elk River by 1985. 41,000- 47,000 square feet of the 70,000 to 81,000 square feet is projected in furniture, appliance and variety stores. The City Administrator also explained the distribu- tion of growth for commercial retail space. For 1982-1985, 55% of all projected growth is to happen in this PUD, 30% in the downto\vu and 15% in other sites within the City. The City Administrator indicated that if the 55% that is projected to be compatible for growth out in the PUD area is applied to the total amount of space which is projected to be necessary or that the City can absorb by 1985, that total number of square feet that is optimally available at the PUD is 41,500. The center that is proposed is to have 95,000 square feet of total retail space. 59,00 square feet would be new retail space, 36,000 square feet would be relocated retail space (from the City of Elk River or from other parts of the retail trade area). Within that 36,000 square feet, about 27,000 square feet would be relocated from the City of Elk River. This number (27,000) is significant because in creating this structure and relocating these spaces, vacancies are created. The PUD exceeds the total demand for space in the entire City of Elk River by about 11,000 square feet through 1985. The City Administrator further indicated that there is an imbalance and overbuilding- too much space and not enough demand or' not enough market to fill that space. The City Administrator indicated that presently there is 108,000 square feet of retail space existing in the downtown area of Elk River. What is being proposed is 110,000 square feet of gross space; doubling what we have now. The City Administrator in- dicated that this was overbuilding. The City Administrator further indicated that what staff would like to see is this PUD scaled do\Vll to fit the available de- mand or need. The City Administrator indicated that a study done by the HRA expressed a desire to have a vital and active downto\vu. That same study indicates that growth should be compatible with other areas of the City. In summation, the City Administrator indicated that the figure that Barthel Construc- tion has presented is overbuilding. The figures presented by Barthel Construction don't indicate what will happen to the do\vuto\vu. The City Administrator also indi- cated that this size of center could not be supported economically. Mr. Zack Johnson asked Barthel where the 59,000 square feet of new retail will come from. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Five Laura Manske, representing Barthel, indicated that as of today, Barthel has gotten oral or written leases from the anchor tennants (Super Valu, Ben Franklin, Snyders, and a hardware store). The total square feet of these equal 50,000 square feet. There is 45,000 square feet of retail space left for smaller tennants. Barthel has gotten interest from a very small portion of smaller tennants coming from the dotvutotVU of Elk River. This leaves 37,000 square feet to come from out of Elk River. Chairman Tracy asked Ms. Manske if there has been an interest from outside the City. Ms. Manske indicated that there has been. An example would be such types of shops as fabric shops, formalwear shop, and something on the order of a catalog store. Ms. Manske also felt that the 39,000 square feet of available retail space could be filled. Commissioner Gunkel asked Ms. Manske how long it would take to fill up 39,000. square feet of retail space. Ms. Manske indicated that once financing has been finalized, it would take 6-7 months to fill the space. Zack Johnson asked the City Administrator if the 75,5000 square feet of total need and the resulting 41,500 of available space for the PUDs, did this take into account the 47,000 square feet that was just approved. Rick Breezee indicated to Mr. Johnson that the 47,000 amount was approved 2 years ago. Chairman Tracy opened the Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m. Don Anderson indicated that vacancies would be created downtown. He asked who did the market study for Barthel. He also indicated the do\mtown's concern of the economics of the PUD. Marlin Hutchinson, Barthel Construction, indicated that when they started the ground- work for this PUD seven months ago, the used Zack Johnson's 1979 study. Mr. Hutch- inson indicated that Zack Johnson, in that study, had made some projections to 1985. Barthel was going along with that study. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that there was another study used, done for Otsego To\vuship. Mr. Hutchinson also indicated that Zack Johnson has reduced his projected for population growth by 78% of what was anticipated in 1979. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that he does not feel Barthel is sat- urating the market. He also does not think the Barthel PUD will kill the downto\Vll area. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that this size of shopping center is the size that will work. Mr. Hutchinson further indicated that with the people that Barthel has contacted, these people indicated that they have people to fill the vacancies do\vu- town. In the central business district, there is only one store presently moving. Across the tracks, the grocery store is the only one interested so far. The City Administrator asked Mr. Hutchinson where the demand was demonstrated to fill the vacancies in the downtown area. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Si4 Mr. Hutchinson indicated that in a study done in 1979 in Otsego, a study done by Zack Johnson, that 201,500 square feet could be supported. In his study projected for 1985, he cut this done to 190,500 total. In the meantime, another store has been built, so this part of amount has been "soaked up"; therefore, there is a total of 115,500 of existing space. The added space Barthel is creating is 59,000 square feet of new space; therefore, there is at least 15,000 square feet that is unsatisfied. The City Administrator indicated that the demand is not there. - If you look at the only relevant numbers on the chart, 1982 data created, and follow the analysis dis- cussed earlier, the total number of square feet available for the whole City versus what Barthel is proposing for the center; if these numbers are what Barthel is using for their market demand, the market demand is not there. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that the way he reads the figures is what he came up with. Mr. Hutchinson felt that was a very conservative study. Mr. Neil Larson asked Barthel if, before proceeding with the PUD, that a substantial amount of space would be rented. Ms. Manske indicated that there would be 75% rented. Ms. Manske further indicated that there has been actual demand of anchor tennants. Nick Olson, of the East Side Concerned Citizens, indicated that there were three items that they are dealing with: 1) What they like, 2 what they are concerned with, and 3) what they don'.t like. They liked the buffer zones, the plantings. They like the berm concept and road situation. They liked the general arrangement. Mr. Olson' also indicated that the East Side Concerned Citizens generally suppported a shopping center. Mr. Olson then indicated the East Side Concerned Citizens concerns. They were concerned about the increase in size which would increase traffic. They also were concerned about there being no access on to Highway 169. They were con- cerned about the sidewalk. They were also concerned about the dO\vntO\Vll impact -- they would like both the downto\Vll and shopping center to exist. Mr. Olson further indicated the East Side Concerned Citizens dislikes: the size of the side\valk and they were uncomfortable with the City handling the utilities. They were also uncomfortable with increased traffic, noise pollution, environmental impact on the City and they were also concerned with what the school projection for 1982 is. General discussion followed regarding elevations, noise, sanitary sewer, etc. Dis- cussion also followed regarding the amount of overbuilding that might occur. Mr. David Schowalter discussed various shopping centers in the area and how they cope with the different centers. Zack Johnson indicated that the downtown should start redeveloping, while the new development is going on. If 35% is redeveloped downtown, 55% outside, then there sould be harmonious growth and competition should increase business for both the center and the do\vntown. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Seven City Councilmember Larry Toth indicated to the Planning Commission that he was not sold on the size of the center. Gary Santwire asked the City Administrator to discuss the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit that was earlier presented. Mr. Santwire asked Marlin Hutchinson, as of today, how big is Building F and is it a retail building. How big were Builidng E and Building A. Mr. Hutchinson indicated it was a retail commercial building such as a home repair center. It was 41,000 square feet. Building E was 43,500 and is an office build- ing. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that Building A is 110,000 gross;.95,000 net. Mr. Santwire asked the Planning Commission, when they recommend approval of this, PUD, will they in fact be approving all the uses sho\Vll in this PUD. The City Administrator indicated that tonight the Planning Commission would look at not only the size of the buildings, what is in them and the phasing. Building F would be built several years in the future. The Planning Commission is looking at the whole 41 acres; housing, office building, Building F and Building A. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that this site was set up to allow for expansion of com- mercial space for the City. The City Administrator indicated expansion, yes, but not all in one shot. Chairman Tracy indicated the Planning Commission was looking at the whole PUD with the phasing. Dan Anderson stated that he felt the Planning Commission should request a new market study, one that was updated. Chairman Tracy did not know whether or not the City Council had felt the need for another study. Councilmember Toth indicated that the question was never answered. The City Council has made no recommendation for another study. Mr. Murray Mills had one further question - Is it the policy of the City to allow growth to be compatible with one another or not. Tonight's discussion does not discuss compatibility but annihilation. Mr. Mills felt that this was like looking at the National Debt. The City Administrator indicated that the documents have been prepared, approved, and adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Mills indicated that they (the Planning Commission) tonight approved Santwire's proposed 44,000 square feet of additional retail area. The Planning Commission is in the process of approving another 105,000 square feet. Also, since some of the studies Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Eight have been done, a large retail grocery store (24,000 square feet) has been built that was not included in the study. Mr. Mills further indicated there has been other dO\vutO\VTI growth. He does not see how anyone can commit 154,000 square feet within two or three minutes of the dOwntO\Vll area. Zack Johnson indicated to Mr. Mills that the Planning Commission and the City Coun- cil have done a lot of research on how big 100,000 square feet it. They have visi- ted some shopping centers in the area that is approximately that size. Chairman Tracy indicated that tonight the Planning Commission is trying to arrive at a correct answer for the City of Elk River-- compatibility is the hang up. A member of the audience indicated her concern with the possible high rates of rent at the shopping center for the smaller stores. The small businesses could not handle the higher rents. Commissioner Pearce indicated that he agrees \-lith Mr. Scho\\Talter that the shopping center could be compatible with the do\vutown. What concerned him the most was the timing -- the space being made available. Commissioner Pearce also indicated that he felt this could possibly abliterate the downtown. The only way he could recom- mend approval to the City Council was to put a time restriction on. Commissioner Pearce further indicated that this shopping center was too big. Commissioner Gunkel indicated she;li~edthe,layout and fUJ7ther,;indicated thatL:,in the PUD, everything has been met with the exception of the final plan for sewer and water. Commissioner Gunkel also indicated that the access on Highway 169 has not been met and the sidewalk has also not been met. Commissioner Gunkel indicated she is critical of the size. She further indicated she did some research and got some opinions re- garding the center. She indicated that everyone she spoke with was not opposed to a shopping center or competition within reason. One problem she indicated was financing. Commissioner Gunkel discussed the Monticello Mall. The size of the Mall was 40,000 square feet, it took a year and a half to build, and 5 - 6 years to fill. She indi- cated that this }Iall was buil t in the "good years". After eight years, it is com- pletely filled. Commissioner Gunkel also indicated that 95,000 square feet of new retail space, not including Mr. Sant\vire's, \Vas too much. r:lr. David Schowalter stated that in relation to timing and size!) in terms of being compatible, phasing could be done in a controlled fashion. Chairman Tracy indicated he had talked to 15 consumers. If we built a shopping center so large that it could possibly eliminate the do\vuto\\TIl area, should the size be reg- ulated? 14 of these consumers indicated no. They felt that it was time for the do\mto\\TIl to reconsider the v/ay they exist. All retail should not disappear from the do\vntown. The proposed shopping center, not in its present size, is a way for the HRA plan to be compatible with the shopping center. Commissioner Gunkel indicated that the main contention is the size of the shopping center. Commissioner Gunkel asked Barthel if it would be possible to scale this back dO\ffi to 60,000 square feet, the amount originally proposed, to be reasonably expanded. Commissioner Gunkel further indicated that the size of the shopping center Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Nine has been enlarged by 35,00 square feet. Commissioner Gunkel felt that there has been no solid evidence of who or what will go into this 8hoppi~g center. Mr. Marlin Hutchinson indicated that the original size did not include a variety store. Since then, a variety store has indicated interest in the shopping center. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that in order to support the variety store, there had to be added space. Smaller stores are charged higher rents, supporting the larger stores. Mr. Murray Mills asked the Planning Commission, that based on the discussion, what point the Planning Commission stops approving more growth. None of the Planners agree with Barthel's numbers regarding projected growth. Chairman Tracy indicated that he could not see Mr. Santwire and Mr. Barthel competing with shopping centers. He further indicated that if one starts, the other one will not. Having approval does not mean that they will actually start if they know they can't compete if they are starting a year after someone else. A member of the audience asked Chairman Tracy ho\v many people \Vere supposed to be on the Planning Commission. Chairman Tracy indicated to her that there were actually five members on the Planning Commission. The other two were not present at this meeting. Chairman Tracy also in- dicated that he had spoke with staff regarding the quorum needed for the public hear- ing and was informed that three were necessary for a quorum. The member of the audience indicated that it did not seem fair either to the Plan- ning Commissioners present or to the public that they should have to make a decision as "weighty" as this one that \Vas being presented tonight with only three members present. Gary Santwire indicated to the Planning Commission and to the audience that there would not be a 95,000 square foot shopping center and a 44,000 square foot shopping center built in Elk River. Mr. Santwire indicated he felt this way because the market could not support 139,000 square feet of shopping center. Chairman Tracy closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. Robert Middaugh, City Administrator, indicated that a decision had to be decided to- night because City Ordinance says that on a preliminary plat there is a 30 day time limit. There is no time limit on a conditional use. If the developer agrees to an extension, an extension can be granted. Chairman Tracy indicated that the Planning Commission's options are: 1) Act on the conditional use permit as it is requested. 2) Deny the conditional use permit as it is requested. 3) Suggest a different size limit. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Ten 4) Continue the conditional use permit request. Rick Breezee indicated that as a conditional use, the Planning Commission can put any stipulation on. First, the Planning Commission has to act on the project as a conditional use as required by ordinance. Any PUD that is requested, has to be done as a conditional use. As a conditional use, the Planning Commission can suggest any stipulation they want. Commissioner Gunkel asked what does the conditional use say. She indicated she would like to have the destinction made as to what each one is saying. Zack Johnson indicated the preliminary or developer plan, size location, setbacks, parking, etc... this plan becomes a part of the conditional use. Also included in the conditional use is the phasing plan. The preliminary plat only discusses lot sizes, location of right-of-ways, utility easements, roads, engineering, or survey types of things. Commissioner Pearce asked if the recommendation to the City Council would involve the conditional use and the preliminary plat that includes everything. Zack Johnson indicated that the development plan and the preliminary plat goes togeth- er. Commissioner Gunkel asked what the conditional use allows. Zack Johnson indicated that a conditional use permit is given for that development relating to configuration, size, and timing. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE REQUEST BY BARTHEL CONSTRUCTION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IN- CLUDING THE DEVELOPMENTPLAN AND THE PRELIMIN~RY PLAT FOR THE PLfu~S PRESENTED TONIGHT. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 2-1. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL AND COMMISSIONER PEARCE VOTING YES, CHAIR}Uili TRACY VOTING NO. Chairman Tracy indicated that the Planning Commission would take a IS minute recess. 7. Consider Zone Change Request - Ted Lundgren Chairman Tracy indicated that this was not a public hearing and not a preliminary plat hearing. When a preliminary plat approval is called for, a public hearing will be held at that time. This is only a zone change request and the the City Council holds the public hearing on a zone change. Rick Foster indicated the boundaries of the Lundgren property, with the zones as they appear now and what he would like to have them changed . The property is bordered on the north by 193rd Avenue, on the south by Highland Road, on the west by a park, and on the east by Minnesota Trunk Highway 201. The land is currently zoned R-lb. The property, including the outlot, is proposed to be rezoned R-3 and R-lc. The R-lc is detached single family housing. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Eleven Jim Agen indicated by mail to the Planning Commission that he was opposed to the rezoning. Rich Barakat indicated he was against the zone change for a number of reasons. First, the size of the lots on the opposite side of 193rd Avenue, and second, there was a zone change here in this spot a year ago. Mr. Barakat did not feel it would make sense to start spot zoning. Mr. Barakat also felt that there was plenty of other areas in Elk River for multiple housing. A member of the audience indicated that he lived on the other side of 193rd Avenue. He felt that 50 foot lots in an area of one acre minimum lots is not right. He indicated that he moved to Elk River to get away from living in the middle of to\vu- houses \vith "transients". He also indicated that he does not \Vant 60 foot lots and felt that the majority of people bought out there in that area so they could have space. He does not want it to look like Minneapolis with houses all one size and all one color. Rick Breezee indicated that he felt this gentlemen \Vas "off base" in his thinking that this would become another Minneapolis with that type of housing that is proposed. Rick Foster indicated that there are very few one-acre lots in the Ridgewood East addition. The over-all density is 4. Single family density requires 3 units per acre. Commissioner Gunkel asked Rick Foster if this area would be sewered. Rick Foster indicate that yes, the area would have sewer and water. Rick Foster further indicated that most lots were 70 feet or larger. Discussion followed regarding the size of the lots. Chairman Tracy indicated that that would be discussed in the preliminary plat, not the zone change. Phil Hals inquired if a zone change was allowed to R-3, would there be any way that the rest of the plat would be changed in a year. Rick Foster indicated that that has already been tried and denied. There is nothing that says they can't do it, but whether or not it is approved is something else. Harold Gramstad indicated that he O\VTIS a fair amount of property in that area. Mr. Gramsted further indicated that he realized they were trying to set up housing that is compatible. One of the biggest things the property o\\Tllers in that area are con- cerned with is that this type of proposed housing would not be compatible. Mr. Gram- sted also indicated that the size of the homes and the size of the lots will be sig- nificantly smaller. Casey Foster, a resident who lives on 194th, indicated that this type of zoning could have a "domino" af f ec t . If they rezone no'\v, \vha ts to s top them from rezoning more and more of the area later on. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Twelve Chairman Tracy indicated that he felt that what they were looking at with this plat were some townhouses that blend in with single family houses. He felt this was very compatible. Gary Santwire indicate he was basically for this plan. Mr. Santwire further indi- cated he had a problem with looking at back yards. He also indicated that possibly everyone ~vould be happy \vith a fe~.r,one acre lots slipped in. Rick Foster indicated that there was a topal problem with that. They would address the matter of streets, etc... later. Mr. Foster also indicated that the street going north has to be there. Discussion followed regarding cul-de-sa6s. Chairman Tracy indicated that a view approved by staff is that cul-de-sacs are not a desired type of street because of maintenance, fire protection and access. Howard Johnson indicated this is a better plan than what they saw the last time this was presented. Mr. Johnson indicated that they would like to keep the population down in that area. Mr. Johnson also indicated his concern about the possiblity of parts of that area being rezoned at a later date to allow apartments. Chairman Tracy indicated that that would not be possible; that would be spot zoning. Discussion followed regarding the size of the lots. Rich Barakat asked if there has been a need demonstrated for the smaller size lots. Rick Breezee indicated there has been a need demonstrated for smaller lots. The larger lots do not seem to be selling. Chairman Tracy indicated that there is a need for affordable housing. This is dem- onstrated just be looking at the economy. Discussion followed where Outlot A was discussed and what would be going there. COM}ITSSIONER GUNKEL MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM R-lb TO R-lc AND R-3. R-lc WOULD CONTAIN 12.5 ACRES AND R-3 WOULD CONTAIN 4.4 ACRES. THE MOTION \.JAS SECONDED BY CO:MMISSIONER PEARCE. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 8. Consider Zone Change - Charles Axelson Mrs. Audrey Axelson presented their request for a zone change to the Planning Com- mission. Mrs. Axelson indicated the amount of property Cretex owns which their home is surrounded by. Mrs. Axelson further indicated that a "lot of things" have been damaged in their yard and that Cretex does not feel they are responsible. Mrs. Axelson indicated that they need bedrooms for their family. Mrs. Axelson also in- dicated that they obtained a building permit for restoration and alteration some time ago (Aug. 1980). They have done the restoration and now they want to do the alteration. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Thirteen Mrs. Axelson indicated they have been told they cannot use that permit to finish alterat.ions because it has been rezoned (their house). Mrs. Axelson indicated they want to remove the existing porch and add bedrooms across the front. Mrs. Axelson further indicated that her lawyer has interpretated that pertaining to Rule 8, Axel- son's have the right to add on as long as they are doing it for "livability". Mrs. Axelson also indicated that Cretex is parking their garbage right up next to their property. She indicated that her 90' x 100' garden has been ruined by runoff from Cretex. Commissioner Pearce asked Mrs. Axelson how a zone change could affect this problem. Mrs. Axelson indicated that if a zone change was granted, they would have to put a barrier (Cretex) up between their property and her pro~~rty. Chairman Tracy indicated that a zone change would not affect this. Mr. Axelson indicated that \vith the zone as it is, he \vould not be able to give any of his land to his sons. He indicated it would have to be sold as industrial property and he wants it to be rezoned back to residential. Commissioner Gunkel asked the Axelson's what the zone was when they purchased their home. Mrs. Axelson indicated that they bought their home in 1978 and at that time it was residential. Mrs. Axelson also indicated they got their building permit after Aug- ust 1980. Rick Breezee indicated that yes, the zone was residential when they purchased their home. Since August, 1980, the new zone went into affect, and the Axelson's became nonconforming. Commissioner Gunkel asked what the reason for rezoning was. Rick Breezee indicated that at the time the zone change went into affect, Cretex might have been in the process of purchasing some of the homes in that area. Commissioner Pearce indicated that he didn't think a zone change would change any of the problems. Rick Breezee indicated that it is required by ordinance that any co~ercial/indu.strial area must have a buffer zone of some sort, screening it from a residential area. Commissioner Pearce indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Axelson are caught in a position like a lot of other people in the City; their position is not unique. Commissioner Pearce also felt this would be inconsistent and .spotzoning. Rick Breezee indicated that Rule 8 indicates ..life, health, safety and not enlarging a home. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Fourteen Mr. Axelson indicated that if the Planning Commission had not rezoned this area, he could build his addition. Commissioner Gunkel indicated what the Planning Commission is advised to consider is the possible spot zoning. Commissioner Gunkel further indicated that she finds this hard to call this situation spot zoning when first of all, the Axelson's were residential and also that there is residential across the street from them. Com- missioner Gunkel indicated she does not feel that the Axelson's are unique from everyone else around them. Chairman Tracy indicated they were _unique from the present zoning. Chairman Tracy further indicated the City has been trying to rectify the problem without creating a zone change. Commissioner Gunkel inquired if a conditional use permit or a variance of some type would allow expansion to take place. Chairman Tracy indicated a variance cannot be granted in a nonconforming use. Chair- man Tracy also indicated that he can't make the change because it is spot zoning. Commissioner Pearce indicated that he cannot see the Planning Commission rezoning this 1 acre lot; this would be spot zoning. Commissioner Pearce also indicated that changing of the zone would not affect their problems with Cretex. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE RE- QUEST BY MR. AND MRS. CHARLES AXELSON FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM 1-2 TO R-lb. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL. MOTION PASSED 2-1. COMMISSIONER PEARCE AND CHAIRMAN TRACY VOTING YES, COMMISSIONER GUNKEL VOTING NO. Commissioner Gunkel indicated she does not feel that Axelson's property is incompat- ible with surrounding uses. Commissioner Gunkel also felt that a mistake was made in making that zone change, along with others, and not letting the individual home- o\vuers specifically know it was happening. Mrs. Axelson indicated that do\vu their street, there are houses owned by Cretex being rented out. She further indicated that there is work being done on those houses such as decks, walkways, etc... Mrs. Axelson also indicated that when they pulled their building permit in 1980, Jack Holmes (the Building Inspector at that time) knew about their adding on the bedrooms to the front of the house. Rick Breezee indicated to Chairman Tracy that a motion was made and if further dis- cussion was needed by the Planning Commission, it should be reopened to the Planning Commission. Rick Breezee asked Chairman Tracy if Item 10, Chip Martin - Zone Change, could be moved to Item 9 since Mr. Morvig was not present at the Planning Commission meeting. 9~ Consider Zone Change Request - Chip Martin - Continued from April 26, 1982 Chip Martin was present to present to the Planning Commission his request for a Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Fifteen zone change for his property. Mr. Martin indicated that his property had been zoned commercial up to a year and a half ago. In the rezoning process of the whole to\vu, it was zoned with property across the railroad tracks and the prop- erty to the west of his property to 1-2. In order to renovate his buildings, he must get a zone change. Mr. Martin would like his property to become C-3. Chairman Tracy asked Zack Johnson for his comments on the zone change. Zack Johnson indicated that the HRA had suggested in their plan that the Planning Commission look into the area all the way out to Proctor. Mr. Johnson indicated he had some question about the validity of industrial east of Oxford because of the configuration of the land. Mr. Johnson indicated that questions were raised about street right-of-way. Discussion followed regarding setbacks. Zack Johnson also showed the Planning Commission a plat map of the area involved. Zack Johnson indicated that he was also concerned about the feedmill. Chip Martin indicated that he had checked with the tax assessor. Mr. Martin indi- cated his tax statements indicated he is being taxed as commercial. Zack Johnson indicated that any rezoning should not include the feedmill. Mr. John- son also indicated that this should be looked~at and worked out; possibly creating a new zone. A C-3 would create more problems. Commissioner Pearce indicated this request should go back to the drawing board; es- specially regarding the setbacks. Chip Martin showed the Planning Commission the parking plan of his property. Commissioner Pearce asked Mr. Martin what the reason for his request for a zone change was. Chip Martin indicated that he would like to have a small business such as a Iffivn mower repair shop, parts shop, etc... Commissioner Pearce indicated that staff should look at this with a possible new class of zone. Commissioner Gunkel inquired as to how this differs from the Axelson's request other than one is commercial and one is residential. Zack Johnson indicated that he didn't feel there was, theoretically, a difference. Mr. Johnson further indicated that possibly the recommendation of the Planning Commission should have been to see if there was another way to r~rrite the zone. Mr. John- son also indicated that a motion could be tabled for 60 days. Commissioner Gunkel indicated that staff should have a review session prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Sixteen Commissioner Pearce made a recommendation to staff to look into this item further. This was not a motion. Commissioner Pearce also indicated getting together to look at Axelson's problem at the workshop. Rick Breezee asked Chairman Tyacy if the Planning Commission would consider moving Item 12, Larry Morrell to Item lO. 10. Consider Changes in Considerations on Conditional Use Permit - Larry Morrell Larry Morrell presented his request to the Planning Commission~ Mr. Morrell in~ dicated that at the time he got his conditional use permit for a mini-storage build- ing, one of the conditions of that permit was to put brick on the corners of the building. He is now requesting that this condition ,be changed so that he can put stucco on the corners instead of the brick. Mr. Morrell indicated that expense of the brick was the reason for changing to stucco. Rick Breezee indicated that as far as the "brick thing" was concerned, Mr. Morrell was told to put brick on his building. Mr. Breezee did not feel this was right. Larry Morrell indicated that he has a six foot high fence, chain link. He also wants to finish the builidng and wants to stop traffic from going through his property. Mr. Morrell further indicated that to do this additional work on his building and property, he would like to go with the stucco, the less expensive way. Commissioner Pearce indicated that something should be done to finish the corners of the building. Commissioner Gunkel indicated that she saw no problem in putting stucco on the corn- ers. Rick Breezee indicated that the Planning Commission.could reconnnend to the City Coun- cil to change this condition ,of the conditional use permit. COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE BRICK REQUIREMENT BE CHANGED TO STUCCO ON THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE BUILDING O~fNED BY LARRY MORRELL. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 11. Consider Conditional Use Permit Request - Gary L. Anderson Mr. Gary L. Anderson was not present at the Planning Commission meeting for this request. Discussion followed regarding the Anderson's request for a temporary mobile home to be located on their property at 21090 York, Elk River, while their home is being built. This mobile home would be used only occasionally. ' MOTION BY COM}IISSIONER GUNKELTO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY MR. AND MRS. GARY L. ANDERSON TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21090 YORK TO BE USED OCCASIONALLY \VHILE THEIR HOME IS BEING BUILT. THIS WILL BE FOR A 6 MONTH TIME PERIOD ONLY. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEARCE. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1982 Page Seventeen 12. Consider Variance Request - Marvin. Morvig Mr. Morvig was not present at the Planning Commission meeting for the request. Chairman Tracy commented that a variance of such a type as this was passed by the Planning Commission a month ago. Chairman Tracy also indicated that the hard- ship \Vas created by the DNR, not the owner. Rick Breezee indicated this new building would not infringe on any setbacks. It is a detached building. Because of the proximity of the new building to other buildings, Mr. Breezee would see that fire codes are followed. COMMISSIONER GUNKEL MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR MARVIN MORVIG BECAUSE OF THE HARDSHIP BEING CAUSED BY THE DNR AND NOT THE HOMEOWNER. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEARCE. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 13. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER PEARCE MADE A MOTION fa ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ~.p~ect..f..:ll....Y ~ S.Ubffiitted, j)tA{ &~ Rick B~ezee . .. 4' Building and Zoning Administrator RB : cl