Loading...
09-15-2009 PC MINSPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 Members Present: Chair Scott, Commissioners Anderson, Bell, Ives, Johnson, Lemke and Westberg Members Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager JeremyBarnhart; Planner/Park Planner Chris Leeseberg, and Recording Secretary Debbie Huebner Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Conunission was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Chair Scott. 2. Consider 9/ 15/09 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WESTBERG AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3. Consider 09/11/09 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTBERG AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend September 21, 2009 City Council Meeting Commissioner Anderson stated he could attend the September 21, 2009 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request bYJohn Fahevfor a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Kennel, Case No. CU 09-18 -Public Hearine Staff report presented by Chris Leeseberg. He stated that the applicant currently has three dogs, three cats and 12 puppies, and requests a conditional use permit for 15 - 20 animals. He noted that a previous conditional use permit for the property for 15 horses has lapsed. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed details of the proposed kennel conditional use pernut. He noted that the kennel license addresses shelter, food supplies, waste disposal, noise, care and supervision, Staff recommends approval of the request with the 8 conditions listed in the staff report, including a limit of fifteen animals over the age of six months. Commissioner Ives asked if the applicant must provide proof of insurance. Mr. Leeseberg stated that he could check and it maybe part of the kennel license. Mr. Barnhart noted that insurance is not required as part of a conditional use permit. He also noted receipt of Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 11, 2009 --------------------------- written comments from Larry and RoxyBrown, 10030 213 Avenue, expressing concern with the potential for barking dogs and aggressive behavior of dogs. Chair Scott opened the public hearing. Dennis Drews, 21200 Jarvis Street - stated he questioned how the applicant will be able to give that number of dogs enough attention to keep them from barking. He stated that the dogs that the applicant has currently are confined most of the time. Donna Goskey, 9830 213te Avenue -stated that she already hears dogs barking at night. She stated her concern of the impact of the kennel on selling her property. She felt the homes are too close together to be operating a commercial kennel in the neighborhood John Fahey, applicant - stated that if the dogs need to go out, they are only out for about fifteen minutes, and are not left out overnight. He stated that he also hears dogs barking around the area, and that these are not his dogs. He stated that the animals will be kept inside except for waste and for playtime. John Marben, 9719 213 Avenue - stated he lives across the street from the applicant and does hear dogs barking from time to time. He stated that he felt the number of dogs being proposed, being so close to neighbors could cause problems. He stated his concern was noise potential There being no further comment, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ives asked if it was true there have been no previous complaints. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes, that was correct. Chair Scott stated that there have been a number of kennel licenses issued, and he was not aware of any issues. He stated that if there are problems, they can be addressed through the conditional use permit or kennel license. Mr. Barnhart stated that the barking issue can be debated, but that the request will go to the City Council for final approval. He noted that the public will be able to comment at this meeting also. Discussion followed regarding the number of dogs and need for a kennel license. Commissioner Lemke asked if the kennel was for personal use only. Mr. Leeseberg referred the Commission to the applicant's narrative. Mr. Barnhart stated that the applicant applied for a commercial kennel He explained that the commercial kennel language is drafted so that boarding could be an option for the applicant. He stated that the Plaruung Commission and City Council could impose additional conditions if they felt there was a need Commissioner Westberg stated that he did not see a problem with the conditional use permit criteria items 2 - 7 ,but questioned no. 1 which references impacts on adjacent properties. He suggested adding a condition for noise, especially at night. He noted that such a condition would be left to the neighbors and police department to enforce. He proposed a 9th condition to limit barking to 15 minutes. Commissioner Ives stated that the city alreadyhas a noise ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission should address the written comments which were submitted regarding barking and aggressive dogs. Mr. Barnhart stated that the city also has an ordinance in place to address aggressive dogs. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 11, 2009 Commissioner Anderson concurred with Commissioner Westberg and therefore, the application does not meet all the criteria for granting the conditional use permit. Commissioner Bell stated that the properrywas granted a conditional use permit for 15 horses which would have created more waste than 15 dogs. Chair Scott noted that the CLIP for horses was a different owner and that permit has since expired. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the nuisance ordinance does not have a time limit on barking. He also noted that having more than three dogs triggers the need for a kennel license. Commissioner Lemke stated he was not in favor of adding a 9th condition for a time limit on barking, due to the fact it would be hard to enforce. He stated he was generallyin favor of the request, but felt 15 dogs maybe too many. Commissioner Ives stated that the applicant has stated he would be breeding dogs, and since puppies under the age of six months are not included in the max;mum number allowed by ordinance, the number of adult dogs could likely be dropped to five. Commissioner Anderson stated that he could see a potential for the applicant to go over the limit, if he did not find buyers for all the puppies before theyreached six months in age, and enforcement would be a problem. Commissioner Westberg stated that one barking dog could be as annoying as fifteen. Mr. Fahey, applicant, stated that the reason he was requesting fifteen is because the health guarantee theyprovide states that if a buyer is not satisfied, the puppies cannot go to a shelter and must be returned to them. Mr. Fahey stated that he would be willing to place bark collars on all of the dogs. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY JOHN FAHEY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL KENNEL, CASE NO. CU 09-18. The motion died. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER IVES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR ALL REQUIRE PERMITS. 2. THE COMMERCIAL KENNEL SHALL BE LIMITED TO TEN (10) ANIMALS OVER THE AGE OF 6 MONTHS. ADDITIONAL ANIMALS WILL REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 3. ANIMAL WASTE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PER SECTION 10-9. 4. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. 5. ALL ANIMALS MUST BE LICENSED AND VACCINATED. 6. ALL ANIMALS SHALL BE ON A SIX (6) FOOT OR SHORTER LEASH WHEN OUTSIDE OF THE KENNEL. 7. NO MORE THAN TWO (2) ANIMALS PER SUPERVISOR SHALL BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE OF THE KENNEL. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 11, 2009 --------------------------- 8. ALL DOG WASTE SHALL BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY WHEN DOGS ARE OFF OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 9. DOGS ARE REQUIRED TO WEAR BARK COLLARS WHEN OUTDOORS. The motion died. Corrunissioner Lemke stated that he did not support a condition requiring bark collars, since the city has an existing ordinance in place to cover this issue. MOTION BY IVES, SECONDED BY WESTBERG TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY JOHN FAHEY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL KENNEL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR ALL REQUIRE PERMITS. 2. THE COMMERCIAL KENNEL SHALL BE LIMITED TO TEN (10) ANIMALS OVER THE AGE OF 6 MONTHS. ADDITIONAL ANIMALS WILL REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 3. ANIMAL WASTE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PER SECTION 10-9. 4. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. 5. ALL ANIMALS MUST BE LICENSED AND VACCIl~'ATED. 6. ALL ANIMALS SHALL BE ON A SIX (6) FOOT OR SHORTER LEASH WHEN OUTSIDE OF THE KENNEL. 7. NO MORE THAN TWO (2) ANIMALS PER SUPERVISOR SHALL BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE OF THE KENNEL. 8. ALL DOG WASTE SHALL BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY WHEN DOGS ARE OFF OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED 5-2. Chair Scott and Commissioner Anderson opposed. 5.2. Request byD ,Development Corp. for a Conditional Use Permit to Amend PUD Agreement for Elk River Station, and Site Plan Approval for Apartment BuildingyCase No.'s CU 09-20 and SP 09-03 -Public Hearir~ The staff report was presented byJeremyBarnhart. He reviewed the proposed changes in the number of units from 60 to 53, and the reduction in the number of parking spaces. Staff recommended approval of the PUD amendment and the site plan with the seven conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Stevens opened the public hearing. John Duffy, applicant -stated he was present to answer questions. Kodi Church, 17118 Olson Street -stated she owns a unit at Woods at Elk River Station and is also president of the homeowner's association board She presented the homeowner's concerns regarding the following issues: • Original developer stated that the apartments would be occupied by young professionals, renting for $1,000 amonth -The current development proposes rental Planning Conunission Minutes Page 5 August 11, 2009 --------------------------- fees between $630 - $830 per month. She stated there are no amenities available for families such as daycare, coffee shops, or other shops within walldng distance. • Parking- All parking areas are already congested. Current residents are parking boats and trailers. Residents felt that parking is inadequate; they are concerned with parking on public streets and spilling into their guest spaces. Even with the train station, residents will still have cars and need a place to park them • Screening of the parking lot -Concern was expressed that the residents to the east of the parking area would be impacted by headlights from vehicles. • Pets -Homeowner's association currentlypays to have animal waste picked up. Concern was raised that apartment owners would use their sidewalks to walk their pets and the additional waste pickup with be at the expense of the homeowners association. • Cut-through traffic -The residents were concerned that traffic would cut through their neighborhood streets, since it is not possible to make a left turn out of the development onto Twin Lakes Road. She stated that this is already an issue. • Use of their amenities by apartment residents -Homeowners pay for maintenance of sidewalks, pond and park They did not feel the tot lot proposed bythe developer was adequate and that the apartment residents' children would use their park. They suggested that since it will be difficult to monitor who is using the park, the city should consider making it a citypark and taking over the maintenance. • Drainage easement -There was discussion of the need for an easement on the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Barnhart stated that easements are not proposed. • Storm water pond "bounces" -The residents raised a concern that with increased development, their storm water pond in the center of the development `bounces' during periods of heavy rain. This bounce erodes the sides of the basin creating a maintenance issue for the association, as well as creating an odor. Mr. Barnhart explained that that the pond functions as it is designed. It is intended to fluctuate during these events before discharging to the wetland complex beyond. 'This bounce will likely get more pronounced as development continues and is unavoidable. Paul Prather, 17155 Quincy St, Unit #311 of Pullman Place -expressed the following concerns: • Traffic congestion/parking -Stated they are concerned about traffic on Twin Lakes Road with the opening of the Nonhstar commuter rail station. Mr. Prather stated there already is congestion with the Pullman Place and The Woods traffic. He questioned how they could keep people from using their neighborhood to access Twrn Lakes Road. He asked if the intersection of 171St Avenue and Twin Lakes Road would be signalized. Mr. Barnhart stated there are no plans or funding in place at this time. He noted that the city is looking at the traffic issues in this area. • Public Hearing - Manyresidents were upset that theyweren't allowed to comment on the previous site plan submittal prepared byRoger Fink last year. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 11, 2009 --------------------------- • Tot lot -The residents were concerned that the children from the apartments would use their park, as they grew too old for the apartment-provided tot lot. • Storage of dirt -Residents were concerned with the previous developer's plan to store dirt and sand during the construction of the building without consent of the property owner. • Income requirements - Mr. Prather stated are concerned that the apartments may have more adults per apartment than originally anticipated Greg Arndt, 10585 172~d Lane -expressed his concern with increased traffic. He stated the area is already congested. John Duffy, applicant - Responded with the following comments: • Income requirements -The previously discussed $1,000/month rents were condition of a proposal for tax increment financing, which was not approved The previous developer could not find a market for $1,300 - $1,400/month renters. Mr. Duffystated that 80 percent of the people in Elk River could not afford that type of rent and those that could, would generally buy their own home. • Parking -The parking is actually being increased from 2.25 spaces per unit to 2.34, with proof of parking. He stated most renters would have only 1 car, and families may have two. • Screening of the parking lot - Mr. Duffy stated he is proposing to make the "proof of parking" area green space, so it could be landscaped to reduce impacts on the adjacent homes. • Underground parking -this traffic will exit to the south, reducing impacts on residents compared to the previous plan. • Tot lot - He stated that the majority of residents with young children usually stay only two years and felt the tot lot was adequate. He has found that bythe time the children are school age, they will have moved on into a home. He noted that the Park Commission and City Council required a cash donation as part of the plat, and that the development plan does not show a park in the property. • Pets -There will beano pets policy. • Intersection of 171St and Twin Lakes Road - He stated he would like to see a plan to improve the intersection. He has concerns with the intersection when the commuter rail begins operation. • Sidewalk/trail along Twin Lakes Road -These improvements will be installed at his expense. • Drainage/easement issue - Mr. Duffy explained how the drainage and ponding would function, stating that there is no need for an easement. He noted that this plan was approved on August 10th. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 11, 2009 --------------------------- • Pullman Place - Mr. Duffy stated this development was beautiful, extremelywell- designed, and is a shining example of how to do things right. • Public hearing - He stated he could not comment on why notices were not received for the previous proposal. • Storage of din/sand -This was proposed bythe previous developer and is not part of their plans. • Screening of tenants - Mr. Duffystated their criteria will be extremelytight in screening future tenants including income, past rental history, etc. He stated theywill have on-site management. Mr. Duffy stated that he spent quite a bit of time researching this project and that a detailed market study indicated this area as having a high need for more rental units. He stated that Elk River's population has increased 75 percent in the past ten years and that the Lions Park Apartment complex is the only one with vacancies. He felt the project was ideal for working families, in that they could get by with only one car by utilizing the rail station. Commissioner Lemke questioned who Mr. Duffy spoke with about plans for the intersection. Mr. Barnhart stated that city has heard a number of concerns relative to traffic in this area and is reviewing the problem; however, the solution is not likelyto be additional median breaks on Twin Lakes. There are several concerns with this type of solution, including an additional intersection may decrease safety due to sight lines (for both this parcel, and future development on the west); Twin Lakes Road is expected to, at some level, be a major "spine" for this area of the community lir~ng the residential and industrial areas with limited intersections on Highway 10. He noted that three commercial units have been planned for this development, as well. Commissioner Lemke asked if there is a plan, as Mr. Duffysuggested. Mr. Barnhart stated that he was not aware of anyplan for a curb cut and signalization of this intersection, and there are no funds available to payfor it. There being no further public comments, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bell asked if Mr. Duffy's request was not approved, would he be able to build the 60 units as originally approved. Mr. Barnhart stated yes, he would be able to build the 60 units with the previous plan, if the new plan is not approved. He noted that if a new plan is approved, the previous plan would "go away". Commissioner Westberg stated that he did not believe any one disagrees there is a traffic problem. Discussion followed regarding options for screening the parking lot. It was the consensus to recommend that screening be provided in the SE corner of apartment site to protect against this light intrusion. Commissioner Anderson asked if anything could be done about the pond issue. Mr. Barnhart stated that the drainage functions as it was supposed to function. He suggested that if the property owners would like the pond to function as an amenity, they could visit with an engineering firm for options to improve the visual impact and odor issues. Comnssioner Ives asked for clarification on the parking ratio. Mr. Barnhart explained that Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 11, 2009 --------------------------- The original plat indicated 135 spaces for 60 units, a ratio of 2.25 spaces per unit. With proof of parking proposed, the applicant provides 2.34 spaces per unit. Without proof of parking, the applicant improves 2.02 spaces per unit or 107 spaces. Staff supports accepting the proof of parking and that if it is needed, the citywill require it to be built. Commissioner Westberg asked if the apartment building was part of the original PUD. Mr. Barnhart stated yes. Discussion followed regarding access on private streets and sidewalks. Ms. Church stated that residents were concerned that apartment residents would cut through their private streets to get to the full intersection at 171St. A concern was also raised that apartment residents would use association sidewalks, which the association pays to maintain. Mr. Barnhart noted that some cut through traffic is unavoidable, since some of the streets are public. Discussion followed regarding use of the private park Ms. Church stated they could prohibit someone from using the park if an adult drove to the park area and they were clearly not a resident; the residents could tell them it was a private park She stated it would not be appropriate to approach a child and ask them if they lived there. The question was raised why a public hearing was not held on the previous application. Mr. Barnhart explained that the request was not a conditional use permit. He explained how the property owners list was obtained MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY DUFFY DEVELOPMENT CORP. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ELK RIVER STATION, ALLOWING 53 UNITS AND PARKING RATIO AT 2.32 SPACES PER UNIT. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BELL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FORA 53-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, AS ILLUSTRATED ON THE DRAWINGS DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2009, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER'S MEMOS DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 AND MARCH 10, 2008 SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 2. ALL COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIAN MEMO DATED MARCH 4, 2008 SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE FIRE CODES. THE FIRE CHIEF SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HYDRANTS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS. 4. A NPDES PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 5. A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPE, AND TRAIL INSTALLATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION PER SECTION 30-604(B). Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2009 Page 9 6. NO BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED UNTIL THE PLAT IS RECORDED. 7. LANDSCAPING PLAN BE AMENDED TO INCORPORATE NATNE PLANTINGS ALONG THE WETLAND AND A RAIN GARDEN TO MANAGEMENT STORM WATER RUN OFF PRIOR TO ENTERING THE WETLAND. 8. STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ON PROVIDING PARKING LOT SCREENING TO PROTECT THE TOWNHOME BUILDINGS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE LOT. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.3. Request bvLeFebvre Properties LLP for Interim Use Permit, Amending Previous IUP for Temporary Office, Case No. CU 09-21 -Public Hearing Staff report presented byJeremyBarnhart. He stated that the request is fora 3-year extension of LeFebvre Properties' original Interim Use Permit (IUP). Staff recommends approval with the three conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Scott opened the public hearing. Bob Strong, representative for LeFebvre -stated that due to the economic turndown, they are unsure of their future plans. He stated that they are concerned about the impact of the light rail on their business. Mr. Strong stated that the gates are down for quite some time when the light rail comes through. There being no public comment, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. MOTION BY LEMKE, SECONDED BY ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY LEFEBVRE PROPERTIES LLP FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY OFFICE USE PER THE SITE PLAN DATED JULY 7, 2006, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 2012. 2. ALL FIRE AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 3. IF THE APPLICANT DESIRES THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO BE EXTENDED BEYOND DATE ABOVE, THE CUP SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.4. Request b~tv of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment Relating to Wind Turbines Case No. OA 09-04 -Public Hearine Staff report presented byMr. Barnhart. He reviewed keypoints of the proposed ordinance amendment. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 11, 2009 --------------------------- CommissionerIves asked who pays for removal of abandoned towels. Mr. Barnhart stated that removal would be the responsibility of the property owner. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Utility Commission has reviewed the proposed ordinance. Mr. Barnhart stated that Elk River Municipal Utilities staff has provided input which is reflected in the ordinance language. He noted that the Lilities Commission will be reviewing the drift ordinance on Wednesday, September 16=h and their comments will be provided to the City Council Chair Scott opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTBERG, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO WIND TURBINES, CASE NO. OA 04-04. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 6. 1. FAST Studv Mr. Barnhart stated that the 1715L Focused Area Study discussions will resume on September 28, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Anderson noted that the City Council will be taking action on the Waste Management application at the September 21, 2009 meeting. 7. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commssion adjourned at 9: p.m. Minutes pre~ared by e bie Huebner w ,, Tina Allard City Clerk Kevin Scott Planning Commission Chair