05-24-2005 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 24, 2005 --------------------------- Commissioner Stevens asked what new areas will be blacktopped. Ms. McPherson explained how the expansion would occur. She noted that this is the reason additional ponding is needed to cleanse the runoff and control its rate from the new asphalt area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SALT/SAND AND COLD STORAGE BUILDINGS AND APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC WORKS SITE, CASE NO. CU 05-07 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1.THE BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. 2.ALL OUTDOOR STORAGE ARES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AS REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.6. Request by City of Elk River for Zone Changes of Multiple Parcels, Case No. ZC 05-01 Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that the Planning Commission is asked to consider rezoning nine parcels within the City of Elk River in order to achieve consistency between the adopted Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. She noted that parcels within the Commercial Reserve and Old Town land use area are not included, since each of these areas requires new official controls to be drafted prior to changes in the Zoning Map. Ms. McPherson reviewed the existing and proposed zoning for each of the nine parcels. Staff recommends approval of the zone changes based on the three findings listed in the staff report. Commissioner Westgaard asked if these parcels are being recommended for rezoning based on the Commission’s discussions in August 2004. Ms. McPherson stated yes. She explained that they have been approved in concept by adoption of the Land Use Map, and staff has carefully looked at each area to see which parcels are appropriate to rezone. Commissioner Stevens stated that he was in favor of keeping the R3 zoning for Parcel No. 6, since this parcel serves a buffer from the Light Industrial. Also, he felt that Parcel No. 8 should remain C4 Community Commercial. Ms. McPherson stated that this would require a Land Use Map amendment back to Commercial, since the land use has already been adopted. She stated that part of this parcel is zoned High Density Residential and could possibly be split into two zoning districts. She noted that in regards to Parcel No. 6, the City requires buffering and screening to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties. Commissioner Offerman asked if there would be any adverse impacts on any of the property owners by these rezonings; for instance, in refinancing. Ms. McPherson noted that is most case there would be a long-term benefit, since they would be “up-zoning” the property and increasing its value. She stated that there would be two areas in question. Parcel No. 6, since it is an existing single family home would become nonconforming by rezoning it to Light Industrial. Also, Parcel No. 5, which are existing single family homes on the west side of Proctor Avenue. She noted that she is aware there are property owners there who are biding their time and waiting for a redevelopment project. She stated that with the recent