Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 <br />August 11, 2009 <br />--------------------------- <br />• Pullman Place - Mr. Duffy stated this development was beautiful, extremelywell- <br />designed, and is a shining example of how to do things right. <br />• Public hearing - He stated he could not comment on why notices were not received for <br />the previous proposal. <br />• Storage of din/sand -This was proposed bythe previous developer and is not part of <br />their plans. <br />• Screening of tenants - Mr. Duffystated their criteria will be extremelytight in screening <br />future tenants including income, past rental history, etc. He stated theywill have on-site <br />management. <br />Mr. Duffy stated that he spent quite a bit of time researching this project and that a detailed <br />market study indicated this area as having a high need for more rental units. He stated that <br />Elk River's population has increased 75 percent in the past ten years and that the Lions Park <br />Apartment complex is the only one with vacancies. He felt the project was ideal for working <br />families, in that they could get by with only one car by utilizing the rail station. <br />Commissioner Lemke questioned who Mr. Duffy spoke with about plans for the <br />intersection. Mr. Barnhart stated that city has heard a number of concerns relative to traffic <br />in this area and is reviewing the problem; however, the solution is not likelyto be additional <br />median breaks on Twin Lakes. There are several concerns with this type of solution, <br />including an additional intersection may decrease safety due to sight lines (for both this <br />parcel, and future development on the west); Twin Lakes Road is expected to, at some level, <br />be a major "spine" for this area of the community lir~ng the residential and industrial areas <br />with limited intersections on Highway 10. He noted that three commercial units have been <br />planned for this development, as well. Commissioner Lemke asked if there is a plan, as Mr. <br />Duffysuggested. Mr. Barnhart stated that he was not aware of anyplan for a curb cut and <br />signalization of this intersection, and there are no funds available to payfor it. <br />There being no further public comments, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Bell asked if Mr. Duffy's request was not approved, would he be able to build <br />the 60 units as originally approved. Mr. Barnhart stated yes, he would be able to build the 60 <br />units with the previous plan, if the new plan is not approved. He noted that if a new plan is <br />approved, the previous plan would "go away". <br />Commissioner Westberg stated that he did not believe any one disagrees there is a traffic <br />problem. <br />Discussion followed regarding options for screening the parking lot. It was the consensus to <br />recommend that screening be provided in the SE corner of apartment site to protect against <br />this light intrusion. <br />Commissioner Anderson asked if anything could be done about the pond issue. Mr. <br />Barnhart stated that the drainage functions as it was supposed to function. He suggested <br />that if the property owners would like the pond to function as an amenity, they could visit <br />with an engineering firm for options to improve the visual impact and odor issues. <br />Comnssioner Ives asked for clarification on the parking ratio. Mr. Barnhart explained that <br />