08-31-1982 PC MIN
ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION }ffiETING
HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY
August 31, 1982
tlliMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Tracy, Commissioners Tralle, Gunkel, Kreuser, and Pearce
}'1E:MBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: 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
Add Item C, Administrator's Update - Consider memo regarding powers and duties of
the Planning Commission'.,. discussion only. Supportive items were also added to
the agenda: Ordinance 82-9 for Item #7, Minnesota Statutes, 1980, for use as
backup material for Item #6; Ordinance 82-6) regarding manufactured homes was
added indicating sentence changes on Page 2 and Page 3~ and under definitions,
A,B, C, and D, a sentence was inserted.
MOTION BY COMMISSIOh~R GUNKEL TO ACCEPT THE AGENDA WITH THE ADDITIONS. THE MOTION
WAS SEC01~ED ]Y COMMISSIONER PEARCE. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
3. Consider Minutes of August 2, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Gunkel indicated that in regard to the August 2, 1982 Planning Commis-
sion meeting, on Page 1 of the minutes, she would like the minutes to show her
question as to why the Planning COITmission: gbtthe item without a preliminary plat.
Commissioner Gunkel also indicated on Page 4, the last sentence, it should read
"40 units of housing" instead of only "4 units of housing".
Rick Breezee indicated that at the meeting of August 2nd, a question was brought up
regarding a double motion being made on Item #9 at the June 24th meeting. Rick Bre-
ezee indicated that this was correct; a motion was made, then discussion on that
motion was carried on. After the discussion, another motion was made. Voting was
carried on only after the second motion.
MOTION BY CO}lliISSIONER GUNKEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AITGUST 21~, 1982 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING AS CORRECTED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COtlliISSIONER PEARCE.
THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
4. Cons,ider Variance Request - Robert Hastings
Mr. Robert Hastings was not present at the meeting for this request. It was the
general consensus of the Planning Commission to table this item until later in the
meeting. Rick Breezee indicated that numerous attempts had been made, both by phone
and by letter, to reach Mr. Hastings. There was no response from Mr. Hastings to
either the letter, or the phone calls.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 1982
Page Two
5. Consider Accessory Use Setbacks
Rick Breezee indicated that he gave the Planning Commission exactly what they ap-
proved at the August 2nd Planning Commission meeting, only it now was in ordinance
form. Rick Breezee further indicated that a controversy arose from the ordinance
from Mr. Lloyd Anderson, a local developer. Rick Breezee indicated that Mr. Ander-
son felt this ordinance would "put him out of business". Rick Breezee further in-
dicated that the ordinance as originally written, meant that metal skinned build-
ings or agricultural buildin~600 feet away from platted or residential areas,
would mean that a resident could not have horses in Greenhead, where there are
larger areas of 10 acres and 20 acres. The Council then decided to have agricul-
tural accessory uses and agricultural structures as a conditional use, only in
platted areas in A-I zones. Rick Breezee indicated the Council has not made a form-
al decision as of yet on this item.
Commissioner Gunkel asked Rick Breezee why the Planning Commission got Ordinance
82-7, because she thought the Council, at their last meeting, approved adding the
\vord "neighboring" (within 600 feet from any "neighboring" residence). Commissioner
Gunkel indicated that the Planning Commission should be discussing Ordinance 82-8,
instead of Ordinance 82-7.
Rick Breezee indicated, in regard to Ordinance 82-8~ this would relate to Greenhead
as it is a platted area.
Commission Gunkel indicated that she would like to see, in Points M and F, "in plat-
ted areas" added. The Ordinance would then read ..agricultural uses, structures
or buildings in platted areas..
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 82-8~ SECTION 1, M AND F, WRITTEN
AS FOLLOi.JS: flAGRICULTURAL USES, STRUCTURES' OR . BUILDINGS IN. PLATTED AREAS." THE
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CO~IISSIONER TRALLE. 'MOTION'PASSED 5-0.
6. Consider Otdinance Amendment - Mobile Homes
Discussion followed regarding the memo Rick Breezee distributed to the Planning Com-
mission as to the word change on Page two and Page three, Letter A, B, C, and D.
Rick Breezee called attention to the definition regarding manufactured homes as it
is stated in the Mi~nesota Statutes.
Chairman Tracy indicated his concern with the definition of manufactured homes mean-
ing with or without a permanent foundation. Chairman Tracy indicated he felt "with
foundation" would be preferable.
Rick Breezee indicated that the definition comes right from the Minnesota Statute.
Rick Breezee further indicated that it was okay to use the definition out of the
Statute, but under the dwelling regulations spelled out by the City regarding A,
B, C, and D, where it states it must be on a permanent foundation, would prevail.
Rick Breezee indicated that the most restrictive preva.rls regarding issues in the
Statutes.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 1982
Page Three
Commissioner Gunkel indicated she still did not understand the difference be-
tween mobile homes and manufactured homes after reading and re-reading these
definitions. Commissioner Gunkel asked if certification made the only differ-
ence.
Rick Breezee discussed the different types of seals used for manufactured homes
and mobile homes. A manufactured home comes in two sections. A mobile home is
not more than 16 feet wide. Rick Breezee indicated that the State indicates what
type of home it is by what type of seal is on the structure.
Commissioner Pearce asked if this ordinance would affect only mobile home parks,
not residential lots.
Rick Breezee indicated that this does affect the placing of manufactured homes on
residential property. Rick Breezee furhter indicated that the State Legislature
is saying that a City can't say that someone can't put a mobile home "downtown" or
"right next to you". The State Legislature is saying that a City can regulate the
width, height, length, square footage and type of foundation. Rick Breezee also
indicated that by regulating these items, mobile homes can't go just anyplace. The
ordinance states mobile homes have to be 16 feet in width and most mobile homes
don't exceed 14 feet in width. It also was stated that they have to be on a perm-
anent foundation and 800 square feet in area.
Chairman Tracy indicated that after reading the laws, that possibly the City could
zone mobile homes out. Chairman Tracy asked Rick Breezee if it would be possible
to say mobile homes could not be in certain areas.
Rick Breezee indicated that according to the 1982 State Statute, that mobile homes
could not be descriminated against.
Discussion followed regarding the transporting of mobile homes.
Rick Breezee indicated that if the Planning Commission passed the ordinance on Page
Three of the memo, a manufactured home could not be built unless it was 800 square
feet in area and had to be 30 feet in length and 16 feet in width. If the City
wants to be more restrictive, then a minimum size of a manufactured home would
have to be 800 square feet, 16 feet in width and 30 feet in length.
Discussion followed regarding the safety factor of mobile homes. Discussion also
followed regarding the possibility of areas becoming mobile home parks with this
ordinance.
Commissioner Gunkel indicated that on Page 8, #4, she would like this put into our
ordinance.
Chairman Tracy also felt that Page 8, #4, "not to be inconsistent with surrounding
buildings", should also be added to the ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 1982
Page Four
Commissioner Kreuser inquired that if a double wide is moved in, do they have to
meet the City1s regulations regarding building ordinances? Commissioner Kreuser
felt that if we do allow them, they should also have to conform to the same build-
ing code as a home does.
Discussion regarding mobile homes meeting the City1s building code followed; and
also followed regarding mobile homes in relgtion to energy losses.
Commissioner Kreuser indicated that he felt that since the standards for mobile
homes and the standards for conventional homes.are not equal, it wasn't fair that
mobile homes are to be allowed.
Rick Breezee indicated that the City cannot say "no mobile homes in the City of
Elk River." The State Statute indicates now that a City cannot discriminate
against IDobile homes anymore. Rick Breezee further indicated the City can set
up regulations.
Commissioner Kr.euser. a.sked how the City could state that mobile homes aren 1 t going to
be allowed in the City~
Commissioner Pearce indicated that the City could state that mobile homes have to
abide by the building code. Commissioner Pearce indicated that he felt the Plan-
ning Commission should recommend -that in Item D, all single family dwellings in
other than mobile home parks, should meet the State Building Code, as far as on-site
stick built homes.
Rick Breezee indicated that he would insert Statute numbers to include the State
Plumbing Code, the State Mechanical Code, and the State Building Code.
Discussion followed regarding the types of roof that would be allowed and the
sizes that would be allowed in relation to width.
Commissioner Pearce indicated that he felt the whole Section D be eliminated and
replaced with the item Rick Breezee indicated as far as Building Code. Commission-
er Pearce also indicated that Band C could be written as one paragraph.
Commissioner Tralle indicated he would like to see the width requirement be more
than 16 feet, preferrably 20 feet.
Commissioner Pear.ce indicated that A, B, C, and D should be scratched and it should
be put "Must comply with Uniform Building Code".
Commissioner Kreuser indicated that he felt that if the City adopts the Uniform
Building Code statement, then everything else would fall into place.
Rick Breezee indicated that he would insert some Statutes and get back to the
Planning Commission regarding some numbers. Rick Breezee further indicated that
"State Building Codefl should not be stipulated.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 1982
Page Five
Chairman Tracy indicated that before this item is to be acted upon, the Planning
Commission should first act on Section 900.16 (1), which is the next item to be
discussed, before making a decision on this item.
Chairman Tracy tabled Item 6 until Item 7 has been acted upon.
7. Consider Use for Farm Accessory Family Structures
Commissioner Tralle indicated that in regard to Ordinance 82-9, the number of
mobile homes allowed on a parcel should be added.
Rick Breezee indicated that under a conditional use, the Planning Commission has
the right to stipulate the number that would be allowed.
Chairman Tracy indicated that he felt this was not an efficient way to handle this
and that if it was handled this way, he felt that it would become very inconsistent.
Rick Breezee indicated that he would like to see only one mobile home per parcel
allowed on a parcel 40 acres or more, where the principal use is agricultural.
Discussion followed regarding the size of the parcel, platted areas, and number of
years involved in the use.
Rick Breezee indicated he felt this should be reviewed every two (2) years. Rick
Breezee further indicated that if Item #5 was approved, it would become 916.M.
Commissioner Gunkel had questions regarding setbacks. Rick Breezee indicated that
as a conditional use, the setbacks should be used as outlined in the ordinance.
Each unit would have its o~vn septic system following ordinance regulations.
Discussion followed regarding the size of property allowed, and areas allowed.
Commissioner Gunkel indicated that she would like to see R-la zone also included,
as long as the principal use is agricultural, and one mobile home be allowed to be
reviewed in two years.
MOTION BY COM}fISSIONER GUNKEL TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 82-9 AMENDING SECTION 900.16 OF
THE CITY CODE, WITH THE ADDITION THAT ONLY ONE MOBILE HOME BE ALLOWED PER PARCEL
AND ALSO ALLOW THEM IN R-lA ZONES, 'ACCORDING TO THE ZONING MAP. THE MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONERTRALLE. 'THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
Discussion followed regarding the motion in relation to the setbacks.
Rick Breezee indicated that for clarification purposes, Commission Gunkel was say-
ing that Section 900.16(1), A-I Conservation District and R-la zoned areas, be
amended.
The City Administrator indicated that another section could be added, Section 3.
The language would be the same, but in the second addition, R-la would be added.
This would make it clear that there are two separate additions to the zoning ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 1982
Page Six
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 82-9 A}fENDING SECTION 900.16
OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING flAS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL (A-l ) AND
RESIDENTIAL (R-lA) ZONING DISTRICTS, A USE FOR ONE MOBILE HOME ON 40 ACRES OF
PROPERTY OR MORE, FOR A PERIOD OF TI~O YEARS OR MORE FOR PREDOMINATELY AGRICUL-
TURAL USES.
6. Consider Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Homes
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PEARCE TO RECOMMEND ORDINANCE 82-6 AS WRITTEN, WITH THE
EXCEPTION THAT UNDER ZONING REGULATIONS, THERE BE ONE STATEMENT flAfI, WHICH STATES:
ALL DWELLINGS OTHER THAN MOBILE HOMES IN APPROVED MOBILE HOME PARKS, AND MOBILE
HO}ffiS IN A-l/AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, AND R-lA/RESIDENTIAL, AS AUTHOR-
IZED BY SECTION 900.-16(1) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE~ SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINNESOTA
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, INCLUDED ITEMS THAT PERTAIN TO THE STATE PLU}illING CODE, THE
STATE MECHANICAL CODE, AND THE STATE BUILDING CODE PERTAINING TO PERMANENT STRUC-
TURES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KREUSER. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
The City Administrator asked the Planning Commission if their intent was to allow
mobile homes to be placed only in certain areas.
Rick Breezee indicated that Commissioner Pearce put in his motion "permanent struc-
tures". Rick Breezee further indicated that the City can put in the ordinance the
Statutes that the Building Code falls under. There is a small portion that deals
with mobile homes, but these sections do not pertain to permanent structures.
Chairman Tracy indicated that the Planning Commission is concerned about the safety
factor. People who bring in mobile homes should follow the same building code as
stick homes.
The City Administrator asked the Planning Commission if they were restricting mobile
homes to mobile home parks.
Chairman Tracy indicated that is basically what the Planning Commission wants. Chair-
man Tracy further indicated it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission,
that for safety reasons, they belong together.
Rick Breezee indicated that he would inform the Planning Commission of the Statute
numbers pertaining to permanent structures.
Discussion followed regarding the Statutes involved. Discussion also followed re-
garding width. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that a stip-
ulation of minimum width and minimum square footage be required.
The City Administrato~ asked the Planning Commission, that if the State Legislature
does not allow the City to do what the Planning Commission is suggesting, what section
specifically does the Planning Commission not like? It was the general consensus of
the Planning Commission that Section D was the section they did not like.
Commissioner TraIled indicated that the City should keep a couple of specifications in
the language.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 1982
Page Seven
Commissioner Pearce indicated that it should be noted in the minutes of the meet-
ing what the intent of the Planning Commission is regarding this ordinance.
8. Consider Variance Request - Pat Donahue (Post Office)
Mr. Pat Donahue showed the Planning Commission the footprint of the proposed ad-
dition to the Post Office. Mr. Donahue indicated that in order for the addition
to be built, they need a variance to the setback. Mr. Donahue further indicated
there will be a customer parking lot and that the new addition will be able to
handle 40,000 people (it now handles approximately 18,000 people).
It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that they would like the
mailbox on Irving to be removed.
Commissioner Pearce indicated that none of the 5 standards for a variance '\vas being
violated.
Chairman Tracy indicated that he would vote in favor of the variance as a variance
had been granted in a previous instance.
MOTION BY CO}fMISSIONER TRALLE TO RECO}~IEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY MR.
PAT DONAHUE FOR THE POST OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 310 IRVING. THE MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY CO}lliISSIONER GUNKEL. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
9. Administrator's Update
A. Variance Language
Rick Breezee discussed this item. Zack Johnson and Peter Beck were requested by
the City Administrator to come up with a better interpretation for the vari-
ance langauge. Rick Breezee further indicated that he would get back to the
Planning Commission with the information.
Chairman Tracy asked Rick Breezee if the staff would be clarifying for the
Planning Commission the procedures, objectives, etc... for variances, noncon-
forming uses, etc...
The City Administrator indicated that the variances procedures would have 9
standards instead of the present 5.
B. Workshop Date
Rick Breezee indicated that staff would like to set a date that the Planning
Commission could get together and go over the section north of the tracks, in-
cluding Chip Martin's area.
Commissioner Pearce indicated that the meeting should be held after September
14.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 1982
Page Eight
It was the general consensus of the Planning Commissionto meet without the City
Council present.
Rick Breezee indicated that the meeting date would be Thursday, September 16, at
the City Hall at 7:30 p.m.
C. Powers and Duties of the Planning Commission
Rick Breezee indicated that the City Council has had a chance to go over this and
now they would like the Planning Commission to look at it.
Commissioner Gunkel indicated that this item should be put on the agenda for the
September meeting.
D. Added Agenda Items
Commissioner Pearce indicated that he would like to discuss getting items on the
Agenda. Commissioner Pearce further indicated that three (3) working days were set
for the cut-off from accepting items. Commissioner Pearce asked Rick Breezee if
he felt that was enough time to get mem~s written for the packets.
It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that three (3) full working
days was adequate for staff preparation. The cut-off day would be Thursdays, at
4:59 p.m. It was also the general consensus of the Planning Commission that the
packets should be received by the Planning Commission on Friday.
4. Consider Variance - Robert Hastings
MOTION BY COMMISSIDNERPEARCE TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL MR. HASTINGS HAS ATTENDED A
MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER -~GUNKEL.. THE MOTION' "FAILED 5-0.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PEARCE TO DE1~ THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY ROBERT HASTINGS BECAUSE
THE 5 STANDARDS FOR A VARIANCE COULD NOT BE MET. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER GUNKELQ THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
10. Adjournment
There being no further business, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER GUNKEL TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEARCE. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
12J$~
Rick Breezee
Building and Zoning Administrator
RB:cml