Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/2010CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Churchill at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann and Paul Scanlan Members Absent: David Schindler Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant City Engineer David Bennett, and Department Assistant Barbara Wolff 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Hearing none she called for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to approve the agenda. The motion carried 6 -0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2010 Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Hearing none she called for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to recommend approval of the minutes of the August 4, 2010, meeting. The motion carried 5 -0. Commissioner Melander abstained. 4. CONSENT ITEMS — NONE -- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2030 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Consistencies a) Consider amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to establish a temporary sand and gravel designation over the existing Fischer Sand and Gravel mining operation. b) Consider rezoning of eleven sites to make them consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designations. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that on January 14, 2010, the Apple Valley City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. The plan guides the City's future growth and development by presenting the long -term vision and goals for the City. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires cities in the metropolitan area to review their official controls within nine months of adoption of their plan update to ensure that the controls are consistent with their newly adopted comprehensive plan. Official controls are the ordinances and rules that implement the objectives of the comprehensive plan and include the zoning and subdivision chapters of the City Code. SAplanningTLANCOMM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810m.doe Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2010 Page 2 of 11 An analysis of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance has been.completed and a few amendments are necessary to make the zoning ordinance consistent with the recently updated 2030 Comprehensive Plan. When the comp plan was recently updated, the temporary sand and gravel overlay designation was inadvertently left out of the plan. The sand and gravel overlay is a temporary land use designation that allows mining activity on properly zoned property in conformance with an approved conditional use permit. The overlay designation states that sand and gravel mining is considered an interim use and that properties currently being mined will eventually be redeveloped in conformance with the underlying land use designation. The temporary sand and gravel overlay designation is needed to allow sand and gravel mining at this time while guiding the long -term development of the property with the underlying land use designation. Bodmer asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission. Hearing none, Chair Churchill opened the hearing to public comment. Sonja Cejvan, 15961 Fennel Court, asked how long the temporary sand and gravel overlay will be in effect Chair Churchill stated that the temporary sand and gravel overlay would be in place until the mining is completed. Ms. Cejvan asked if there was a specific date. Chair Churchill said that the City has been given estimates, but it all depends on how long it takes the sand and gravel mining operation to deplete their reserves. She said the original estimates were quite long, but since then there has been a heavy drain on sand and gravel operations for the airport runway expansion as well as other projects. Bodmer said that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan contemplates that the sand and gravel mining would be completed by 2030. Chair Churchill hearing no further comments closed the public hearing and called for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, to recommend approval of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to allow for the establishment of a temporary sand and gravel overlay district over the 440 acre area located on the southwest corner of County Road 42 and Pilot Knob Road in accordance with the staff report drawings. The motion carried 6 -0 Bodmer continued with the zoning map, stating that the zoning designation on 11 sites was determined to be inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She presented the Comprehensive Plan designation, current zoning designation and proposed new zoning on each of the sites to make them consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Five of the sites are City -owned properties. Other publicly -owned properties include the Palomino Park & Ride, the 157 " Street Transit Station and Falcon Ridge Middle School. Privately -owned properties include Christus Victor Lutheran Church and McNamara Contracting. To date, the City has received objections on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments/rezonings from one of the representatives of the owners of Sites 5 and 6. They are concerned that their property is encumbered with a number of pipeline easements and will be impacted by the dedication of right -of -way for Flagstaff Avenue. The property owners do not believe that the site is suitable for the M -3 zoning designation and are requesting additional time to study the issue in more detail. S_\plaoning\PLANCOMM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810mdoc Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 11 Bodmer asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission. Hearing no comments from the Planning Commission, Chair Churchill opened the hearing to the public. Jonathon Fuglestad, 14440 Flax Way, stated that he does not agree with the proposed M -3 zoning. He recommends R -3 or R -5 zoning because it is a fairly small area. He also said that he is worried about traffic and that multi - family homes will lead to issues. He stated that he prefers single - family homes more than multi- family homes. Bjorn Soderlund, 14184 Flintwood Way, asked if there are future plans for the Central Maintenance Facility or to expand Eastview High School. Bodmer said that there are no plans for change at this time and there are no land use changes or proposals. Louis Bernier, 14352 Footbridge Way, stated that he is concerned with the future expansion of Footbridge Way and the traffic it will bring through the neighborhood. Bodmer clarified that there are no specific plans for road extensions or development at this time. If a development at some time in the future does comes forward, it would require notification of neighbors within 350 ft. for a public hearing at that time. She stated that the items being looked at this evening are just for zoning. Chair Churchill reiterated that this issue is only zoning. If a development does come forward or a road modified, there will be another public hearing to address that particular plat and/or proposal at that time. This hearing is only to address the zoning and the density on that parcel and what is the best use of the land. She thanked the resident for his input and that his concern is noted. Joe McNamara, representing the property owners of sites 5 and 6, gave a brief history on the properties. He stated that it was purchased in 1964 and extended east to Johnny Cake Ridge Road and up to 140`" Street West. In 1994, under threat of condemnation, his father sold the property so that Eastview High School could be built. The business has been empty since 2005. He said as the property owners, they want to sell the property because the taxes are prohibitive and the vandalism on the building is ongoing. There have been no serious offers or interest from home builders. Mr. McNamara said that there are multiple constraints on this property. He said that anyone trying to develop this property would need to immediately put in Flagstaff Avenue, which is a 75 ft. collector street with paths on both sides. The Magellan Pipeline runs right down the middle of the property with setbacks and on the west side along the back side of the homes are utility setbacks. As the property stands now it is 9.6 acres. After the setbacks and Flagstaff Avenue, they're only left with 4.2 acres of land. Mr. McNamara stated that the surrounding area is institutional to the north, Eastview High School to the east, industrial to the south and residential to the west. He said they are in a unique situation surrounded by multiple zonings. He said in 1998 for the 2020 Comp Plan, they notified city staff of concerns with the designation of M -3 zoning and again in 2009 for the 2030 Comp Plan. Also, prior to that in 2007 -2008, they met with city staff when they were anxious to extend Flagstaff Avenue. Again they expressed concern of the M -3 designation. He said he is continuing to talk with staff since receiving the public notice and it is a work in progress. Any proposed zoning with the assessed cost of Flagstaff Avenue makes this property economically prohibitive and very difficult to market and sell in the present economic time. He respectfully asked the Planning Commission to give them more time to consider the zoning. S:Aplanning\PLANCOMM\2010 agenda & minutesA081810m.doo 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 11 Cheryl Cooper, 15578 Finch Avenue, asked for a more specific explanation of the "P" (Park/Open Space) on site 8. Bodmer said that site 8 holds a drainage pond and what is being proposed is to rezone it to institutional. Park and open space is the designation under the Comprehensive Plan and it will not change existing parks. Eventually the Comprehensive Plan does contemplate the Dakota County Regional Trail coming through that area. Chair Churchill asked Bodmer if that area would have additional amenities if the regional trail did come through. Bodmer said it would be expected that the Regatta. Park area expand tying into the regional trail. Ms. Cooper asked if that relates to the trees that are being removed near the gravel pit. Bodmer said that it must be in relation to the gravel mining activity. Ms. Copper asked what will happen to the area once the raining is completed. Bodmer said that they have end -use plans where they will shape the ground and do development and re -use the land. She gave the example of Fischer Marketplace on the east side of Galaxie Avenue as a redeveloped parcel of land which used to be sand and gravel raining. Commissioner Alwin said that site 8 as a drainage pond and drainage easement would be unlikely to change uses in the future. Bodmer said there is a street south of the drainage pond that the City would like to eventually connect to and the drainage pond may be reconfigured a little bit, although that would be part of the overall development. Chair Churchill commented that the City definitely needs a pond in that area so it will remain. Commissioner Diekmann asked Bodmer, in regards to sites 5 and 6, how to convert single - family residential to the multi - family 3 -6 units /acre stated. Bodmer said that the R -3 designation gets 2.5 -3 units /acre when looking at right -of -way dedication. Dennis Cousins, 14007 Flagstone Trail, asked why there are two pieces for the McNamara properties. Bodmer said that there are two individual parcels with different ownerships. Mr. Cousins said that it would be nice if the parcels were developed consistent with Cedar Isles. Chair Churchill hearing no further comments closed the public hearing on all eleven sites and called for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 1, Christus Victor Lutheran Church, from "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience Center) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0. SAplamingTLANCOMM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810m.doe Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 11 MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 2, Palomino Hills Park and Ride, from "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience Center) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0 MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 3, Falcon Ridge Middle School, from "A" (Agriculture) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0. MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 7, Lebanon Cemetery, from "SG" (Sand & Gravel) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0. MOTION Commissioner Dickman moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 8, 160`' Street Drainage Pond, from "A" (Agriculture) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0. MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 9, Quarry Point Park and 157" Street Park & Ride, from "SG" (Sand & Gravel) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0. MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 10, Quarry Point Reservoir, from "SG" (Sand & Gravel) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0. MOTION Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to recommend approval of rezoning of Site 11, Dakota County 157" Street Park & Ride property, from "SG" (Sand & Gravel) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6 -0. Chair Churchill stated that those items will go to the City Council at their next meeting and the Planning Commission will revisit sites 4, 5 and 6 at a future meeting. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist commented that one of the items may require a future public hearing if the proposal and recommendation changes. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Section 155385 Amendments — Consideration of zoning code amendments to the communications tower standards and requirements section for distances from structures and setbacks from property lines for towers with engineered breakpoints. SAplanningTLANCOMM2010 agenda & minute =1810m.doc Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 6 of 11 City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the Planning Commission received a draft of proposed amendments to Section 155.385 of the zoning code, dated August 12, 2010, which deals with the site design and maintenance of the wireless communication towers in the city. This draft has been revised from the original that was presented to the Planning Commission on July 14, 2010, and a revised draft presented to the Commission at its August 4, 2010, meeting. The proposed amendments relate specifically to the setback requirements and design standards for communication towers constructed with an engineered breakpoint. Currently, the code requires towers to be set back a minimum of 1.5 times the fall zone (commonly described as the height of the tower) from the property line; 2 times the fall zone from structures on neighboring properties located in the commercial, industrial, and institutional zoning districts; and 300 feet from neighboring structures in the single and multiple family residential zoning districts. The proposed amendments will define "fall zone" and establish design requirements for towers constructed with breakpoints. Breakpoint technology is the engineering design of a monopole wherein a specified point on the monopole is designed to have stresses concentrated so that the point is more susceptible to failure than any other point along the monopole. Therefore, in the event of a structural failure of the monopole, the failure will occur at the breakpoint rather than at the base plate, anchor bolts, or any other point on the monopole. If failure of the pole were to occur, the section of tower above the breakpoint would collapse upon itself within a smaller fall radius, thus reducing the fall zone. Construction of all telecommunications towers, including towers utilizing breakpoint technology shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the American National Standards Institute/Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSUTIA 222 -G. Information regarding these standards has been provided to the Planning Commission in their packets from Sabre Towers and Poles, a leading manufacturer of guyed wires, self - supporting towers, monopoles and concealment structures. A public hearing was held on July 14, 2010, at which time the Commission requested that staff revisit the ordinance and provide more specificity regarding the location of the breakpoint when defining the fall zone. Staff prepared and submitted a revised draft for the August 4, 2010, meeting that included language, which is shaded and underlined, that addressed the Commission's breakpoint location concern. The draft also included a revision to Section 155.385(B)(3) that struck Uniform Building Code reference and added Minnesota Building Code, which is the current code that the Building Inspections Department enforces. At the August 4, 2010, meeting Mr. Andrew Haldane, a professional engineer with Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc., provided comments regarding the City's current tower ordinance and the proposed amendments. Based upon the information provided by Mr. Haldane, the Commission requested that staff take one more look at the proposed amendments and include language that would address multiple breakpoints and design requirements. These proposed changes, which are also shaded and underlined, are included in the revised draft, dated August 12, 2010. These amendments will continue to provide the protection to adjacent property and structures currently present in the code while allowing for greater flexibility in siting towers on subject properties and providing more co- locating opportunities. Lovelace asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Diekmann asked if the ordinance will require the design of the monopole to be able to include co- location. S:\p1anning\PLANCOMM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810m.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 7 of 11 Lovelace said that the City is not requiring them to build a structure that has to meet qualifications for co- location even though the City does recommend and encourage that. If they came back to the City to request additional arrays, then they would need to be recertified to make sure the tower is structurally sound. Commissioner Diekmann asked if it would come back to the Planning Commission if the conditional use permit was modified by adding additional antennas. Lovelace said in the past the towers have not been required to be modified; that is handled by the building code. City Attorney Sharon Hills said that the code currently requires one co- locate and it does require that the tower be structurally sound in design. She said that the engineer that spoke to the Commission at the previous meeting recommended a change to city code by requiring inspections every time an antenna is added to make sure the design will hold that antenna. She said that the ordinance in front of the Commission tonight is only to provide for a fall zone so that portion could be moved forward to deal with the Galaxie Park application. Staff will get together and look at the entire section for communication towers and take heed of the engineer's suggestions. Commissioner Diekmann said he thought the ordinance would address design and maintenance. Hills said the ordinance tonight is only to provide for a definition of a fall zone and to allow a fall zone that is less than the height of the tower if there is an engineered breakpoint. She said that tower design and co- location will come later. Chair Churchill said the Commission is only addressing Section 155.385, subsections b and e. Commissioner Alwin inquired about the setbacks in context of giving a buffer between uses on adjoining parcels. Lovelace said setbacks provide for error and allow for space to deal with dwelling units or buildings. The setbacks on the tower are to provide should the tower come down for some reason. Commissioner Alwin said that the practical effect is to allow it closer to the property line. Lovelace said yes. Commissioner Alwin clarified that the City is already exceeding the setbacks generally speaking. Lovelace said generally speaking, yes. The City is on the conservative end of the spectrum. Chair Churchill said when the Commission is talking about building a tower within a residential district, the distance from the structure would have to be 350 feet, regardless of where the property line is. Lovelace replied that is correct. Commissioner Scanlan asked if the breakpoint will shift because of the added weight of a co- location. Assistant City Engineer David Bennett said that the engineer that spoke at the previous meeting suggested that the City have a process to review and notify the engineer, that will be adding the antenna, that this technology is there to ensure that when the antennas are added, the breakpoint stays where it is. 8:\planning\PLANCOMM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810m.doc Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 8 of 11 Chair Churchill said that will be an issue to look at when reviewing the other sections of the code as far as co- location and the requirements for adding co- locators. Hills said that is correct. Commissioner Scanlan asked how the diameter of the fall zone is determined. ITAls said that the City can use it as the center point of the pole. Chair Churchill hearing no further items of discussion called for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to recommend approval of the draft amendments to Section 155.385, subsections b and e of the city code as recommended by staff. The motion carried 6 -0. `Chair Churchill commented that this is something the Commission looks at very carefully to balance the City's need to protect park land and the safety of its citizens as well as our objective to stay current with technology and attracting industry. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Dog Day Getaway Sketch Plan — Discussion of the possible relocation of a dog daycare and overnight care operation from its current location in the Apple Valley Industrial Park to 7600 147 Street West (the old Granny's Attic building). Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that the applicant would like a sketch plan review of a text amendment to the "RB" (Retail Business) zoning district to allow a dog daycare facility with an outdoor pet relief area. The RB zoning district allows animal hospitals and clinics when contained within a building, but dog daycare and outdoor pet relief areas are not currently listed as allowable uses. A dog daycare business provides care of dogs during the day, similar to a child's daycare facility. The dog is dropped off for a full day or a few hours and then picked up later in the day. Dog daycare businesses may also provide limited overnight care of animals, grooming services, and special pet events. The dog daycare facility is typically a building with a large open area that allows the, dogs to run and play. Areas may be partitioned off for nap time, grooming or other uses. In 2004, the petitioners opened Dog Day Getaway which provides cage -free day -to -day daycare for dogs at 6950 — 146 Street West. In addition, some overnight care services are provided. The space in which the daycare is located is 6,600 sq. ft. with a maximum capacity of 80 dogs. The site is zoned PD -409 which allows a combination of general commercial and light industrial uses. The petitioners are interested in expanding their business and relocating into the former Granny's Attic building at 7600 — 147 Street West. The property is zoned "RB" (Retail Business) which does not specifically allow dog daycare uses at this time. The limited number of parking spaces available on the site significantly limits the use of the building for retail purposes. Currently there are 45 parking spaces available on -site and through cross - parking easements. City records indicate that the building is 11,000 sq. ft. on two floors, but that retail uses cannot exceed 7,572 square feet to meet the parking requirements. The limited number of parking spaces has made it difficult to S:\p1aming\PLANC0MM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810mdoc Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 9 of 11 keep the building occupied. If the parking calculation for a daycare facility is used for this building, parking requirements would comply with the zoning code. A second challenge related to the building is the fact that the building has two floors. The building inspections department is reviewing the building code related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and whether an elevator would need to be installed in connection with this business. The primary land use issues for animal facilities are the following: • Use similar to others in the RB zone • Traffic generation and parking • Noise (primarily from barking dogs) • Outdoor facilities (runs /play areas /potty areas) • Waste disposal The RB zoning district currently allows daycare centers and animal hospitals and clinics. A dog daycare facility, conducted indoors, would have the same characteristics as daycare centers and animal hospitals /clinics. Outdoor pet relief areas would need to be addressed by the zoning code. Traffic and parking at a dog daycare facility will have the same characteristics as a childcare facility. There will be peak drop -off and pick -up times, with little demand for parking during the day. Noise issues inside and outside a dog daycare facility can be handled in a couple of different ways. Regulations in the RB zoning district could be crafted to state that dog day care operations are only permitted in single tenant buildings and that outdoor play areas are not permitted. Or, outdoor play areas may be allowed, but a certain setback could be required between the outdoor play area and residential properties. Requiring the daycare in a single tenant building ensures that adjacent tenants will not be negatively impacted. Some dog daycare operations have outdoor play areas similar to a child's outdoor playground. Dog kennels typically have outdoor runs for their animals. The main concern related to a kennel facility is noise from barking dogs. Retail business areas have more activity and higher numbers of customers than other zoning districts. The City may wish to limit outdoor activities to outdoor pet relief areas. Waste disposal for kennels inside a building is typically handled through floor drains connected to the sanitary sewer system. However, an indoor waste facility for dogs in a dog daycare setting is not desirable as it contradicts their training to only use the outdoors. Research that was conducted by staff in 2004 found that managing waste from dog daycare facilities is handled in a variety of ways ranging from simply spraying off materials onto adjacent lawns or yard areas to constructing a septic system that is either pumped or drained into a drain field. Waste at the current dog daycare facility on 146 Street is handled through a filtration bed that appears to have successfully managed the waste during the last six years. Environmental staff has raised a concern that the filtration bed method may no longer be a permitted manner of handling waste and that an enclosed system that drains into either a septic tank or the City's sanitary sewer system may be needed. Bodmer asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Chair Churchill asked about the parking. S: \planning\PLANC0MM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810m dm 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 10 of 11 Bodmer said that one of the constraints of this site is limited parking spaces available. She said there is a letter of understanding between the City and the property owner that the occupant can only use approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of the building for retail space, although it has approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of useable retail floor area. If the use was daycare, parking would work on this site, however the zoning amendment would affect all retail business zoning districts. Chair Churchill commented that an outdoor relief area taking up parking spaces would be an issue. Bodmer agreed. Commissioner Diekmann asked how much of the building would be occupied by this use. Bodmer answered the question by stating that another challenge is that it is a two -story building and staff is reviewing whether the building would be required to have an elevator. She said that the city's building official has stated that as long as the public is not using the upstairs area and it is used only for offices or storage, an elevator would not be required. Carey Griffith Edwards, co -owner of Dog Day Getaway, said that their business would be the only occupants and the use of the two levels would be determined by the American Disabilities Act. Commissioner Alwin said that he has concerns with the waste disposal, although he will defer to city staff to resolve. Ms. Edwards said that they've been r their business for six years and the concern at the start was the infiltration system and the pond draining into the Vermillion River. She said the new site does not have a pond to be concerned about, they pick up all the waste, and the urine is completely sterile. She said their plan and ideal goal is to dig up the asphalt and then any water or urine would run directly into the dirt. Nicole Lushine, co -owner of Dog Day Getaway, stated it is the same as the City's dog population do at home and it does not affect the quality of ground water. Ms. Edwards said it will not go into the sewage drains. Commissioner Alwin said that it is a great idea for that building if the waste disposal can be worked out. Commissioner Scanlan asked how many dogs they would have with the increased building size. Ms. Edwards said that they've just begun preliminary plans and don't have numbers yet. Commissioner Scanlan said that he has concerns with dog noise and the ongoing remodeling plans for Times Square. Ms. Lushine reiterated that they've been at their current location for six years and the building contains multiple tenants. She said that they have not had any complaints of noise. On an average day 5% of the dogs use the outdoor space to go to the bathroom and then they come back in. She stated that most of the noise is generated by someone walking by their fence. At the new location they would like to construct the fence in cinder block and make it 8 ft. tall to look like the building and then the dogs would not see people or traffic going by. Also, one of the issues with their current building is that it is not climate controlled. It has heat, but not air conditioning so that the bay doors remain open in the summer to keep air circulating. She stated that the new location is climate controlled so they are thinking of putting up freezer flaps for the dogs S: \plmming\PLANC0MM\2010 agenda & minutes \081810m.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010 Page 11 of 11 to exit and enter. The outdoor relief area would be facing the back of Times Square so there would be no store fronts and no customer traffic. She commented that the traffic noise on 147' Street West would be louder than the dogs. Commissioner Melander said that he is happy to see that their business has done well and would love to see a growing useful business in the new location. He said that he supports their move. Commissioner Burke echoed Commissioner Melander's comments Commissioner Scanlan commented that he did drive by their facility that day and he did not hear any noise. Ms. Lushme said that they had 60+ dogs today in the facility. Chair Churchill said that she would never know the business was there except for the sign. She told the petitioners as long as they can work out the waste facilities with the City, it sounds like a great idea. Bodmer said that it will require a public hearing to amend the zoning. She said that there are three challenges with this application which are zoning, building issues related to the American Disabilities Act, and the technical issues related to waste handling. Chair Churchill thanked the petitioners. B. Review of the Upcoming Schedule and other Updates Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that there are no additional updates. Chair Churchill announced that she would not be in attendance for the September 15` meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Churchill asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to adjourn the meeting at 8:31 p.m. The motion carried 6 -0. SAplamingTLANCOMM2010 agenda & minutes \081810mdoc 11