SAUK RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION

Regular Meeting

Monday, May 6, 2013

MINUTES

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.Commissioner Goetzcalled the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read the agenda statement.

Members present: Greg Goetz, Tim Wilcox,Tim Kosloske, Art Buhs, Tim Meemken, Kevin Renslow and Curt Gullickson

Members absent: None.

Also present: Todd Schultz, Community Development Director; Kelly Travis, Recording Secretary

Additions or Changes to the Agenda. None.

Approval of Agenda. Commissioner Wilcoxmade a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Buhs seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Approval of Minutes. Commissioner Buhsmade a motion to approve the April 1, 2013minutes as amended. Commissioner Renslowseconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Visitors. None.

New Business.

6A.G&J Awning Site Plan Approval

Mr. Schultz read his staff report stating that G&J Awning is requesting site plan approval for a 3,510 square foot expansion at their existing facility at 1260 10th Street North. Staff has verified that the site plan meets all setbacks and other ordinance requirements. There are no concerns expressed by the city departments.

Commissioner Buhs made a motion to approve the G&J Awning Site Plan. Commissioner Renslow seconded. Motion carried unaminously.

6B.Firing Line LLC, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Approval

Mr. Schultz read his staff report stating that Firing Line LLC has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval to allow a retail facility which will include a firearms range. The facility will also offer firearm training/education and recreational leagues as well.

Mr. Schultz showed the site plan on the screen and clarified we are only considering what is proposed to be constructed at this time, not the future additions. Mr. Schultz showed the aerial view and showed that the surrounding land is wetland.

This property was platted in 2004 as part of the Fairview Farms Plat. At that time the City zoned the property C-2 at the request of the developer. The C-2 code allows retail as a permitted use so that portion of the request does not require a conditional use permit. The shooting range however is not clearly listed as a permitted use or a conditional use. Therefore we would need to make a finding that the proposed use is similar to other proposed uses in this district.

This property is guided neighborhood commercial in the comp plan as are the other three corners of Mayhew Lake Road and County Road 29. We have also approved an apartment in the southeast quadrant of the intersection, about 600 feet south.

The first step is determining if the proposed use is consistent with the other uses allowed in this district or in other words is this project eligible to apply for a conditional use permit. At the last Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners recommended that we amend our ordinance by adding the "catch all" language to the C-2 section of our code. This passed on a four to three vote. This has not gone to the City Council yet (scheduled for May 13th public hearing).

Mr. Schultz noted he had the ability to visit similar businesses last week in the metro area. Both shops are very similar to what is being proposed here. There didn't seem to be any zoning issues caused by either business.

It is staff's belief that because the predominant use in this case is retail and that although not a perfect fit with the "places of amusement" language in our code it is substantially similar enough to other uses allowed in this district that it is reasonable for the City to find that the proposed use be considered a Conditional Use within the C-2 section of the code.

Staff has verified that the site plan meets all setbacks and other ordinance requirements. The retail portion of the facility is about 3,210 square feet while the range is about 2,730 square feet. The site plan does show future additions. WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AT THIS TIME. The applicant will need to reapply when these portions are ready to construct.

The C-2 section of the code requires 4 parking stalls for each 1,000 square feet of building space. Historically this ratio has typically resulted in more parking then what is needed. I'm comfortable not including the range portion as that would create an unreasonable amount of parking, however I'm struggling with what to do with the classroom. Just going off of the retail square footage, 13 stalls would be required. They are providing 17 stalls. The classroom can hold 36 people. If half of them came in pairs and the other half drove separately, that would be 27 cars not including staff and other customers. There is ample room to add additional parking and it doesn't serve a public purpose to require more parking then is needed. It just adds water to our stormwater system and makes the project more expensive to the developer, but in this case I'm concerned that there isn't enough. One solution could be to add a condition to the CUP that any cars parked off of the improved (hard surfaced) parking lot would be a violation of the CUP permit. That would allow us to require more parking in the future if it is needed.

Mr. Kosloskenoted that the site plan application and conditional use application are not filled out correctly indicating that on page 2 on the bottom where there are signatures, there are four lines under there that need initials – that is not done on either application. Mr. Schultz recommended adding that as a condition.

Mr. Buhs made a motion to suspend parliamentary procedure for 10 minutes. Mr. Meemken seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Deborah Baier of 1655 Lakewood Shore Road NW, Rice, MN 56367 and Jim Baier of 1655 Lakewood Shore Road NW, Rice, MN 56367 were present for questions.

Mr. Buhs asked about the construction material for the door from the shooting range to the retail store.Mrs. Baier saidit is ballistic rated. Mr. Buhs noted the application states that when entering the range the first door must close before the opening of the second door and askedif there is an electronic lock to ensure this.Mrs. Baier stated no, there’s not a lock, there is a Range Master who will monitor this.Mr. Baier added that this is also for ventilation and a noise factor. Mr. Buhs just wanted to be sure there was a process to monitor this. Mr.Schultz noted that the businesses he visited had the same set up and they function that way as well, they did not have an electronic system.

Mr. Meemken referenced the site plans and the additions that aren’t taking place at this time and he asked the applicantshow they feel about having to reapply for the additions at a later time. Mrs. Baier noted they do already have plans to expand so that is a concern. She noted they would do the expansion as the initial project if it weren’t for the funds needed. Mr. Goetz said if they are abiding by the conditional use permit, he didn’t see it being an issue to be approved down the road.

Mrs. Bair expressed concern about one of the suggested conditions in reference to noise control, specifically citing “if any sound of gunfire can be heard off of the subject property, the use shall immediately cease.” Mr. Schultznoted the application is more strict than that. Itstates no gunfire sound will leave the building, so believed that to be reasonable.Mr. Buhs asked if it would it be reasonable to quantify that with a certain decibel rating. Mr. Baier asked how you regulate thatand how would that be determined.Mr. Schultz stated that if the average person can hear the gunfire off the property, that would be a reason we would bring that back to the planning commission. Mr. Schultz noted he’s comfortable with noise coming out of the building as long as it’s not heard off the property.Mr. Buhs asked if it would be more appropriate to have an acceptable level of sound outside. Mr. Renslow noted he is concerned with what Deborah is saying - that someone may hear muffled gun shots and blow it out of proportion. He likes the idea of putting a decibel on there. Mrs. Baier noted certain firearms can only be allowed as to what the building is rated for. Mr. Goetz asked if we could find out what the walls are rated at.Mrs. Baier stated it is her understanding, in speaking with the builder, that as long as you do a concrete building you shouldn’t be able to hear anything outside. Mr. Buhs stated he thinks we need some type of protection for the owner here so they don’t open and someone complains about a very subdued sounded and wants it shut down.

Mr. Kosloske pointed out that the plan says the room is steel.Mrs. Bair stated it’s a steel truss system. There is a company from Utah that is actually doing the build out. The plan is based on their specifications. This range would actually be built by a professional company that does this for a living.

Mr. Renslow made a motion to extend parliamentary procedure for 5 minutes. Mr. Kosloskeseconded. Motion carried unanimously.

Mrs. Bair questioned the fire official’s comments about needing additional openings in the long portion of the building or an automatic fire sprinkler system and noted a door wouldn’t be allowed there because it would not be safe. Mr. Schultz noted the building/fire inspector says you need a sprinkler or a door and she can check with him on that if she’d like.

Mrs. Bair also asked about no firearm range activates outdoors and noted they intend to have a tent and maybe BBQ outside, more recreational type stuff - will this statement preclude us from doing that stuff outside?Mr. Goetz said that means no weapons firing outside. Mrs. Bair confirmed there will be no shooting outdoors.

Mrs. Bair asked about the decibelsand what to do from here.Mr. Buhs reiterated they need some type of protection for the owners. Mr. Meemken stated a source for determining decibels could be the NRA source book and noted there should be something in there about the decibels. Mrs. Bair noted she’ll talk to the person installing the range. He likely has all the information we need.

Marshall Weems, 603 20thStreet N, Sartell, business address of 1637 4thAve N in Sauk Rapids, next door to the project, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Weems noted 5 or 6 years ago this same thing came up before. He further noted he’s had two people hunting pheasant on his property without his permission and stated there should be some sort of processfor complaints. Mr. Schultz clarified this is how they use theproperty. If someone shot a pheasant on their property that wouldn’t have anything to do with their business.

Mr. Weems noted he is familiar with the fire range in the strip mall and it hasn’t had any problem. The strip mall has stayed full and busy. And as for decibel you have automobiles, which can be loud.

Mr. Goetz would be concerned if down the road they decided to do trap shooting, he doesn’t want the sound of actual gun fire. But if it’s just a kerplunk on the inside of the wall, he doesn’t have a problem with that.

Mr. Goetz closed parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Buhs stated he is whole heartedly in favor of this type of business coming to Sauk Rapids.

Mr. Wilcox noted under condition #11 that cars cannot park off the parking lot and asked if they have a special eventwill this be an issue. Mr. Schultz said if they have a special event that would not apply.

Mr. Kosloske askedwhere the fire hook up would be and he was concerned fire trucks would not be able to access it. Mr. Schultzsaid the fire marshal did look at the plan, but he will verify that this will not be an issue.

Commissioner Buhs make a motion toapprove the Site Plan and the Conditional Use Permit for the firearm training and recreational facility at 3409 Mayhew Lake Road on the conditions that:

  1. They Submit drainage calculations to the City Engineer. The calculations shall be approved by the City Engineer.
  2. The fire hydrant to match Sauk Rapids Public Works/Fire Department specs.
  3. Only an acceptable level of sound of gunfire shall be heard off the subject property. The applicants will need to provide staff with their determination of what would be acceptable. Staff shall review the applicants information to determine if it is acceptable.
  4. Applicant's entire application (including without limitation site plans and narrative) is incorporated herein as a condition of its use except to the extent inconsistent with the specific conditions of this permit or building and fire codes or other state or federal laws.
  5. The shooting range must be entirely enclosed within the building. No range/firearms activities may be conducted outdoors. All projectiles must be contained within the boundaries of the property.
  6. The firearms range must be designed and operated at all times in accord with federal, state and local laws and ordinances. This specifically includes, without limitation, the requirement that the range be operated in accord with any rules, regulations and performance standards which may be adopted from time to time by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources and until such rules are adopted in accord with the interim rules - the National Rifle Association’s Range Source Book (“NRA Source Book”) guidelines. Applicant must submit to the City operational and safety plans as provided for in the NRA Source Book. In addition, applicant must provide the City with certification of an architect, engineer or other qualified professional that the range will be constructed in accord with the NRA Source Book guidelines for an indoor shooting range. Applicant will continue to monitor and ensure that the physical range and the operational procedures of the range are updated to meet updates in the NRA Source Book or rules as may be adopted from time to time by the Commissioner of the DNR, and provide such certification to the City within a reasonable period of time after a request by the City.
  7. Any future expansions or additions whether or not shown on the site plan will require the approval of the City.
  8. The range will be subject to inspection by the City from time to time during normal business hours to ensure compliance with the requirements of the permit.

9. The building/fire official’s comments shall be considered conditions and are:

  • These comments are only in regards to the original construction. Any references to a future addition have not been reviewed for site concerns. A separate site plan review will need to occur before any additions shall occur.
  • The building exhaust shall be designed in accordance with the Ashrae standards and a nationally recognized standard for indoor shooting ranges.
  • There will have to be more openings in the long portion of the building or an automatic fire sprinkler system per Section 903.2.10.1.2 of the 2007 MN State Fire Code.

10. No dumpster is shown on the plan. If there is an outside dumpster, it will need to be screened.

11. Any cars parked off of the improved (hard surfaced) parking lot would be a violation of the CUP permit.

12. Because the catch all language hasn't been approved by the council yet, the Planning Commission proceedbased on the assumption that the language is adopted by the Council on May 13th. If it is not adopted by the City Council, staff will recommend that this application be denied at the May 27 meeting.

13.Applicant will properly complete both applications.

Commissioner Renslow seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

6C.Catch All Language Ordinance Change

Mr. Schultz read his staff report stating that the Ordinance in our I-1 District and our D-1 District has language in the Conditional Use Permit section that allows the City to permit any use that it believes is consistent with the other uses generally allowed in that district. I call this language “catch all” in that it attempts to capture any uses that we didn’t have the foresight to include in that district but likely would have included had we considered it. There are so many potential uses that it is impossible to anticipate them all. I have also found that we have catch all language in our C-3 District, but in all three places, the language is different. I would like to modify the language and make it consistent in all districts.

Mr. Goetz asked why it would require a 4/5s majority. Mr. Schultz stated that puts the City in a more favorable position. It makes the standard higher. There was further discussion on requiring a 4/5 majority. Mr. Schultz clarified that this means if someone comes to us with a specific use that is not covered in the code and they want us to consider it to be substantially similar to uses in that district, for the city to accept that, it would take a 4/5ths vote.

Mr. Wilcox asked how this would affect the issue with the school where we were denying it. Mr. Schultz stated that would have made it more difficult.