Loading...
12-12-2006 PC MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006 Members Present: Chair Lemke, Commissioners Offerman, Ropp, Scott, Stevens and Westgaard Members Absent: Commissioner Anderson Staff Present: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manger; Sheila Cartney, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 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 6:41 p.m. by Chair Lemke. 2. Consider 12/12/06 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: ITEM 5.5. -REQUEST BY JOHN WEIGHT & ASSOC. (DEANO'S/PRECISION FRAME) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION - POSTPONED TO THE JANUARY 9, 2007 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Consider 11/14/06 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Representative to Attend December City Council Meeting Commissioner Stevens will attend the December 18, 2006 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by Orrin Thompson for Amendment to Prelinunary Plat (River Park) Public Hearing -Case No. P 07-01 -Postponed to February 13 2007 Senior Planner Sheila Cartney stated that the developer has requested that this item be tabled to the February 13, 2007 meeting to allow adequate time to prepare their plans. At this time, their application is not complete. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY ORRIN Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 --------------------------- Page 2 THOMPSON FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE RIVER PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE FEBRUARY 13, 2006 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Request by Teff Werner for Preliminary Plat (Cranberry Ridge) Public Hearing Case No P 06-15 Ms. Cartney presented the staff report for this request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 54 acres into 161ots and one outlot. She reviewed the location of the property, site conditions, street locations, accesses and connections, length of cul-de-sacs, NRI impacts, Comprehensive Plan goals, landscaping, tree preservation. Ms. Cartney then discussed recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission and staff. She stated that staff recommends denial of the plat based on the reasons listed in the staff report to the Commission dated December 12, 2006 regarding transportation, subdivision approval criteria, NRI impacts, Comprehensive Plan goals, and tree removal. Commissioner Stevens stated that from the drawings it appears there will be some significant grading of slopes in the plat and asked if drainage would be an issue. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that none of the work should have adverse impacts on the adjacent lots. Commissioner Stevens asked if it would be possible to connect Johnson Street to the plat. Ms. Cartney stated she was not sure where the connection would be, due to wetlands issues. Mr. Maurer stated that he believes the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) would see the need for the connection and allow the connection to be made. Chair Lemke stated that the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to make sure the area-wide transportation needs are met. Mr. Maurer noted that staff is aware the County would not approve access on a major road and that the intent is to show us how it could work. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. Curt Werner, 20575 Quincy Street - Co-owner of the subject property with his brother, Jeff Werner. He stated he felt the property was a wonderful mix of open space, trees, and wetlands and that he has worked with staff to achieve what he feels is the highest and best use of the property. He stated that a tree survey was completed on the site, and that the plan which is shown does not reflect the actual number of trees that will be preserved. He provided a map to the Commission which showed in yellow the tress to be impacted, based upon current grading plan. He stated that approximately 25 percent of the tree cover will be lost, and that the tree preservation plan also shows a 25 percent impact on the trees. Mr. Werner stated that in their analysis of the connection to Johnson Street, they found that the hill where the Johnson Street alignment enters the site is 50 feet above the wetland and 30 feet above grade at a 7 percent slope. Since this would require 20 feet of fill at the bottom of the wetland and a 150-200 foot swath of trees would also need to be cut, they determined the connection would not be feasible. Mr, Werner stated that he is aware of numerous other project in the City with a similar situation where longer temporary cul-de-sacs have been allowed, including Ridges of Rice Lake (4,900 ft. temporary cul-de-sac); Ridgewood Hills (4,600 ft. temporary cul-de-sac); and Kingdom Estates 2nd and 3~d Additions (2,800 ft. temporary cul-de-sac). He felt it was appropriate for the City to be understanding of the situation and allow the extended cul-de- sac, based on past practices. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 12, 2006 --------------------------- Mary Kay Flynn, 10189 208 Avenue NW -Stated that Johnson Street is not a complete street at this time. There being no other public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification on Ms. Flynn's comment. Mr. Maurer explained that the eastern one-half of the right of way for Johnson Street was platted in the Pheasant Run project, with the understanding that the western half would be required when the property to the west of Pheasant Run is platted. If the adjacent property is never platted, the one-half right of way for Johnson Street would not be used. Commissioner Stevens stated that during the workshop review, the Commission was not comfortable with the layout of the roads and impacts to the wetlands and trees. He stated that he personally worked in the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) and the City's goal is to protect their natural resources as much as possible. He stated that the applicant was told the Commission would rather see the project developed as a cluster, with homes located in the western portion of the site. He felt a cluster development would eliminate some of their concerns and impacts. He stated that he could not support approval of the plat. Commissioner Offerman questioned if the plat were reconfigured as a cluster, would there still be a need to connect to Johnson Street. Mr. Barnhart stated that the need would not go away, since the Johnson Street plan is already in place. Mr. Maurer stated that the City's goal is to establish road connections wherever possible. He stated that with a cluster, it would be easier to allow the cul-de-sac, not knowing if and when it would ever be extended. Commissioner Offerman stated that a considerable amount of time has been spent on the NRI and COmprehe3nsive Plan and that he does not feel the plat as presented meets the goals of these plans. He stated valid points have been raised regarding the road connections, but that he would like to see the property developed as a cluster. Commissioner Ropp concurred with Commissioner Stevens' comments. He stated he would support a cluster development, but that he could not support as presented. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY JEFF WERNER FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF CRANBERRY RIDGE, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION CONCERNS 2. INCONSISTENCIES WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY'S RECOMMENDATIONS 3. SUBDIVISION FINDING #5 CANNOT BE MET (THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONEMTNAL DAMAGE) 4. SEVERAL NATURAL AREAS AS DETERMINED BY THE NRI WOULD NOT BE PRESERVED. 5. ALTERNATE DESIGN OF THE PLAT SHOULD BE EXPLORED. 6. APPROVAL OF THE PLAT WOULD BE CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7. EXCESSIVE TREE REMOVAL Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 12, 2006 --------------------------- Commissioner Westgaard stated that he did not want to see a recommendation for denial and asked if the applicant was willing to have the plat request tabled. Mr. Werner stated no, that he would like to proceed to the City Council review. Commissioner Scott sated that he conctu-~-ed with the transportation connection concerns, but that he was not convinced a cluster should be mandatory, and that an acceptable plat could be achieved. Mr. Barnhart suggested that the Commission provide the applicant 3 or 4 points for the City Council to consider. Commissioner Stevens suggested the following: Preservation of trees and topography Information/attachments regarding transportation issues City Engineer's concern regarding the 90 degree turn on 206th Avenue Consider the site for Open Space development (cluster) Address transportation issues beyond the boundary of this plat More detail in the tree preservation plan regarding loss of trees Chair Lemke stated that he had concerns that the neighborhood transportation plan was not looked at closely enough. He stated he believed the developer has the right to develop his property as he sees fit within the City's ordinance requirements. He stated that he felt preserving 75 percent of the trees was a significant amount. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. Chair Lemke and Commissioner Scott opposed. 5.3. Request by Verizon Wireless for Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing -Case No CU 06- 29 Ms. Cartney reviewed the request by Verizon Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit to locate an Enviro-Building on top of the existing steam plat extension building at Great River Energy, 17845 East Highway 10. 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 STEVENS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY VERIZON WIRELESS FOR A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ENVIRO BUILDING EQUIPMENT SHELTER TO BE PLACED ON THE EXISTING GREAT RIVER ENERGY STEAM PLANT EXTENSION BUILDING, CASE NO. CU 06-29, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE BUILDING SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 2. THE BUILDING SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE FIRE CODES. 3. NO ADDITIONAL ADVERTISING SIGNAGE IS ALLOWED TO BE PLACED ON THE BUILDING MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 5 5.4. Request by Gemstone Products Company for Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Case No. CU 06-30 Planner Chris Leeseberg stated that the applicant, Gemstone Products Company, plans to purchase four acres west and north of its existing concrete plant (11755 213th Avenue) for crushing and storage of recycled concrete. A conditional use permit is necessary for the expansion. Mr. Leeseberg stated there will be no increase in the number of employees or trucks. He explained that the crushing will occur once a year and that it will take up to four continuous weeks to crush the concrete. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed staff's 2 recommendations for conditions of approval. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. Commissioner Scott asked how noise levels will be regulated. Ken Kuehn, representative for Gemstone, stated that they operate under the PCA regulations. He explained their reason for the request. Chair Lemke asked if staff was aware of any City ordinance more restrictive than the PCA regulations. Mr. Leeseberg stated he was not aware of any. There being no public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY GEMSTONE PRODUCTS COMPANY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 06-30, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY SHALL BE THE SAME AS WHAT WAS APPROVED AND INSTALLED ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CU 05-05) 2. CONCRETE CRUSHING SHALL OCCUR ONLY FROM 6 AM TO 6 PM MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.5. Request by John Weicht & Assoc (Deano's/ Precision Frame) for Conditional Use Pemut for Expansion, Public Hearing -Case No CU 06-31 Mr. Leeseberg stated that this item will be postponed to the January 9, 2006 Planning Commission, along with a request for a setback variance. He explained that at the time the application for the conditional use permit was received, staff was not aware a variance would be required. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO POSTPONE THE REQUEST BY JOHN WEIGHT & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF DEANO'S/PRECISION FRAME FOR A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 06-31 TO THE JANUARY 9, 2006 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.6. Request by 7040 Lakeland Partners for Conditional Use Permit for Elk Ridge Center Phase 4 (Aldi's, Inc.) Public Hearing -Case No CU 06-27 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 6 --------------------------- Staffreport presented by Planner Chris Leeseberg. He explained that the conditional use permit is required for the zero lot line development of the site. The applicant proposed to construct a 16,224 square foot building and lease to a small specialty grocery store, Aldi's. He noted that this area of the development was intended to include connected retail buildings. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed details of the proposal including circulation, screening of the loading dock, parking, shopping cart screening, number of employees, hours of operation, building design, staff recommendations for modifications to the elevations, signage, landscaping, and signage. He noted that most of staff's concerns have been addressed via emails from the applicant. Commissioner Stevens asked if the design of the building would be similar to other buildings within the plat. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes. Commissioner Stevens asked if the design exceeds the standards. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the components of the design either meet or exceed the standards. He noted that staff is recommending some architectural features on the north side which will eventually be torn down when the adjacent building is constructed. Discussion followed regarding the requirement for a conditional use permit only for the zero lot line. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. Antonio Luciano, 19797 Irving Street NW -stated that his home is 500 feet from the development. He stated he did not feel an Aldi's store would enhance their property values. He had concerns regarding the location of the loading docks. He did not feel the Comprehensive Plan was examined in reviewing this application, and asked how a commercial development ended up in a residential neighborhood. He stated that the developer has done a good job on the design of buildings to date. Leanne Brown, 19737 Lowell Street NW -Stated that she lives very close to the development and did not receive notice of the public hearing. She felt the views of the proposed Aldi's would be awful. She did not feel it was appropriate for the residents to have to look at the back of the buildings. She did not feel an additional grocery store was needed in the area, since the already is a Cub Foods, Coborns and Super Wal-Mart. Ms. Brown stated that Aldi's is a lower end type of store similar to Goodwill and the Salvation Army. She did not feel it was fair to the current grocery stores to allow an Aldi's to go in this area. She stated she felt the residents were mislead, and that a Class I restaurant would not want to locate next to discount type stores. She stated that the Planning Commission and City Council should set the standard, and that the area is already saturated with discount stores. She stated that this area is the last area suitable for a fine dining restaurant. She stated she did not feel an Aldi's was a good fit for this development and that the needs for this type of store have already been met. She stated that she felt the Caty should look at what Elk River needs and wants. She stated that she did not receive any positive comments about the Aldi's proposal. John Polden, 11751196 Avenue NW -Asked for clarification on the meaning of "zero lot line". Mr. Leeseberg provided background information regarding the development and explained the "zero lot line" property line issue. He noted that zero lot line development is consistent with other C3 zones. Mr. Barnhart stated that when second building proposal is received, it will also require the zero lot line approval. Mr. Polden expressed his concerns regarding the close proximity of the buildings to adjacent residents and impacts on their property values. He questioned if incentives were given to attract Aldi's. Mr. Hemple, Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 7 developer of the site, stated no, that a typical developer/tenant relationship exists with Aldi's. Mr. Polden stated his objections to Aldi's business practices such as requiring customers to pay 25 cents for carts and providing their own bags. He stated he objected to the fact that Aldi's is a German company, not an American company such as Wal-Mart. He stated that Coborns built a wall to screen their business from the neighborhood. He asked that the Commission look at the aesthetics of Aldi's and stated he felt they built cheap buildings. Mr. Polden stated that he was totally against the Aldi's proposal and that he was representing 40 people who felt the same way. Wayne Traaseth,11707194th Avenue NW -Stated his objection that there was no separation between his home and the Elk Ridge Center development. He stated he has contacted the Attorney General's office regarding his concerns with the plat. Mr. Traaseth stated he was told Mr. Hemple would contact him regarding some type of screening with fencing and trees and has not heard from him. He stated that his property taxes have gone up $400, and that he is not able to sell his property until the development is completed. He stated he is very disgusted with the project and felt the City's only concern is increasing its tax base. Kent Peabody, 11713 200th Avenue NW - Stated that a grocery store will bring 53-foot tractor-trailers into the neighborhood, which will not be able to make the sharp turn into the development and tear up the curb. He stated that the City of New Hope required a developer to put up both a visual and a sound barrier at Winnetka and 49th Avenue to protect the adjacent residents from the noise and lights of a commercial business. He stated he felt the Commission was crazy to consider the proposal. John Conley, 11793 198th Avenue NW -Asked what has been done to evaluate the need for another grocery store. He stated he hoped that the Commission would reject the Aldi's proposal. Ron Westrum 11710198th Avenue NW -Opposed the project for same reasons as akeady expressed. He objected the aesthetics of the "box" store and felt the plan was not well thought out. He did not feel this type of store was conducive the area. He stated that he was aware lighting was necessary for security reasons, but that he would not want to see the type of lighting as the Aldi's in the Champlin store, which lights up the entire area. Greg Olson, 19762 196th Street -Did not feel the zero lot line was an issue. He stated he was having problems selling his home in Brentwood Addition. He felt that the wall screening the loading dock was a reasonable compromise. Dale Miller, 11795 196th Avenue NW -Did not feel Aldi's was a good fit for the neighborhood. He did not feel the developer was looking at the needs of the residents and they needed the City's help. There being no further public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens asked if the loading docks were consistent with the original plan. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the original plan did not specify a number of bays, but that the circulation plan was the same as originally proposed. Commissioner Stevens asked if the berm and trees on the plan were as originally proposed. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes. Commissioner Stevens asked if retail was a permitted use in the development. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes and provided a list of examples of retail uses. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 8 --------------------------- Commissioner Offerman reviewed design elements from the Elk Ridge Center Design Standards, such as cultural influenced, well-crafted, m;n;m;~ed vehicle movements, a clock tower with a visitors' plaza, ponds, no pylons, and anarts/crafts theme. He felt the proposal fell far short of what was anticipated. He stated that the proposed Aldi's building was a box building with awnings. Commissioner Offerman stated that if the design standards are overlooked, the development will not attract a Class I restaurant. He stated that if the type of development proposed for the Aldi's store continues, they will have completely lost the integrity of the development as originally proposed. He felt the Commission is only asking for changes in keeping with what has been approved. Commissioner Stevens stated that the design does include rock pillars, dark glass, and awnings from the PUD design standards. Commissioner Offerman stated that the design does not fit the literal interpretation of the standards and should be tenant-neutral. He stated that the PUD development was approved based on the narrative of what was presented. Chair Lemke agreed that he felt the Commission needs to base the standards on the text of the agreement. Mr. Leeseberg stated that he would like some direction fro the Commission on the design elements the Commission is looking for. Commissioner Ropp stated he was concerned with traffic circulation and that maybe this is the wrong type of store for this development. He stated the use may further degrade opportunities for a Class I restaurant. He suggested tabling the request for the applicant to provide further information on the building. Commissioner Scott stated that the types of businesses going into the development are not what was envisioned. So far, the businesses- a bank, daycare, Pearle Vision, are all destination stops, and are not the types of businesses people will come to spend time and wander through to shop. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the issue is what were the permitted uses and questioned if the Commission wanted to consider amending the PL?D and take out office spaces, or other types of uses they did not feel fit the development. Commissioner Scott asked if the uses were part of the conditional use pernut process or the PUD. Mr. Leeseberg stated uses are considered in both processes. Corrunissioner Scott stated that in retrospect, he wished they (the City) had given themselves more leverage to get what was envisioned and questioned what could be done about it now. It was his understanding that every use would come before them, and was concerned that the uses so far are not conducive to the casual shopper. John Polden asked if the City was opposed to Class I restaurant. Commissioner Scott stated that there has been a lot of activity on the City's part to make it happen. He stated that the Planning Commission's job is to make recommendations. He stated that they have heard the residents concerns. Commissioner Stevens suggested continuing the discussion on the elevations. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the design elements of the proposal including wood timbers, awnings, Northwoods theme, raised height of structure in the middle, stone pillars, lighting. He felt the overall design looks good but some changes could be made to get back to the original design standards. Commissioner Offerman stated he felt the developer should go back to the original approved plan of having one building on this particular site that complies with the architectural theme which was also approved. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 --------------------------- Page 9 Mr. Hemple stated that each tenant has their own prototype for their business. Commissioner Offerman stated that was the reason for the design standards to avoid individual prototypes. A representative of the developer stated that they plan to attach the next phase of the building when they finish negotiations with the next tenant. Mr. Hemple stated that they do not want to build the enure building and then try to "squeeze" a tenant into a space. He stated that the challenge with retail is there are many types of details and elements. He stated that he is in negotiations with two very race restaurants. Mr. Hemple explained that restaurant and retail companies do extensive marketing studies to determine where their businesses should go. Commissioner Stevens asked if Mr. Hemple had other developments in the area. Mr. Hemple stated that he has developments in Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Oakdale, and has found that restaurants typically like to locate next to an anchor such as a grocery store. He noted that that he is from Elk River, graduated from Elk River High School, and that his father has businesses in the community. He stated that he cares about what happens here. Commissioner Scott stated that he would like to see details such as shown on Figure B-15 of the Elk Ridge Center Design Standards, which shows sidewalks with overhangs. He stated he would like to see the rear of the buildings to look as nice as the front. He felt the truck movement at the loading docks should be screened 100 percent from the residents. Conunissioner Westgaard stated he concurred with Commissioner Offerrnan in that they have a responsibility to uphold and ensure the design standards are maintained. He stated that the challenge is having one "box" type building with three possible tenants. He stated he would like to see the proposal address the original design standards, and consider the residents whose homes are adjacent to the development. Commissioner Stevens stated he did not see how a barrier or screening would fit the design standards. Discussion followed regarding the location of the wall, height of the wall, additional trees and screening. Commissioner Scott stated he would like to see screening of the roof line. Commissioner Offerman asked if there was an urgency to move on with a recommendation. He stated that he would prefer to see revised design changes at a workshop, rather than act on the application at this time. Mr. Hemple stated that since he is the owner of the property, he can make the necessary changes, but that it is a big deal to his clients to slow it down. Discussion followed regarding a possible time line for changes and the next Planning Commission review. Mr. Leeseberg stated that he would not be comfortable rushing through the review. Commissioner Offerman stated that he understands the needs of the developer, but that he would prefer that the Planning Commission see the proposal again. Corrunissioner Ropp concurred. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY 7040 LAKELAND PARTNERS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PHASE 4 OF ELK RIDGE CENTER (ALDI'S), CASE NO. CU 06-27 TO THE JANUARY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Commissioner Stevens opposed. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he would like to see the changes at a worksession prior to the January 9th meeting. Mr. Barnhart stated that he would like to avoid a "design by Planning Commission Minutes Page l0 December 12, 2006 --------------------------- committee" approach and suggested that the next four weeks be spent having staff work with Mr. Hemple and Aldi's to incorporate the proposed changes into the deign. 5.7. Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-1581 -Dimensional Regulations, to clarify the 4 per 401anguage for Al (Agricultural Conservation) lots Public Hearing -Case No. OA 06-07 Ms. Cartney reviewed the proposed ordinance to clarify the 4 per 401anguage for Al Agricultural Conservation lots, as written in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 12, 2006. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Lemke closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO AMEND THE CITY OF ELK RIVER'S LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 30-1581- DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS, TO CLARIFY THE 4 PER 40 LANGUAGE FOR Al (AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION) LOTS, AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DATED DECEMBER 12, 2006. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.8. Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-933 -Screening, Public Hearing -Case No. OA 06-08 Mr. Barnhart reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment to the City's Land Use Regulations regarding screening requirements for double-fronted residential buildings and lots along collector or arterial streets. 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 WESTGAARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO AMEND THE CITY OF ELK RIVER'S LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 39-933 -SCREENING, AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE COMMISSION DATED DECEMBER 12, 2006. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on November 2006 City Council Meeting Commissioner Anderson provided an update on the November 20, 2006 City Council meeting. 7. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~.~.~_ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary Page 11