5.3. SR 09-21-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with the approved Planned Unit Development approved March 17, 2003, although the building has seven fewer units and there is less parking than normally required. Planning Commission Discussion/Public Comment There was significant public comment at the public hearing September 15. Representatives of Pullman Place and the Woods at Elk River Station spoke on several issues, many of which were shared by the Planning Commission. Public Hearing. Many residents were upset that they weren't allowed to comment on the previous site plan submittal prepared by Roger Fink last year. Further review indicates that a public hearing was not scheduled or held at that time, although required by the Planned Unit Development agreement. To staff's knowledge this is the only subdivision that requires this level of review for permitted uses, and unfortunately that requirement was missed. Staff has sent a letter of apology to the two associations. Parking lot screening. Concerns were voiced about lights from vehicles shining into adjacent living rooms, etc. The Planning Commission recommended that screening be provided in the SE corner of apartment site to protect against this light intrusion. Young professionals. Residents felt they were promised that the apartment would be occupied by young professionals by the original developer and real estate agents. To date, staff has found no evidence of that being a promise presented to the City Council. Additionally, residents voiced concerns that the apartments may have more adults per apartment than originally anticipated. Amount of parking. Residents felt that parking is inadequate; they are concerned with parking on public streets and spilling into their guest spaces. 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. Tot lot. Residents voiced concern that the apartment residents would use their private park as they grew too old for the apartment provided tot lot. It was noted that the Park Commission and City Council required a cash donation as part of the plat. The development plan does not show a park in the property. Pets. Residents were concerned that apartment residents would own dogs and not pick up after them, at great expense to the townhome association. Mr. Duffy noted that there would beano pets policy. Access on private streets/ sidewalks. Residents were concerned that apartment residents would cut through their private streets to get to the full intersection at 1715`. A concern was also raised that apartment residents would use association sidewalks, which the association pays to maintain. It was noted that some cut through traffic is unavoidable. Storm water pond "bounces". 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. It was pointed out 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. S:\PLANNING MAIN\Case Files\CUP\CU 09-20 Depot ER Station-Duffy\Staff report to CC 9-21-09.doc