Loading...
11-14-2006 PC MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 Members Present: Chair Lemke, Commissioners Anderson, Offerman, Ropp, Scott, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Sheila Cartney, City Engineer Terry Maurer, Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich, Recording Secretary Debbie Huebner 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Lemke. 2. Consider 9/ 14/06 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITION: ADD ITEM 6.2 -UPDATE ON DOWTOWN REDEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE - COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3.1. Consider October 10, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 10, 2006 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION: ITEM NO. 1-MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE CHAIR STEVENS MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend November 20, 2006 City Council Meeting Commissioner Anderson will attend the November 20, 2006 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by 7040 Lakeland Partners for Conditional Use Permit for Elk Ridge Center 4th Addition (Aldi's), Public Hearing -Case No. Cu 06-27 Planner Chris Leeseberg explained that the applicant has requested this item be postponed to the December 12, 2006 Planning Commission to allow the applicant time to make Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 14, 2006 --------------------------- revision to their plans. He noted that the public hearing notice was published in the Star News for this meeting. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY 7040 LAKELAND PARTNERS FOR ALDI'S TO THE DECEMBER 12, 2006 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.2. Request by Sherburne County HRA For the Redevelopment District No. 2 and Project Plan for Medical TPChnnlnw C'pntPr Flk Path Rncinacc Parlr Third Addition Pnhlir Haarino _ Ms. Mehelich provided background information regarding Sherburne County's plans for Redevelopment District No. 2 and construction of a Medical Technology Center. She explained the location of the subject property and the process the County must undertake to achieve their goals. The Planning Commission is asked to find that the redevelopment plan and project are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 0601, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE SHERBURNE COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 AND PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.3. Request by Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Elk River for Approval of a Redevelopment Project Dated November 1, 2006 -Public Hearine Mr. Clark explained that the City's HRA is in the process of adopting a "Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Elk River, dated November 1, 2006". He reviewed the phases of the plan and details as outlined in the "Redevelopment Plan" attached to the staff report dated November 14, 2006. Mr. Clark stated that the Planning Commission is asked to make a finding that the Redevelopment Plan conforns to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. He noted that this finding means that the Phase II activity, which will be the HRA's anticipated acquisition of the Main Street Mall and its conversion eventually to some form of parking, is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Scott asked how many properties are involved in Phase II? Mr. Clark stated there are two buildings. Commissioner Stevens asked if Elk River Meats would be the only building remaining. Mr. Clark stated yes and that the HRA has not indicated interest in acquiring other properties at this time, but that the entire block could eventually be included. He stated that the two buildings (Phase II) became available on the open market and that is the reason the HRA is taking action at this time. Commissioner Stevens asked if the City would be leasing out the buildings in the interim. Mr. Scott stated that a decision regarding Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 14, 2006 --------------------------- the use of the buildings has not be worked out at this time, but that there is an active lease on the O~eilly property for 12 months. Mr. Clark noted that the need for parking in the downtown will determine when a parking project would be undertaken. Commissioner Stevens asked when demolition is planned. Mr. Clark stated that no demolition is planned at this time, but that cost is included in the budget for the project. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens stated that he realizes that something will need to be done to address the parking need downtown, but that he has a concern for the loss of two more buildings. He stated he would rather see the space filled in with more buildings than a parking space. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt it was a good time for the City to move forward with the downtown redevelopment plan. He felt it makes sense to acquire the properties now when they are available for sale. He stated he was in favor of the overall plan as presented. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE "REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN ELK RIVER" REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2006 AND FINDS THAT "THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE." MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.4. Request by Edward Dulak for Zone Change from Rld to Rlc Single Fancily Residential (Preserve Ponds), Public Hearing -Case No. ZC 06-05 5.5. Request by Edward Dulak for Preliminary Plat Approval of Preserve Ponds, Public Hearine - Case No. P 06-18 Senior Planner Sheila Cartney reviewed the request by Edward Dulak to rezone portions of a 40.5-acre site to R1c in order to subdivide the property into 381ots and 3 outlots. She noted that C+utlots A and B will not be rezoned at this time, and C+utlot C is a drainage and utility easement. Ms. Cartney reviewed the status of sewer and water availability, lot sizes, location of the large Xcel Energy easement and its impact on lots 1-11, Block 3, NRI determination, Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation, streets, trails, sidewalks, utilities, and landscaping requirements. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat with the 15 conditions listed in the staff report to the Commission dated November 14, 2006. Commissioner Stevens questioned if the lots along County Highway 40 would still meet the 11,000 square foot minimum lot size, due to the proposed berm. Ms. Cartney stated that the bermed area would be included in the lot size. Commissioner Westgaard asked why Outlot A was not being platted. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that due to the County Highway 40 realignment, a land swap involving Outlot A is being negotiated between the developers of River Park and Liberty Heights Estates. He stated that he has seen the plan for platting of this property. Commissioner Stevens asked where the road will match up. He stated that River Park will be revised to make the road and sewer and water connections possible. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 14, 2006 --------------------------- Chair Lemke asked why Parks and Recreation Commission is asking fora 50-foot wide trail. Ms. Cartney stated she is not sure, but that they have asked for it to be platted as an outlot, as well. Chair Lemke questioned why the trail was needed, since there would be a bituminous trail two houses away. Planning Manager Barnhart explained that he believed the trail is to offer a n neighborhood connection to the property to the south. Commissioner Offerman asked for clarification on the availability of sewer and water services. Mr. Maurer explained that the property has been in the Urban Service District for some time, and that it is deep enough and sized to service the area. He stated that approval of the plat could be contingent upon the developers of River Park and Preserve Ponds working out how the connections would be accomplished. Commissioner Offerman asked if the connections would come from the north. Mr. Maurer explained how the connections are proposed to be made. He noted that the developers need to work together in order for it to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. Ross Abel of John Oliver & Associates, representative of the developer -Stated that he also did not understand the request for the 50-foot wide trail, since there is a segment of trail two lots away. He stated that the side yard setback of two lots would be significantly impacted by this request. Mr. Abel stated that they would have no problem increasing the landscaping on Lot 8-12, Block 1 to screen the lots from the highway. He noted that the water connection was via County Highway 40. ???? There being no further public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. Commissioner Westgaard questioned the lot size being requested. Ms. Cartney stated that other residential PUD's have similar lot sizes. Commissioner Westgaard stated that as long as all of the City Engineer's concerns were addressed, he was in favor of approval of the request. He noted that he also did not understand the request for the 50-foot trail width. He suggested that the condition be removed, since they had no information to justify the request. Conunissioner Anderson suggested that the condition be included and that the Parks and Recreation representative could present their recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Ropp asked where the nearest park is located. Mr. Barnhart stated that nearest park is in the River Park plat. He noted that it is anticipated when the property to the south is developed, a larger park will be created. Also, a park is proposed for the Liberty Heights project. Conuiussioner Offerman stated he was not in favor of removing the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation, since trail connections are important. Commissioner Stevens concurred. Commissioner Scott expressed concern that 1/3 of the backyards of Lots 5 - 10, Block 3 will not be useable, due to the power line easement. He stated that he also concurred with leaving the 50-foot trail connection in the recommendations. Commissioner Offerman stated that the properly owners of Lots 5-10 will still be able to use and enjoy their entire backyard for a garden or whatever, just that no structures can be built in the easement. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 14, 2006 --------------------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY CONIlVIISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECONIIVIEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM R1D TO R1C SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, CASE NO. ZC 06-05. MOTION ('.ARRIED 7-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY EDWARD DULAK FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRESERVE PONDS, CASE NO. P 06-18, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER'S MEMO DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2006 SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2. ALL COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SHERBURNE COUNTY MEMO DATED OCTOBER 5, 2006 SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE FIRE CODES. THE FIRE CHIEF SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL FIRE HYDRANTS, AND MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HYDRANTS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS. 5. IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENTS SHOWN IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED: A. A 15 FOOT TRAIL EASEMENT IS REQUIRED ON BOTH SIDES OF COUNTY ROAD 40. B. A 50-FOOT TRAIL CONNECTION BETWEEN LOTS 12 AND 13 BLOCK 3, IN THE FORM OF AN OUTLOT SHALL BE CREATED. C. A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG COUNTY ROAD 40 WITH THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND A BERM. 6. AN EARTH BERM OF AN UNDULATING HEIGHT OF 2-4 FEET SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON LOTS 8-12 BLOCK 1, AND LOT 14, BLOCK 3. 7. A WETLAND BUFFER OF 25 FEET APPLY TO ALL WETLANDS AND A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 20 FEET FROM THE BUFFER APPLIES. 8. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT SANITARY SEWER AND WATER WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM THE RIVER PARK DEVELOPMENT TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT. 9. STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 10. A NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 11. 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. 12. THE FOLLOWING FEES SHALL APPLY: A. PARK DEDICATION SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF CASH AT THE RATE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT RECORDING. B. A SEAL COAT FEE SHALL BE PAID, AT THE RATE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT RECORDING, PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 6 13. A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE RELEASING OF THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 14. THE APPLICANT SHALL EXECUTE A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 15. APPROVED STREET SIGNAGE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPLICATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart presented the request by Elk River Holdings for a Land Use Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat. The applicant proposes to subdivide 276.82 acres, located east of County Highway 40 and south of Viking Boulevard, into 452 single family lots and 6 outlots. The lots range in size from 9,750 square feet to 36,887 square feet, with 29,75 acres being dedicated for a school and 10 acres for a park. The project will be completed in 8 phases. He noted that access will be provided for the two property owners who do not wish to sell. Mr. Barnhart reviewed recommendations regarding the park dedication, transportation, trails, and sidewalks, natural resource, landscaping, as well as the basis for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commissioner Stevens asked which stands of trees would be retained. Mr. Barnhart stated that more clarification is needed as to where those trees are, noting that as many trees as possible will be saved. Commissioner Offerman asked where the phasing will start. Mr. Barnhart stated that development will begin on the south, working northward. Commissioner Scott asked what was decided on the concept for a ttuinel under County Highway 40 to connect the two schools. Mr. Maurer stated that it was not feasible. Commissioner Scott asked how they will be connected. Mr. Maurer stated that there will be a crossing at the intersection of County Highway 40 and 191 Avenue, and if the second school and the park are completed, the intersection will need to be signalized. He noted that there have been discussion regarding an overhead pedestrian crossing, but no decision has been made. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. Chris Holzem,19246 Baugh Street -stated his property abuts the subject property on the west side. He stated that most of the lots next to this property in Anoka County are five acres in size, with nothing less than 2 1/z acres. He asked if there has been any agreement with Burns Township to develop the roads. Mr. Maurer stated that two meetings have PUD (Planned Unit Development), Public Hearing -Case No. ZC 06-01 Request by Elk River Hodings for Conditional Use Permit for Residential Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing -Case No. CU 06-02 Request by Elk River Holdings for Preliminary Plat Approval (Liberty Heights Estates of Elk River), Public Hearing -Case No. P 06-03 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 7 --------------------------- occurredwith Bums Township, Anoka County, Sherburne County, Elk River and the developers. He stated that the developers will provide the ability, but it is up to the township and counties to interconnect. Right-of-way will be platted to the north end of the plat, but the road will not be physically built. Mr. Holzem asked if the road would be cul-de- saced. Mr. Maurer stated that a cul-de-sac will be put in if the road needs to be plowed due to a driveway being there. Mr. Holzem asked if it was possible to require larger lots. He expressed concern for the drastic difference in lot sizes from this development and lotss in Anoka County. Mr. Maurer stated that there are a number of instances within Elk River's corporate limits where smaller sized urban lots back up to 2 1/z-acre lots. He stated that no major adjustments were made in the lot sizes when these plats were approved. Mr. Holzem stated that he would like to see larger lots, at least on the east-west end of the development. Mr. Maurer stated that having larger lots does not necessarily make them better lots, and that some of the largest homes in Elk River are located on some of the smallest lots. Mr. Holzem stated that he is aware that his fence is not on his properly line. Mr. Maurer stated that when development gets to this phase, the developer would likely work with him to come to a solution. Duane Hoff, 9643 Viking Boulevard -asked the City Engineer when Viking Boulevard was changed to County Road 33. Mr. Maurer stated that it was changed approximately one year ago. Mr. Hoeff stated that he lives in the northeast corner of Viking Boulevard and County Road 13. He stated that he intended to develop his property in an "upscale" manor and was concerned that the proposed homes along County Road 33 were not set back far enough. Discussion followed regarding setbacks of other developments from County roads. Mr. Maurer also explained future plans to connection Highway 169 to County Road 22, and that someday this portion of County Road 33 will likely become a city street and the actual County road will be further north, and the road north of this plat will become a dead end. Mr. Hoeff asked if turn lanes will be required. Mr. Maurer referred to the memo from ?Sherburne County? which asks the developer to build designated turn lands and bypass lanes off County Road 13 to County Highway 40. Tim Waulters,19024 Baugh Street - stated he owns 40 acres adjacent to the south end of the proposed project. He was concerned that there is no buffer zone between his property and the proposed smaller lots. He stated he has farmed the property for 30 years and does not intend to stop. He stated he was concerned that new residents will make complaints about his operation. Mr. Barnhart stated that the City has the ability to include as convenants for the property to require notification to potential residents that the development is located adjacent to working farms. Ron Bratlie, 18863 Dodge Street, representative for # 728 School District -Stated he would like to state his support for the proposed development, which includes property for a school, a park and fields. Commissioner Offerman asked Mr. Bratlie how many students are anticipated to live in the 452 single family lots of this proposed development. Mr. Bratlie stated that the current figure is .9 students per family unit. Commissioner Offerman asked what the capacity of the new school to the south was. Mr. Bratlie stated the middle school will accommodate 1,000 6th _ 8th grade students. They would anticipate 750 students for the elementary school, but that it would be built for 1,000. He noted that their present middle school exceeds 1,200 Planning Cotnmission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 8 students. Mr. Offerman asked Mr. Bratlie if the School District has concerns about students crossing the road between the two schools and park area. Mr. Bratlie stated yes, since it is their intention to utilize the fields even before a school is built. Chris Holzem, 19246 Baugh Street -stated that he also has an active farm that will abut approximately 14 new homes. He stated that cattle are pastured in this area. He felt that larger lots would provide a buffer to protect his farm. Ross Abel, John Oliver & Associates -stated that Mr. Holzem's concern about his fence could be addressed when that phase of the development is closer. He noted that the project will be done in 7-8 phases, in about as many years. He also explained that with the 75-foot setback from the County road, the homes along Viking Boulevard would have approximately 50 feet of rear yard area. He felt the buffer area and landscaping would provide significant reduction in the view of the homes from the road. Duane Hoff, 9643 Viking Boulevard -stated that the berms in the Trott Brook Farms area are 8 feet high, and asked why only a 3-4 foot berm is being proposed here. Mr. Barnhart stated that is the m;n;mtun requirement and that trees will also be planted. He stated that staff would encourage the developer to enhance that area. Commissioner Stevens stated that the developer is asking for utilities to be extended, and is offering land for a school in exchange, which would already be filled by students from this development. He felt the lots should be no smaller than 11,000 square feet. He expressed concern with insufficient linking trails, lot sizes, and the loss of environmentally sensitive area. He did not feel the Citywas receiving adequate compensation for allowing the development and he could not support it. Commissioner Offennan staetd he had significant concerns with the density, or that the "exchanges" were enough. He also had concerns with wetland protection, the schools, sidewalks, r,,;n;r„al tree preservation, and park dedication. He felt that more is needed regarding parks. He stated he did not see the amenities. He was concerned that phasing was proposed to begin to the south, where there are already major transportation concerns. He did not feel the infrastructure or the schools were ready to handle this density of development. He stated he would like to see the number of lots reduced, more green space, more trails and that larger lots were not necessarily the answer. He stated he did not see enough to support the project. Mr. Maurer stated that the grading of the park will be done in the first phase. He explained that the wetlands were degraded because of the farming, and that the developer will be creating wetland credits for the City in the first phase. Ross Abel stated that the City would be on line to receive a significant number of wetland credits. He stated that the developer would turn over the wetland credits to the City in exchange for the PUD zoning. He explained how the City would be able to use those credits in a potential road project. Commissioner Scott stated he concurred with Commissioners Stevens and Offetman. He was concerned with the traffic and having only 3 viable exits from the development; two onto County Highway 40 and 1 on Viking Boulevard. He also had concerns regarding the density of the development being adjacent to 2 t/ acre lots. He stated he was not in favor of the development as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Barnhart asked the Commission if additional work is needed on the plat, such as density, traffic, negotiation of benefits, or any other issues that staff could help address. He stated that the developer would like a recommendation either for or against the project so that it can move forward to the City Council. Mr. Barnhart also asked that the Planning Commission advise staff if there was anything different they could do, before a plat reaches this level. Commissioner Offerman stated that he felt there were significant issues and he would support working through them. Commissioner Stevens stated that the developer was aware of their concerns at the workshop level regarding issues such as trails and traffic. Commissioner Scott stated that during the Comprehensive Plan review, it was discussed whether or not this parcel should be included in the Urban Service Area and it was decided not to include it. Commissioner Westgaard stated he did not feel there was anything new, and that they talked at great length about this issues and they are still tallying about them. Commissioner Ropp stated that he also concurred with the other Commissioners concerns regarding density, traffic, not enough benefits, lack of trails, and that there are just too many homes proposed. Commissioner Anderson stated that these are the same issues discussed during the Comprehensive Plan review. He asked how there could be a transition between the Anoka County/Burns Township residents with urban lots. He felt the density issue was similar to the issues raised during the townhomes discussion and that the issues were the same -too dense of development so far from the City's "core". He stated he understood that the "carrot" of a new school and the wetland credits are significant. He stated he felt the same as the residents who spoke and that he was not convinced that the property should be in the Urban Service Area. He felt that the zoning should be closer to the Rld lot sizes and that there should be as abrupt a change between this property and the Burns Township properties. He stated he was also not in favor of the plan. Chair Lemke stated that when this property was discussed during the Comprehensive Plan update, they were in agreement it should not be in the Urban Service Area. He stated that he was shocked when he first saw this plat and did not feel the lots should be so small and also felt it was too dense. He stated that he did not necessarily feel the zoning of this city should be controlled by another entity, and that this was not the case with the West Oaks plat, which was adjacent to Big Lake Township. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO TABLE THE REQUESTS BY EDWARD DULAK FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT, REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE DECEMBER PLANNING COMISSION MEETING. Mr. Abel requested that the Planning Commission either recommend approval or denial of their requests. THE MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Stevens stated that tabling the requests could allow some time to reconcile with the developer and provide staff time to negotiate, while still allowing the developer to move forward in the spring. Commissioner Offerman stated he would be willing to work through the issues, but that he felt it was best to recommend denial, if that is the wish of the developer. Planning Commission Minutes Page l0 November 14, 2006 --------------------------- Chair Lemke stated that the developer will be free to negotiate with the City Council, since they have already done so with staff and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Anderson stated that the developer has already been through negotiations with City staff and the school district, and that they do not want to take the plan back and rework it. He stated that the question is, does the Planning Commission support the land use request. He stated he was in favor of moving the request on to the City Council. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER HOLDINGS FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO UR URBAN RESIDENTIAL, CASE NO. LU 06-01 BASED ON THE FINDING THAT SUFFICIENT REASON TO EXTEND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Chair Lemke opposed. ---------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER HOLDINGS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE REQUEST IS EXCESSIVLY DENSE. MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Chair Lemke opposed. ----------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROPP TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER HOLDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (LIBERTY HEIGHTS ESTATES), CASE NO. CU 06-02, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PUD AS PRESENTED DID NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS. MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Chair Lemke opposed. --------------- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER HOLDINGS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF LIBERTY HEIGHTS ESTATES OF ELK RIVER, CASE NO. P 06-03, BASED ON THE FINDING THE PLAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING. MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Chair Lemke opposed. 5.10. Request by L & K RV (Lorin Stephenson) for Conditional Use Pe and Classic Car Restoration, Public Hearine -Case No. CU 06-26 Ms. Cartney explained that the applicant, Lorin Stephenson of L & K RV, proposes to sell 10-12 travel trailers from his property at 15634 Edison Street. Mr. Stephenson cun-ently repairs and refurbishes recreation vehicles and sells RV parts, and staff feels the small scale sales is complementary to the current use. A Conditional Use Permit is required for outdoor storage and selling of RV's. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 11 Ms. Cartney provided information regarding the business including the type of work done, number of employees, hours of operations, screening of the site, parking requirements, the requirement for building inspections and landscaping as detailed in the staff report dated November 14, 2006. Staff recommends approval of the request with the six conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. Commissioner Scott asked where the trees would be installed. Ms. Cartney provided photographs of the site, stating that three trees would be required along Edison Street and three along the storage area for the trailers. Conunissioner Offerman stated that these trailers appear to be quite small. He asked what would happen if the applicant decided to sell larger trailers. Ms. Cartney explained that approval of the Conditional Use Permit would be for the travel trailers as described and shown in the staff report, as provided by the applicant. Commissioner Offerman asked the applicant what the maximum size of the trailers would be. Mr. Stephenson stated 40 feet would be the maximum, but that he is proposing to sell trailers in the 13-30 foot range and that sales would be concentrated on the smaller size trailers. Mr. Stephenson stated that he would like to eventually have 12 - 15 trailers, with a maximum of 25 on the site. He felt that twelve 13-foot trailers would not take up much room. Commissioner Westgaard suggested that the applicant be required to define the storage area. Chair Lemke stated there maybe a concern of having twelve 40-foot long trailers on the site. Commissioner Offerman concurred there is quite a difference between the sizes. Mr. Barnhart stated that during the staff review, he did not get a sense that the size of the trailers was a concern, but the location. He suggested that rather than define an area, the Commission may want to define the number and size of trailers allowed, such as no more than 25 feet, in order to be flexible but still allow a means for staff to enforce the conditions. Mr. Barnhart felt that allowing 25 - 30 trailers in the rear yard would be appropriate for the site, but if the applicant wanted to expand into the front yard, it would be necessary to amend the conditional use permit. Or, the Commission could choose to allow unlimited storage of the trailers in the rear yard. Commissioner Stevens stated that the size of the area could be defined by requiring the trailers to be place on an improved surface with Class V. Mr. Barnhart noted that there is no residential property between the businesses and Highway 10 that would be impacted. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY L&K RV SALES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AND SALES OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE TRAILERS, CASE NO. CU 06-26, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL APPLICABLE BULDING CODES SHALL BE MET. 2. ALL APPLICABLE FIRE CODES SHALL BE MET. 3. THE PARKING LOT SHALL HAVE DELINEATED 5 PARKING STALLS. 4. SIX LANDSCAPE TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED, 3 OVERSTORY TREES IN FRONT AND 3 ON THE OUTDOOR STORAGE SIDE. 5. THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA SHALL BE CONSIST OF CLASS V GRAVEL. 6. IF THE DISPLAY AREA IS MOVED FROM THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, IT MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Page 12 5.11. Request by William Matthews for Conditional Use Permit for Used Auto Sales and Classic Car Restoration, Public Hearing -Case No. CU 06-28 Mr. Barnhart stated that William Matthews has requested a Conditional Use Permit for the sales of late model used cars, trucks and classic cars, as well as classic car restoration facility at 13342 Highway 10. He provided background information regarding Mr. Williams' previous business sites and location of the proposed facility. Mr. Barnhart reviewed issues with the site regarding storm water, access, concerns regarding Hudson Street right-of-way and future improvements on the adjacent lot with the construction of the YMCA. Mr. Barnhart reviewed 16 staff's recommendations as listed in the staff report to the Commission dated November 14, 2006. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. William Matthews, applicant -stated he was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. There being no public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. Chair Lemke asked if there was an existing Conditional Use Permit for this site. Mr. Barnhart stated that no permit was found, but that if an new one is granted, the old one would go away. Commissioner Stevens questioned whether "secured storage" and "outdoor storage" were the same thing. Mr. Barnhart stated his interpretation would be they are the same. Mr. Matthews stated that he would like to have a secured area, but that he would be willing to abide by the "no outdoor storage" condition. He stated it was not his intention to park cars outside that were in need of repair. He stated that he was told a permit was not required for a fence 6-feet in height or less. Mr. Barnhart stated that it was his opinion that fence would be inconsistent with the conditional use permit, and if a fence were placed on the property, and the conditional use permit would need to be amended. Chair Lemke asked if outdoor storage was allowed in this area. Mr. Barnhart stated no. Chair Lemke asked the applicant how large the secured area would be. Mr. Matthews stated that it would be large enough to park a single 18-foot car trailer and a few cars overnight. Commissioner Stevens stated that he is aware that sometimes cars need to be moved outside while waiting for parts, such as Abra does. Commissioner Offerman suggested that Condition # 12 be eliminated, since classic cars are not normally driven on the road. Mr. Barnhart stated that the intent is not to allow old vehicles in bad condition sitting around outside on the site. Commissioner Offerman stated that the language could be changed to "road worthy". Mr. Barnhart agreed to recommend that # 12 be removed. Commissioner Stevens stated that he supported allowing a 6-foot fence for a secure area. Commissioner Offerman stated he did not see a problem with cars being parked in a secure area, but would not want to see parts stored in it. Mr. Barnhart stated he would be cautious of allowing a fenced area, he suggested a condition could be added to allow "a secure storage area," and clarify that "it is not outdoor storage, which is prohibited," and leave it up to the City Council to decide. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 13 Commissioner Scott asked if fencing of employee parking would be considered outdoor storage. Mr. Barnhart stated that if outdoor storage is prohibited and a fence is put up after the approval, staff would interpret it as outdoor storage. The applicant could then seek a determination from the Board of Adjustments. Commissioner Anderson stated he would support leaving Condition #6 in, regarding no outdoor storage allowed, and striking # 12. He stated that many businesses in the C3 District store items outside in a locked area, and all types of products could be stored there. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY WILLIAM MATTHEWS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 05-26, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2. THE BUILDING SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 3. THE BUILDING SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE FIRE CODES. 4. ALL VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED ON AN APPROVED SURFACE (NOT LANDSCAPED AREAS) WITHIN THE PROPERTY PER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 5. NO VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ON SIDEWALKS. 6. NO OUTDOOR STORAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED. 7. ALL VEHICLE MAINTENANCEAND/OR RESTORATION SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE BUILDING. 8. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED ON THE PROPERTY, AS INDICATED ON STAFF EXHIBIT "A". 9. ALL SIGN PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ANY SIGNAGE BEING INSTALLED. 10. ADVERTISING ON THE VEHICLES SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE SIGN PER VEHICLE NOT EXCEEDING 94 SQUARE INCHES. 11. NO SIGNAGEAND/OR DECORATIONS OF ANY TYPE, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BANNERS, PENNANTS, FESTOONS, PAINTED WINDOWS AND BALLOONS SHALL BE ALLOWED ON THE VEHICLES. 12. ONE-WAY TRAFFIC INTERNAL TO THE SITE WILL NEED TO BE SIGNED ACCORDINGLY. 13. THE REMAINDER OF THE ROOF AND BUILDING SHALL BE PAINTED. 14. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT AT 13479 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE SHALL BE REVOKED SIX WEEKS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 15. SITE TURF SHALL BE ESTABLISHED WITH APPROPRIATE IRRIGATION. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on October 16, 2006 City Council Meeting Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 November 14, 2006 --------------------------- Commissioner Ropp provided an update on the October 16, 2006 City Council meeting. 6.2. Update on Downtown Redevelopment Task Force Commissioner Anderson provided an update on the November 6, 2006 meeting of the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force. 7. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ;~~~~- Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary