03-26-1985 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c c Elk River Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 Page Five 7. Concept Review for Amendment to Barthel Plaza Shopping Center Agreement Rick Breezee indicated that Barthel was present to request a concept review for an amendment to their shopping center development along Highway #169, known as Elk River Plaza. Dave Wolfe was present, representing Barthel and indicated that they were re- questing an amendment to Parcel F, and stated what was originally planned was 45,000 square feet for a retail center. Mr. Wolfe further explained that they would like to subdivide Parcel F into four lots which would be 1.31 acres, 1.36 acres, 1.59 acres and 1.42 acres. Mr. Wolfe indicated that the types of services they were looking at going into these lots would be Goodyear Tire Service Center, which would consist of a six bay tire and service center, an auto parts store, TV repair place, and possibly a Dunkin Donuts. Chairman Tralle indicated that he was against having the service station in that particular area because of the traffic it would generate, but felt that the other ideas presented would be acceptable to him. Discussion was held regarding a buffer zone and whether there would be adequate parking space if the lots were divided. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members that they were in favor of the concept amendment for Parcel F presented by Barthel for the PUD area. 8. Consider Metal-Skinned Buildings and Veterinary Clinics Commissioner Wille stated that he was present at the March 18th City Council meeting and that one of the items presented was Floyd Elliott's conditional use permit request to construct a metal-skinned building on his property. Commissioner Wille further stated that the primary concern of the City Council was in regards to the setting of a precedent of people having two pole buildings instead of one, which was the case of Mr. Elliott. Commissioner Wille indicated that the City Council had suggested that the Planning Commission review the existing standards of the zoning ordinance regarding this matter. Rick Breezee stated that he would suggest if the area is zoned for agricultural and used for agricultural, then more than one agricultural building should be allowed on the property. Commissioners Pearce indicated that he felt this was too vague and wanted to know what was actually described as agricultural. Commissioner Pearce further indicated that he felt nothing should be considered agricultural unless it was more than ten acres. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that one accessory structure can be allowed on property ten acres or less in size, and further that if the land is zoned agricultural and being used for agricultural purposes, then more than one accessory structure would be allowed, or up to 20% of lot coverage.