Loading...
3.1 PCSR 05-24-2016 DRAFT MIN Item 3.1 El ,� Meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission River Held at the Elk River City Hall Tuesday, April 26, 2016 Members Present: Chair Eric Johnson,Commissioners Andrew Crook,Alexander Feinstein, Mark Konietzko,Jill Larson-Vito,Mike Nicholas,and Brad Thiel Members Absent: None Staff Present: Senior Planner Chris Leeseberg,Planner BrieAnna Simon and Sr. Administrative Assistant Debbie Huebner I. 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 Johnson. 2. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Consider April 26, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Moved by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel to approve the April 26,2016, Planning Commission agenda with the following addition: Add Item 5.2—Introduce new planning staff member Motion carried 7-0. 4.1 Consider March 22, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Moved by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Thiel to approve the March 22,2016, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Motion carried 7-0. 5.1 Appoint Planning Commission representative to serve on Administrative Hearing Board Motion by Chair Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Konietzko to appointment Planning Commissioner Jill Larson-Vito to serve as Planning Commission representative on the Administrative Hearing Board. Motion carried 7-0. 5.2 Introduce New Planning Staff Member Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 26,2016 Mr. Leeseberg introduced BrieAnna Simon,Planner. 6.1 Eric Sandstrom — 18049 Joplin Street NW • Conditional Use Permit for private kennel — Case No. CU 16-11 Chris Leeseberg presented the staff report. Mr. Lees eberg noted that he had just received an email that day with photos and videos of Mr. Sandstrom's dogs from an adjacent neighbor, requesting that the CUP be denied. The neighbor cited concerns with aggressive behavior of the dogs. Staff recommended approval of the request with the 13 conditions listed in the report and a 14th condition that the east and south property lines be fenced with a 6-foot high opaque privacy fence. Commissioner Konietzko asked for clarification on"privacy fence". Mr. Leeseberg stated that privacy means you cannot see through it. Mr. Leeseberg noted that the northern-most portion of the fence on the east side of the property cannot be over 30 inches tall for the first 10 feet back from the front property line,per city ordinance. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Eric Sandstrom, applicant—stated that all of his animals are"fixed" and he has no intentions of breeding dogs. He explained that his dogs are "rescue" dogs. He noted that the neighbors also have a dog. Mr. Sandstrom explained that the dog in the video shown jumping above the fence level is a boxer named Muppet and that she has never left the yard, even with the door open. He stated the CUP is necessary because they are taking on a 4th dog,a deaf French Bulldog. He stated that the dogs do run up and down the fence,but they have had no incidents, other than they had to ask the neighbor's kids to stop throwing rocks at the dogs. He stated that requiring the 6-foot privacy fence would be expensive and asked that he have some time to complete that condition,if the Planning Commission recommended it. Discussion followed regarding whether or not a variance could be approved to allow the fence to be 6-foot high at the front yard setback, since city ordinance allows only a 30-inch high fence, 10 feet back from the property line, due to proximity to the street and keeping sight lines clear. Commissioner Thiel stated he was not comfortable adding the requirement to build a 6-foot privacy fence, since the applicant is not causing any new conditions, and is just adding another dog. Angie Shay, 13389 180 1/2 Circle NW—stated that the dogs have gotten out and she returned them to the fenced area, approximately two years ago. She stated that the kids have to get on the bus in this area and that the dogs charge the chain link fence,barking. She stated that the dogs are often barking and feels it is a nuisance for her to be outside. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 26,2016 Dawn Martie, 18037 Joplin Street NW— stated that she feels the dogs are getting more aggressive. She stated that although there was no audio on the video shown,the dogs were growling the whole time she filmed them. She expressed her concern for her children if the dogs were to get out. Maria Sandstrom, 18049 Joplin,representing the applicant- stated that the dogs are rescue dogs and have often been tormented by children in the past. She explained that the dogs have past problems and do charge the fence,but what sounds like growling is their way of"talking". She stated that she normally lets the dogs out to feed them around the time the kids are waiting for the bus. Rick Fredrickson,13363 180 1/2 Circle NW- stated that the dogs do bark and run up to the fence. He stated that he watches to make sure they don't jump over the fence when he is walking with his grandchildren. There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Konietzko asked if the comments of the neighbors changes staff's recommendation. Mr. Leeseberg stated that staff still recommended approval,but suggested the Commission could include the north property line, due to the kids waiting for the bus, and the neighbor across the street. Chair Johnson asked if a 6-foot high fence could be required where the entire existing fence is now located without a variance. Mr.Leeseberg stated that a 6-foot fence in the front would not be allowed by city code, and would require a variance,but he would have to check to see if they could condition that as part of the CUP approval. Chair Johnson asked if slats in a chain link fence are allowed by city code. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes,but they would not be effective for complete privacy as the dogs could still see through it. Chair Johnson stated that the complaints have to do with the current dogs. Commissioner Konietzko asked if the approval is for these four specific dogs, or any four dogs. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the approval is for any four dogs. Chair Johnson stated that the fencing requirement would be beneficial for both the neighbors and for the dogs, especially if there is some tormenting of the dogs by neighboring children.. Commissioner Thiel stated he would support adding privacy features to the existing fence, and requiring that it remain in good repair. Mr. Leeseberg stated that staff usually does not recommend slats due to maintenance issues. Commissioner Larson-Vito asked if condition #10 references the city code regarding dogs running at large. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes, that dogs are not allowed to run around at large anywhere in the city. Commissioner Konietzko stated he supported the requirement for the 6-foot privacy fence. Chair Johnson concurred. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 26,2016 Commissioner Larson-Vito stated she did not see how the CUP could meet Criteria #1, regarding"enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity",without adding the condition #14 for the fence. She stated she would like to see the entire area have a 6-foot privacy fence. She stated that by bringing the fence further into the property, the setbacks could be met. Commissioner Crook asked the applicant what the timeline was for getting the dog. Mr. Sandstrom stated that they had to take the dog right away due to the circumstances. He stated that staff is aware of this and he has been working with Mr. Leeseberg on this process. Commissioner Crook stated he felt the applicant should be given some time to meet the fencing requirement. Mr. Leeseberg stated that technically an applicant has two years to complete all the conditions of a CUP,but that the Planning Commission could include a specific time period for completion of the fence. Discussion of a time limit was discussed. The applicant and Commission agreed on a 6- month time period from council approval to complete the fence. Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Konietzko to recommend approval of the request by Eric Sandstrom for a Conditional Use Permit for a private kennel,with the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall not be recorded until all applicable conditions have been substantially completed. 2. The authorized use shall not begin until the Conditional Use Permit is recorded. 3. If the authorized use ceases for more than six months, the Conditional Use Permit shall expire. 4. The Conditional Use Permit is not a building permit and the applicant must apply for and receive approval of required building and sign permits before construction may begin. 5. The building shall meet all building and fire codes. 6. The private kennel shall be limited to four(4) animals over the age of 6 months. Additional animals will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 7. Animal waste, on or off site, shall be disposed of per City Ordinance Section 10-9. 8. The applicant shall receive a private kennel license from the city. 9. All animals must be licensed and vaccinated. 10. No dogs shall be allowed to run at large as outlined in Section 10-2. 11. No more than two (2) animals per supervisor shall be allowed outside of the fenced in area. 12. All dog waste shall be cleaned up immediately when dogs are off of the subject property. 13. No dogs designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous are allowed to be kept at the kennel and keeping of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog shall be grounds for revocation. 14. A six-foot high privacy fence shall be installed on the east and south property lines,per the City's ordinance,by six months from the date of City Council approval. Motion carried 6-1. Commissioner Thiel opposed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 26,2016 6.2 Todd Plaisted — 1 1555 205th Avenue NW • Interim Use Permit for Composting Site, Case No. IU 16-0I Staff report was presented by Chris Leeseberg. Staff recommended approval of the request with the 10 conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Chair Johnson stated that since this is an existing operation and there have been no problems,he supported a recommendation for approval. Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas to recommend approval of the request by Todd Plaisted for an Interim Use Permit to allow a composting operation at 11555 205d Avenue NW,with the following conditions: 1. The yard waste site use shall terminate ten years from the date of approval or upon the termination of the conditional use permit for mining operations on the property,whichever occurs first. Drainage for on-site functions shall be as shown on the submitted site plan. 2. Only yard waste and no other types of solid waste shall be accepted. 3. The yard waste site shall be located no closer than 300 feet from any residentially used property as measured from the edge of the nearest compost pile to the nearest residentially used property. 4. The yard waste site shall be enclosed by fencing or shall limit vehicular and pedestrian access through the use of berms,trees or other means. 5. The site shall be maintained cleanly,including the immediate removal of waste materials deposited on or near the site which cannot be composted 6. No connection to Proctor Road shall be permitted. 7. Hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Saturday between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 8. The sale of product shall be limited to wholesale distributors. 9. All equipment shall be located as to reduce dust to adjacent properties. 10. The piling, storing, or keeping of old machinery, equipment, junk, debris, or abandoned motor vehicles, shall be prohibited on this site. Motion carried 7-0. 6.3 Midwest Asphalt— 12168 221' Avenue NW • Conditional Use Permit for Mineral Excavation, Case No. CU 16-10 The staff report was presented by Chris Leeseberg. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 26,2016 Commissioner Nicholas stated that the smell of an asphalt plant carries a long way and asked if staff had any concerns. Peter Umland, representative for Midwest Asphalt—stated that the operation is portable and is not a full time operation,but job-specific. He stated that they will operate within the MPCA?recommendations for controlling odor. Mr. Leeseberg noted that there is another full-time operation asphalt plant in close proximity to this proposed use. Commissioner Feinstein asked if there were any types of collection systems used to reduce odors. Mr. Umland explained. There being no further comments, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein to recommend approval of the request by Midwest Asphalt for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Mineral Excavation and to expand their operation to include the ability to operate a portable hot mix asphalt plant and a portable aggregate wash plant,with the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall not be recorded until all applicable conditions have been completed. 2. The expanded operations (portable hot mix asphalt plant and portable aggregate wash plant) shall not begin until the Conditional Use Permit is recorded 3. If the authorized use ceases for more than six months, the Conditional Use Permit shall expire. 4. The Conditional Use Permit is not a building permit and the applicant must apply for and receive approval of required building and sign permits before construction may begin. 5. Facilities shall meet all building and fire codes. 6. An updated MPCA Air Emissions Permit or written notice by the MPCA that an updated permit is not required for the addition of the hot-mix asphalt plant must be submitted for review. 7. Odor from the hot-mix operation must be controlled. If weather conditions make odor noticeable, the percentage of recycled asphalt must be reduced. If odor problems cannot be resolved by the Operator, the Planning Commission for the city shall review the situation with a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not the operation of the hot-mix asphalt plant shall be allowed to continue. 8. All conditions outlined in the approval for Conditional Use Permit CU 06-04, approved by the Elk River City Council on April 17,2006, (recorded document number 621697) shall be maintained. Motion carried 7-0. 6.4 Paxmar— Outlot D, River Park; Outlots B and D, River Park Second Addition Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 26,2016 • Conditional Use Permit to establish Planned Unit Development— Case No. CU 16-02 • Preliminary Plat Approval — Miske Meadows, Case No. P 16-02 The staff report was presented by Chris Leeseberg. Staff recommended approval of the request with the 17 conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Johnson asked if architectural design standards will be required. Mr. Leeseberg stated, yes, standards will be included in the developer agreement. He noted that the potential for driveway"creep"will also be addressed. He provided photos of what has happened in other developments with smaller lot widths. He stated that staff has no objection to the driveway widths increasing once beyond the property line,but not at the street. Mr. Leeseberg stated that staff's intent for conditions regarding distance between driveways is to provide adequate street parking. Commissioner Larson-Vito asked when the traffic studies mentioned in the staff report were conducted. Mr. Leeseberg stated they were dated 2003 and 2011. Discussion followed regarding the street width and requirements for snowplowing, emergency vehicles,and garbage trucks. Mr. Leeseberg noted that the city's winter ordinance requires that vehicles be moved from the street after a significant snowfall. Before opening the public hearing, Chair Johnson reviewed issues of concern that the Commission received at the March Planning Commission public hearing on this matter, including: intersection of Lincoln Street and the County Road being dangerous,narrow streets and lots,impact on the characteristics of the existing neighborhoods,impacts on property values,and the connection of Lincoln Street and the proposed development. He asked that only new issues be brought up during the public hearing, since the identified comments were thoroughly covered. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Pat Voltzke, 19172 Kennedy Street NW—stated she has lived at this location since 1988. She stated she did not feel the traffic counts were accurate and are much higher. She stated there have been 29 accidents on Twin Lakes Road between 181'Avenue and 201'Avenue in a one-year period. She questioned how this many additional residents from the proposed development can be approved without doing another traffic study. She stated that opening an access from the development to Sunset Ridge would ruin it. Ms.Voltzke stated that the site lines on Kennedy at the County Road were just as bad as they are at Lincoln Street. Kevin Ford, 19138 Lincoln Street NW—stated that the reason he purchase his home moved his family to Sunset Ridge was because of the large 2 '/a - 3 acre rural lots. Denis Roberts, 19203 Lincoln Street NW—stated he felt there was a huge disconnect in the traffic study and did not understand how the counts could be right. He stated that with the increased activity of joggers and bikers, a speed reduction on the County Road was needed for safety. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 26,2016 Berton Bongard, 19040 Lincoln Street NW—asked that the Commission reconsider pushing traffic through the Sunset Ridge development, since there were already a lot of accidents at the County Road. Karl Voltzke, 19172 Kennedy Street NW—Asked when the road connections to the development would be made. Mr.Leeseberg explained. Mr.Voltzke asked how the road connections would be made when the applicant does not own the property in the "white area". He also questioned the type of traffic study that was done, and the accuracy of the study. Mr. Leeseberg stated that an Annual Average Daily Traffic study was completed by MnDOT. Alan Roessler, Paxmar—Addressed the conditions recommended by staff as follows: Conditional Use Permit • #3—remove language"and maintain all exterior building coverings." • #4—add"at the curb" after"20 foot driveway widths" and removed language"all parcels below 65 feet wide";add language"for the parcels on the west side of Edison Street." • #7—remove requirement for B618 curbing for lot sizes greater than 70 feet. • #11 —revise to require 2 trees per lot and 3 trees on corner lots. • #12 & #13—insert"or builder" after"to be installed by developer". • #14& #15—remove requirement that homeowners association be required to maintain the trails. • Snowplowing should not be an issue, since the street width is standard. Preliminary Plat • #3—remove "one foot wider than the front and sides of the building and 12" and add"20" after"shall be platted on a parcel" Don Jensen,Paxmar—stated that Paxmar now owns the "white area"(property) shown on the site plan, and they will go through the process of platting the property. He stated that the necessary connections required by staff will be provided. He stated that Paxmar does not need the connection to the west;this is a recommendation by staff. Mr.Jensen stated that they will provide a paved trail connection for residential access to services,as well as use by the general public,but questioned the recommendation for the HOA to maintain it. He stated that the trail to the south recommended by the Parks and Recreation may not be feasible due to the slopes,but that will need to be determined at some point in the future. Mr. Roessler discussed the access to the east, stating that it may not be possible depending upon the paving schedules in October. Mr.Jensen discussed the difference in product lines and impacts on where the driveway openings are located. He did not feel there would be a driveway"creep"issue and explained why. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 April 26,2016 Mr.Jensen asked that there be no condition to require a traffic study for this project, since the 2004 EAW took into account the platting of this area. He stated that he felt a traffic study should be conducted by the city at the direction of the City Council. Greg Lien,19147 Lincoln Street NW—asked what the primary construction traffic path will be, and what the builders will be told. He felt there is a substantial decrease in the 75- foot lots and an increase in the smaller lots. Mr.Jensen reviewed the changes made in the lots. He stated that construction deliveries will be asked to use the existing access,but they will use the southerly road when it becomes available. Mr.Jensen stated that they would not be using the road through the Sunset Ridge area, even if the road connection was required by staff. Mr. Lien asked what happened to the city's plans to build a fire station out in this area. Mr. Leeseberg stated that he was not aware of any recent discussion to build a fire station at this time. Commissioner Larson-Vito stated that she did not feel there would be any problem with fire coverage for the additional homes. Mr. Lien stated that the former fire chief wanted a fire station in this area, due to the increase in residents and adding the school. Commissioner Larson-Vito asked if the applicant would have an issue with a traffic study being required before phase 3 begins, and if that would prevent them from starting the project. Mr.Jensen said he again would ask the Planning Commission recommend the city do a traffic study. He stated that if a traffic study were required before this project could begin,it would kill anything from happening this year. Kim Thiry, 19031 Lincoln Street NW—asked why mailings were not provided for this meeting, since she understood they would receive notice of all future developments. She asked why there could not be an access to the north off the county road,and cul-de-sac either Kennedy or Lincoln Street. She asked why the developer would not connect there to provide a straight access to the county road. Chair Johnson stated he was not in favor of a connection with the Sunset Ridge development. He questioned how a traffic study could be tied to a phase,when no one is sure when a particular phase would happen. Mr.Jensen explained how it would be difficult to tie a study to a particular phase, and would make more sense to tie it to a number of homes being built. Chair Johnson stated he felt a traffic study is something the city needs to take on. Commissioner Larson-Vito stated that all aspects of the plan need to be looked at and traffic is one of the issues. Commissioner Larson-Vito suggested adding to condition #3 that driveway"creep"be addressed by the homeowners association. She stated she was in favor of not requiring any Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 26,2016 insurmountable curb. Discussion followed regarding insurmountable curbing and driveway creep. Mr. Leeseberg noted that the city does not enforcement homeowners association covenants. Commissioner Larson-Vito stated she does not like insurmountable curbing in this type of development, due to the difficulty it can cause maneuvering around another vehicle, trash cans, etc. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the street department has expressed their support for the insurmountable curbs in regards to snowplowing and street cleanup. Chair Johnson reviewed each of the recommended changes by the applicant to the conditions for the CUP and Preliminary Plat, and the Planning Commission's recommendations on each of those proposed changes. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a condition be added to the Preliminary Plat that a trail be installed between Sunset Ridge and the proposed development with a breakaway barrier for emergency services only,with maintenance of the trail to be determined by the City Council. Commissioner Crook stated the city needs to take the traffic concerns very seriously and he wanted to make sure the City Council is aware that something needs to be done. Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Larson-Vito to recommend approval of the request by Paxmar for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Planned Unit Development named Miske Meadows,with the following conditions: 1. A PUD agreement shall be developed and signed by both parties prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Parcels below 65 feet in width shall be included in a single homeowners association. 3. The homeowners association shall maintain all turf and landscape areas,remove snow from all driveway and sidewalk areas. 4. Staff approval of an updated site plan identifying 20 foot driveway widths at the curb for all parcels, and maintaining a minimum of 42 feet between every other driveway for the parcels on the west side of Edison Street. Dimensions shall be included on final development plan. 5. Submit a copy of the homeowners association bylaws 6. Driveway widths for all detached townhome lots below 65 feet wide shall not exceed 20 feet when measured at the curb line. 7. All curbs within the development for lots less than 65 feet in width shall be barrier type B618 curbing. Curb cuts will be staked out per the approved development plan, and future changes must be approved by staff. 8. All mailboxes shall be clustered. 9. All mailboxes and public utilities with parking restrictions shall be located in a manor to reduce parking impacts. The facilities must be identified on the development plan, and approved by staff. 10. Staff approval of a standard landscape plan for all lots within the development. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 April 26,2016 11. Identify one shade tree and one ornamental tree pet interior lot and two shade trees and one ornamental tree pet corner lot 12. Identify one shade tree every 30 feet on a line generally 20 feet behind all detached townhomes for the association maintained space between Fillmore and Edison Streets, to be installed by the developer or builder and maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners association. 13. Identify one shade tree every 30 feet on a line generally ten feet from the rear property line of the common lot for all detached townhomes along Ivanhoe Drive, to be installed by the developer or builder and maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners association. 14. Addition of a bituminous trail connecting Johnson Street with Ivanhoe Drive south side of the identified stormwater basin and green space, to be constructed by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners association. 15. Addition of a bituminous trail connecting Fillmore and Edison Streets within the identified access easement and generally north of the detached townhome lots, to be constructed by the developer and maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners association. 16. Staff approval of an updated drainage and utility plans and calculations based on the site plans dated April 19,2016. 17. Staff approval of all required plans based on the site plan dated April 19,2016. Motion carried 7-0. Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas to recommend approval of the request by Paxmar for Preliminary Plat Approval for Miske Meadows,with the following conditions: 1. Development agreement shall be signed, outlining costs and responsibilities to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 2. All required wetland and grading permits must be obtained prior to commencing work on the site. 3. Parcels below 65 feet in width shall be platted on a parcel 20 feet from the rear of the building. The remaining land between buildings and right-of-way shall be platted into a single parcel under common ownership of the homeowners association 4. Lincoln street shall not be connected to the development but platting a full right-of-way width for a future connection if needed. The applicant shall install a trail with a breakaway barrier for emergency services only,with maintenance of the trail to be determined by the City Council. Motion carried 7-0. 6.5 City of Elk River - Ordinance Amendment relating to Wall Signage in the Mixed Use Elk River Plaza Zoning District, Case No. OA 16-04 The staff report was presented by Chris Leeseberg. Staff recommended approval of the request as presented. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 April 26,2016 Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment,Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Crook to recommend approval of the request by the City of Elk River Elk River for an Ordinance Amendment relating to wall signage. Motion carried 7-0. 7. General Business There was no general business. 8.1 City Council Liaison Update Councilmember Burandt provided an update on planning items addressed at the April 18, 2016, City Council meeting. 9. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Minutes prepared by Debbie Huebner. Tina Allard City Clerk Eric Johnson Chair Planning Commission