Loading...
05-08-2007 PC MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007 Members Present: Chair Stevens, Conunissioners Anderson, Austad, Lemke, Scott, Staul and Westgaard. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manger; Sheila Cartney, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:50 p.m. by Chair Stevens. 2. Consider 5/08/07 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE MAY 8, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 6.1. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT - ROHLF'S SECOND ADDITION ADD - 6.2. UPDATE ON APRIL 16, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADD - 6.3. UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Consider 4/10/07 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO APPROVE THE APRIL 10, 2007 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend City Council Meeting Commissioner Austad will attend the May 21, 2007 City Council meeting, in place of Commissioner Scott. 5.1. Request by Larrv P. Rohlf for Preliminary and Final plat Approval (Roh1Ps Second Addttton). Case No P 070-04 -Public Hearing Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide his property into three lots. He noted that there is one house on the property, and the other two lots will be sold for single family residences. Mr. Barnhart reviewed issues regarding lot specifications, access, the county's requirement for additional right-of--way, utilities, landscaping and Parks & Recreation Commission recommendations for park dedication and trail easement. Staff recommends approval of the request with the eight conditions listed In Plamung Commission Minutes May 8, 2007 Page 2 the staff report, and a 9th condition to address the City Engineer's comments in his memo dated May 7, 2007. Mr. Barnhart noted that the issue addressed in the May 7~h memo is not new and the applicant was aware of it. Mr. Barnhart provided clarification for Commissioner Scott regarding the easements for trail and shared access. Chair Stevens asked if there is a plan to put in a trail in the near future, and if the County will need to approve such a trail. Mr. Barnhart stated that he does not know the timing of trail construction, and that it would likely be a joint effort for the City and County to install a trail. Chair Stevens opened the public hearing. Pete Rohlf, applicant -Stated that he was not aware of the 10-foot trail recommendation by the Parks & Recreation Cotntnission, before this evening's meeting. He stated that the County has requested an additional 17 feet ofright-of--way to increase it from 33 feet to 50 feet, and the additional 10 feet for a trail makes a total of 60 feet of his property being taken. He stated that it is not likely the city could acquire the additional 10 feet of trail easement from all of the properties along Meadowvale Road, due to the location of homes. Mr. Barnhart stated that the 10-foot trail easement will not be "taken" and will still be the applicant's property. Mr. Barnhart explained that the right-of--way is measured from the centerline and the trail will be located outside of the right-of--way. Mr. Rohlf stated that he already must pay park dedication for the two lots being created ($6,600). Mr. Barnhart stated that the park fee is consistent with development of all new lots in the city. He explained that it sometimes is more appropriate to require park land, rather than cash dedication, when larger parcels are developed. Mr. Barnhart stated that he understood Mr. Rohlf's concerns, but that the city's park system has needs which must be met through the park dedication funds. Chair Stevens suggested the application could be tabled to explore the park dedication issue further. Mr. Barnhart stated that the Parks & Recommendation Commission recommendation is straightforward and he suggested that the Commission move the request on to the City Council with their recommendation. There being no further public comment, Chair Stevens closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lemke asked for clarification on park dedication requirements. Mr. Barnhart explained that no park dedication is being required for the existing lot which was platted in 1974, only for the two new lots. He noted that the trail easement will not show up on the plat and is processed as an easement agreement. Commissioner Lemke stated that it appears to be a very large amount ofright-of--way, and suggested that the county be contacted regarding the possibility of locating the trail within the county right-of--way. He suggested that the plat request be moved on to the City Council and there would still be time to research the issue further before the meeting. Mr. Barnhart stated that it is not a large amount of property, and would benefit the city as a whole to provide a trail at some point in the future. He noted that it takes time to assembly all the pieces for a trail system, and that when smaller pieces are developed along the trail route, they are "hit" harder than larger ones. Commssioner Westgaard stated he had no issues with subdivision of the property. He stated that the recommendations by the county and Parks & Recreation Cotntnission are outside of the Planning Commission's venue, and suggested that the applicant take up the right-of--way and trail easement issues with the City Council. Commissioner Westgaard Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2007 Page 3 stated he supported staffs recommendations for approval. He also concurred with Commissioner Lemke's suggestion of researching the possibility of the county allowing location of the trail within the county right-of--way. Cotntnissioner Scott concurred with Commissioner Westgaard's comments. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Planning Commission's charge is to review the land use and zoning issues related to an application. He stated that the park and trail recommendations are consistent with other similar applications and that it is important to stay consistent in these issues. He stated he supported the recommendations of the county and Parks and Recreation Commission and recommended approval of the request with the nine conditions as discussed. Commissioner Staul stated that it appears staff has put a lot of effort into reviewing the application and concurred with the importance of the city being consistent in their requirements. Chair Stevens stated that it is not known when County Road 44 (Meadowvale Road) will be improved to a wider roadway, and that it may take a long time to acquire the necessary right of way and easements. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY LARRY P. ROHLF FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF ROHLF'S SECOND ADDITION AS ILLUSTRATED ON DRAWINGS DATED MARCH 22, 2007, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS #4 FROM HIS MEMO DATED MARCH 9, 2007 RELATING TO FEES TO BE PAID AS PART OF CONNECTION TO THE CITY'S SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN SYSTEMS. 2. ALL COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SHERBURNE COUNTY MEMO DATED MARCH 21, 2007 SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 3. THE FOLLOWING FEES SHALL APPLY: A. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER TRUNK FEES. WATER AND SEWER TRUNK FEES SHALL BE PAID AT THE TIME THE FINAL PLAT IS RELEASED FOR RECORDING. THIS FEE SHALL BE AT THE RATE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME THE FINAL PLAT IS RELEASED. B. A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE SHALL BE PAID AT THE TIME THE FINAL PLAT IS RELEASED FOR RECORDING. 4. PARK DEDICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: A. TWO (LOTS) MULTIPLIED BY THE PARK DEDICATION FEE ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME THE FINAL PLAT IS RELEASED (CURRENTLY $3,300). 5. ALL REQUIRED SUBDIVISION/PARK INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT (.DWG FILE) AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ORDINANCE AND LAND USE APPLICATION PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE PLAT. G. IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED: Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2007 Page 4 A. 10' TRAIL EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE PLAT, ADJACENT TO COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. B. A 25 FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THE ACCESS DRIVE FOR LOT 2, TERMINATING AT LOT 3. 7. IF REQUIRED, A NPDES PERMIT SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 8. A WETLAND BUFFER OF 25 FEET APPLY TO ALL WETLANDS AND A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 20 FEET FROM THE BUFFER APPLIES. 9. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER IN HIS MEMO DATED MAY 7, 2007 SHALL BE ADDRESSED. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY LARRY P. ROHLF FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF ROHLF'S SECONDED ADDITION WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Chair Stevens left the meeting at this time (7:30 p.m.) 5.2. Request by Laura Osman for a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Kennel, Case No CU 07-10 -Public Hearin Planner Chris Leeseberg explained that the applicant requests a conditional use perniit to operate a commercial kennel facility on their 16-acre property. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the location of the subject property, zoning, wetlands, number of dogs proposed to be housed on the site, signage, and the proximity of the closest homes to the site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request to operate a commercial kennel, with the conditions noted in the staff report dated March 26, 2007. Chair Stevens opened the public hearing. Att Meisenbach, 17391 Twin Lakes Road -Stated that he and the residents have been continuously bombarded with noise from the construction of Twin Lakes Road, removal of tress for the Park and Ride, and increased traffic. He stated that they view the proposed kennel as yet another source of noise from the barking dogs. He noted that the area is zoned for high density residential, and the neighbors cooperatively tried to work together on a residential development of their properties. Mr. Meisenbach presented a petition which represented 100 percent of the neighbors to the north and 60 percent of the neighbors to the south opposing the kennel. He stated that the Osmans have spread manure on the wetlands and have operated other businesses from the site. He stated that the Osmans do not have a manure management plan and any high land on the site has manure on it. He stated he objected to them spreading manure right on his property line adjacent to the Osmans. Mr. Meisenbach stated that there are lights on at all hours due to the horse riding operation. He stated that the request is not consistent with the city's plan for high density residential development in the future. Laura and Ejaz Osman, applicants - Mr. Osman stated that they anticipated animosity from their neighbors toward their request. He explained that the neighbors were upset with Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2007 --------------------------- Page 5 them because they did not agreed to the offer proposed by the developer, after he cut the agreed upon price for their property in half. He stated that there are dogs everywhere in the neighborhood, barking at all hours of the night. He stated that they plan to control the barking by not having the dogs outside when they bark. Mrs. Osman stated that she will bring the dogs inside if they are barking. Ms. Osman explained that she began her business by first going to the clients' homes to care for their dogs, and has found there is a need for this type of business. She noted that when she became aware that a kennel license was required, she made application for the conditional use permit as required. Mr. Osman stated that they talked with the County regarding the manure issue and they are following the manure management plan they were given. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was an access to bring the dogs to indoor kennel space. Mr. Osman stated yes. Commissioner Anderson asked if the pole barn on the site was for horses, and if the horses were boarded. Mrs. Osman stated that the pole barn was for her own horses and no horses were boarded for others. Mary Monte, 17252 Polk Street -Stated that dogs in the neighborhood are a nuisance, and more dogs would mean more would be using her yard for a bathroom. Mrs. Osman stated that she brings a plastic bag with her to clean up after the dogs when walking them. Commissioner Staul asked if the Osmans have a way of identifying the dogs. Mrs. Osman stated that the dogs cannot leave the yard, and they are leashed when walking. Commissioner Staul suggested that the dogs be identified by a tag or collar, so that in the event one of them got away, they could be easily identified. Mrs. Osman stated that in the contract with her clients, they are required to have identification tags. Mr. Osman stated the dogs would always be kept in an enclosed area. Vice-Chair Scott asked if someone is typically home at all times. Mrs. Osman stated yes. There being no further public comment, Vice-Chair Scott closed the public hearing. Commissioner Westgaard asked if the Osmans were currently operating the business. Mrs. Osman stated yes, to a small extent. He asked if she was requested the license for only up to six dogs. Mrs. Osman stated yes, for three dogs. She noted that she applied for the license when she became aware one was required. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he understood the neighbors' concerns and he felt the conditions of the permit addressed those concerns. He noted that the city has a nuisance ordinance to address issues such as barking dogs. He stated he had no issue with the use as proposed, since the applicant has stated her willingness to move the dogs indoors if barking is a problem. Commissioner Staul questioned whether or not the request meets #1 and #5 of the standards for conditional use permits. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the Osmans have awell- insulated structure to prevent the noise of barking dogs from reaching the neighbors. Mr. Leeseberg noted that the applicants are allowed to operate with three dogs currently, and that the conditions of the permit address barking dogs. Commissioner Staul asked how the conditions are enforced. Mr. Leeseberg stated that if the conditions are not met, the conditional use permit can be revoked. Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart stated that this is a "site specific" request and that the use is allowed to continue forever unless the conditions are not met, or the use ceases for a period of six months. He stated that there may be some impact in perpetuity, and they need Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2007 Page 6 to determine how the future use of the area may be impacted. He stated that there is little the city can do if a use is permitted, but more can be done if the use is conditional. Commissioner Anderson stated that policing and enforcement would help limit the dog nuisance already existing in this area. He stated that this facility would likely have better supervision of their dogs than others in the neighborhood. He did not have a problem with the request. He commended the applicants for coming forward and applying for the conditional use permit when they became aware one was needed. He noted that enforcement of the conditions would ensure the operation was not an issue for the neighbors. Vice-Chair Scott stated he had no issues with the request. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY LAURA OSMAN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL KENNEL, AS ILLUSTRATED ON DRAWINGS DATED 3/26/2007, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FROM THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. 2. NO MORE THAN SIX (6) DOGS SHALL BE BOARDED AT ONE TIME. 3. IF MORE THAN SIX (6) DOGS ARE DESIRED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 4. SIGNAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO (2) SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. 5. SIGNAGE SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NOT IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 6. BARKING DOGS SHALL BE KEPT INDOORS. 7. ALL DOGS, WHEN NOT LOCATED IN THE DWELLING, GARAGE OR FENCED AREA SHALL BE ON LEASHES. 8. ALL KENNELS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND ALL DOG WASTE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 9. ALL DOG WASTE DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE COLLECTED AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 10. THAT SHALL BE NO ON-SITE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS BREEDING OR SELLING OF DOGS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Commissioner Austad opposed. 5.3. Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational Facilities in the Business Park Zonm Distrtct -Case No. OA 07-06 -Public Hearin Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart explained that this request is in response to a building permit request to finish a tenant space for a commercial recreation business (dance studio/gymnastics facility) in the Business Park zoning district He explained that this type of use is permitted as a conditional use in the C-1 and C-3 zoning district, and in the I-1 zoning district as a conditional use, provided the property is not platted. The Commission is asked to consider whether or not additional zoning districts should permit this type of use as a permitted use or conditional use, specifically the Business Park district. Mr. Barnhart reviewed four options for the City consider, ranging from making no amendment to allowing the use as an accessory use with restrictions on the size of the facility. He asked Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2007 Page 1 that the Commission make a determination whether the use is appropriate or not, and if not, where it should be permitted. Staff recommends Commercial Recreation not be permitted within the Business Park Zoning District. Should the Planning Commission and City Council feel the use is appropriate, Staff would recommend a Commercial Recreation use be classified as an accessory retail use, for the purposes of space allocation, and preservation of business park character, with no more than 15% (5,000 sq ft) of the occupied quarters being used for the Commercial Recreation. Vice-Chair Scott opened the public hearing. Pat Briggs, of Briggs properties and owner of the subject property -Provided background information regarding his business interests in the community, and history of his request to locate the PS Dance Studio in his existing facility in the Elk River Business Park. He stated that a former staff person agreed that the use could be allowed with no conditional use permit, since it would be utilizing less than 15 percent of the total occupied space of the building. He stated that he has a signed lease with his dance studio client and was ready to move forward with a building permit to finish the space, when he was told the use was not allowed under the current zoning. He stated that 75 percent of the building is leased and has created 52 jobs. He stated that he spoke with the Mayor and she suggested the item be discussed in a City Council workshop. He felt that staffs interpretation is incorrect and had concerns with the definition being applied to the proposed use. Mr. Barnhart explained that staff is looking for direction from the Commission whether or not they feel the use is appropriate in the Business Park zoning district. Mr. Briggs stated that he felt the use could be addressed as a conditional use permit under the education venue, such as vocational, technical and trade schools, as discussed with the Community Development Director. He stated that clients receive school credits for attending and costs are deductible, according to the IRS. He stated that other cities such as Chanhassen, Ramsey and Plymouth, allow the use in business park zoning districts. Mr. Briggs stated he would like to rent out the space, and that has spent 1 '/z years in meetings for this issue. He stated he would like to submit the application per the Planning Commission's and Council's recommendation, whether it be as a vocational, private recreational, or commercial recreational use. Mr. Briggs stated that since the building has a site line to Highway 169, the use could also be considered a personal service establishment as an underlying commercial use in the Business Park. Commissioner Staul asked if Mr. Briggs felt the use was not a commercial recreational use. Mr. Briggs stated yes, and stated that the use is open to the general public, but that the dancing is private with professional dancers as instructors. Commissioner Staul as if the students are professional dancers. Mr. Briggs stated that they are students and their only reason to be there is to be instructed, and felt that the use could be defined as a personal service. Commissioner Staul asked if the use was deemed to be permitted as a commercial recreational use, would Mr. Briggs still have an issue. Mr. Briggs stated no, but that he felt the definition needs to be clarified. Mr. Barnhart stated that the question is whether or not the use is appropriate and if so, should it be included in all three uses within the Business Park zoning district, and whether or not limitations on the size of the use should be imposed? Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 8, 2007 --------------------------- There being no further public comment, Vice-Chair Scott closed the public hearing. Mr. Barnhart stated that staff request direction from the Planning Commission regarding a possible text amendment, which may include new definitions, and whether or not the use should require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he felt more discussion is needed regarding a definition for the proposed use and he was not comfortable making a recommendation tonight. He stated that questions need to be answered regarding what is educational, what is recreational, and where the use is appropriate. He felt the use could be a twist on words and up to interpretation. He stated he would like more information before providing a recommendation. Mr. Barnhart stated that issue can be broken into pieces consisting o£ 1) determining whether or not the use is appropriate for this zone; 2) whether or not the use is commercial recreation; 3) where does this type of use fit; and 4) is the use a vocational/educational use or for enjoyment. Commissioner Staul asked if the dance studio on Railroad Drive was a permitted or conditional use. He stated he felt the commercial recreation definition as it currently exists is too broad and some of the uses would not be acceptable in the Business Park zoning district. He stated that commercial recreation needs to be defined and suggested that other cities be surveyed regarding this issue. Commissioner Lemke asked if the Commission was bound by any past Council action. Mr. Barnhart stated that there is some history on this issue, and that there have been changes in the Council since that time. Commissioner Lemke stated that there is some confusion on this issue and he would like to study it further at a workshop. Mr. Barnhart noted that uses other than commercial recreation would create more employment in the Business Park zoning, and some of these types of uses would not be appropriate, such as a bowling alley or a dirt bike racing facility. Commissioner Anderson concurred that this issue should be studied further in a workshop setting. He stated that this is the first time the Planning Commission has heard about Mr. Briggs issue and they are not prepared to address it until the use is better defined. He stated he supports filling empty business park space and the upgrading of uses. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STAUL TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY THE CIYT OF ELK RIVER FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT, CASE NO. OA 07-06. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.1. Update on Apri116, 2007 City Council Meeting Commissioner Westgaard provided an update on action taken on the planning items by the City Council at their April 16, 2007 meeting. 6.2. Update on Downtown Redevelopment Task Force Meeting Commissioner Anderson, representative for the Planning Commission on the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force, provided an update on the Task Force's last meeting. He noted that the Task Force will likely be meeting until November 2007. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 8, 2007 --------------------------- 7. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary