PROCEEDINGS OF THE ST. CLOUD PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the St. Cloud Planning Commission was held on April 14, 2009, at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were Andzenge, Chirhart, DeVine, Holtberg, Langsjoen, Radaich, and Council representative Pederson. DeVine noted that this is Commissioner Langsjoen s last meeting. Glaesman stated that Langsjoen started her service on the Planning Commission in the fall of 1997 and thanked her for her years of dedication. Langsjoen recalled her service on the Commission and said it has been a great learning experience and enjoyed working with the Commission members and staff. Open Forum: No one was present to speak at the open public forum. Consent Agenda: Chirhart moved to approve the consent agenda as follows: Approval of minutes from the February 10, 2009, and March 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting Acceptance of staff reports for April 14, 2009, as part of the official record. The motion was seconded by Andzenge and carried unanimously. Recommendation to Amend the St. Cloud Code of Ordinances, Section 1040 - Animal Control Ordinance (including licensing/permitting, number of animals allowed, animals at large, microchip identification, vaccination, neutering, barking, and dangerous animals): Matt Glaesman, Planning Director, explained that the amendments are not to the Land Development Code (LDC), but many of the proposed standards are based upon the character of zoning districts. Specifically, the Planning Commission is being asked to focus on the number of animals allowed, which establishes the standard for not only residential dwelling units but commercial kennels as well. The Animal Control Task Force was formed in mid 2008 as a result of a request to increase the limit of two dogs allowed for residences within the City. A community based Task Force was formed, and they conducted seven meetings, resulting in a report and recommendation from the Task Force. Relative to the maximum number of dogs allowed. Glaesman stated that the current standard is two dogs per residential unit. That standard does not distinguish between apartment units or single 1
family residential units, but does set the standard when a property is defined as a commercial kennel (three or more dogs). A commercial kennel is only allowed in the commercial and industrial districts. Staff s recommendation is to maintain the current two dog limit per dwelling unit unless it is a commercial kennel. The Task Force suggests allowing four dogs per single family dwelling unit and three per apartment unit. Glaesman stated that currently there is no limit on the number of cats allowed per residence. Staff agrees with the Task Force that a cat limit should be established and suggests four per dwelling unit subject to a congregate limit total. The Task Force suggests a maximum of four cats per single family dwelling unit and three per apartment unit. The creation of a congregate total is a new standard given that there are currently no limits on cats or the total number of animals per residence. Staff s recommended congregate total is eight including non-licensed species per single family home with a maximum of four cats, four rabbits, two dogs, four ferrets, as part of that total and a congregate total of four animals inclusive of non-licensed species per multifamily dwelling unit. The Task Force agrees with the creation of a congregate limit, but suggests 10 animals per single family dwelling unit and three per apartment unit. Glaesman explained that the multiple animal permit would allow a property owner to have more than the by-right number of animals subject to issuance of a permit by City staff. The Task Force is recommending multiple animal permits be available to allow an additional two animals beyond the by-right limits. He stated that staff does not agree with creation of a multiple animal permit given staffing concerns because it involves another level of review. However, staff does recommend some allowance for unique situations such as fostering animals during pregnancy, illness or injury, military deployment, etc. Glaesman added that if someone applies for the multiple animal permit and that person subsequently proves not to be a responsible owner, that permit could be taken away. Chirhart asked if there was any discussion regarding the number of animals allowed in the Rural Residential zoning district which has a 10 acre minimum lot size as opposed to zoning districts with smaller lot sizes. Glaesman responded that discussion occurred as to how to regulate the number of animals allowed, e.g., the parcel size, zoning district. He stated that although lot size may indicate the character of the neighborhood, it does not 2
necessarily guarantee how close a home is to its neighbor. Lot size is not a good indicator as to potential impact on surrounding property owners. Relative to the congregate limit and the small nonlicensed species, DeVine asked how the City would be able to locate and regulate, for example, two turtles or three guinea pigs in a house. Glaesman answered that the City would likely only become aware of extreme situations where a large number of animals are being kept. Chirhart asked if violation of the ordinance will be subject to administrative procedures relative to fines and penalties, and Glaesman answered that administrative citations are the preferred enforcement tool. DeVine opened the public hearing and the following persons testified: Barbara Banaian If the number of dogs is going to be increased from two to four, 2716 Stearns Way she suggested the additional dogs must be from a shelter or rescue organization which would reduce the number of dogs in shelters and prevent euthanization. She also suggested that the two additional dogs be required to be spayed or neutered. Bob Abel The Task Force was started because the Animal Control Ordinance was 3640 Plum Creek Dr. out of date. The City incorporated the former township which brought in many large lots which were under different regulations. Many people are currently in violation, particularly for having too many dogs. Up until this point, it has not been an issue. There have been no complaints, and there have been no financial constraints on the City. He wonders how the City will deal with the complaints when this issue becomes public and people start turning in their friends and neighbors for violating the ordinance. The Task Force had strong objectives, and they were successful, e.g., incorporation of animal cruelty standards, control on numbers, especially when hoarding is involved. There are potential income streams for the City from people who are responsible and willing to pay for the multiple animal permit. He stated that a number of commercial and residential brokers have expressed concern because people interested in moving to St. Cloud that have more than two dogs have not purchased a home in St. Cloud because of the restriction on the number of dogs allowed. He pointed out that his research indicated a wide range of numbers allowed in other cities. He pointed out that the City of Rochester s requirement is no more than nine animals of which six can be dogs, yet their overall animal control operating cost per capita is less than the City of St. Cloud s. The Task Force was very aware that they did not want to propose an ordinance that would increase operating cost for the City. Responsible people who know they have the right to more than two dogs will apply for the multiple animal permit and get them licensed. He said he does not believe staff has the financial resources to deal with every confrontation that will occur. Matt Glaesman had stated that the Task Force recommended three dogs allowed by-right per apartment unit, and he did not think that was correct. He believed it was to remain at 3
two per unit. The revised ordinance will result in more responsible owners, give the City more control, and increase revenues for animal control. The City has made large strides in animal control over the last two years. He asked the Commission to consider the ordinance that would increase the number of animals allowed. Chairperson DeVine Bob Abel Matt Glaesman Sheila DeVine Matt Glaesman She asked Mr. Abel for clarification of his statement that four dogs need an additional fee. She asked if he was referring to the license fee. He stated that when a property goes from three dogs to four, an additional fee is required for the City to conduct an investigation and check with the neighbors. The multiple animal permit would have a fee associated with it. She asked if going from two to four dogs put the multiple animal permit into effect. He explained that the Task Force recommendation is four dogs allowed by-right. Glaesman added that the multiple animal permit would have a higher fee than the by-right dog license. Carol Kenning She has a neighbor who has been in violation of the animal control 25008 63 rd Ave. ordinance for a couple years. She said she does not believe the City has control currently. Her neighbor has been issued a number of administrative citations, pays the fines, but still is in violation and has his third dog. She doesn t understand why more is better. There are responsible people, but one irresponsible person can ruin it for everyone else. She said she does not think this ordinance is a viable solution and believes two animals is enough. Pat Morin She had a Doberman for over 12 years. That size dog produced a lot of 917 13 th Ave. SE manure. Several dogs of that size with an irresponsible owner could create a big problem. She does not believe the number of animals is the problem, but rather the irresponsible owners. Dogs that are not spayed or neutered should have a much higher fee. She did not feel it is as necessary to have a limit on cats as on dogs. Josie Moen She does not believe having more dogs causes a nuisance if they are 832 20 th Ave. No. kept in control. She said she asked for statistics on animal control complaints and if they were based on the number of dogs being the problem. She works on dog rescue, which differs from the Humane Society. She coordinates transports that move dogs from one area to another so they can be fostered. Under the current ordinance, she could not foster a dog even for one night because she already has two dogs. She said she would be more than willing to pay for a multiple animal permit. Dana Bowers She would like to know how many animal control issues are a result of 610 Wilson Ave. NE too many animals. There are reasons why people have more than two 4
dogs. She finds it unfortunate that she cannot take in animals on a temporary basis (fostering) because of the two dog limit that currently exists. Fostering would be important for people who serve in the military, people who must leave their homes because of flooding and have nowhere to house their animals, people with an illness or injury, etc. She said she would not have moved to St. Cloud if she had known she could not have more than two dogs. She has never lived anywhere where they did not have multiple animal permits. She was very disappointed that people may turn in friends and neighbors who have more than the allowed number of animals, even if they are responsible owners. Lisa Tenter She is the owner of Central MN Animal Care & Control. She takes in 916 2 nd St. So. animals from the City of St. Cloud and does some animal control for the Sauk Rapids, MN City of St. Cloud. In her occupation, she sees many irresponsible pet owners, and the City s animal control staff are very aware of them. She said she is surprised that the committee didn t more strongly consider the breed (size) of dogs when writing the ordinance. She said she would not want to start breed legislation, but multiple large breed dogs can cause problems. She would recommend keeping the maximum number of dogs at two, but would support the multiple animal permit. She said it is not unusual for bills sent by the City to people leaving their animals at the pound to go unpaid. Tom Archer He and his wife would like the dog limit raised to four with the option to 307 20 th Ave. No. acquire a multiple animal permit. He believes the number of pets allowed is irrelevant; it does not determine the responsibility taken by the pet owner. The Task Force determined that there was no correlation between the number of dogs and the number of nuisance calls received by the City. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson DeVine closed the public hearing. Langsjoen asked staff how the City handles dogs that have not been spayed or neutered and have puppies. Glaesman answered that the current ordinance prohibits someone from having a dog over six months of age in the City without a license. The license fee for spayed or neutered animals is significantly lower than for animals that are not. Holtberg asked if the Task Force discussed large breed dogs vs. small breed dogs. Glaesman responded that the Task Force did discuss that, but it cannot be assumed that large dogs have a greater impact than small dogs. He pointed out that small dogs can be just as aggressive or bark more than large dogs. Establishing a number limit was deemed the appropriate solution. Andzenge asked if staff considered the size of the living space or whether a dog is housed outside as opposed to inside. Glaesman stated that the provision for four 5
dogs per single family dwelling unit vs. three per apartment unit reflects that consideration by the Task Force. Staff also took the typical urban lot size and building size into consideration in its recommendation not to increase the number of dogs allowed from the existing two. Holtberg asked staff to explain the multiple animal permit process. Glaesman stated that the person would apply to the City specifying which is the additional animal on the property. Glaesman added that permit approval would be subject to inspection of the premises and a review of past animal related complaints or violations. Application for a multiple animal permit would be required on an annual basis. Glaesman stated that the permit can be revoked if the owner fails to meet conditions of the permit. Radaich noted that the City of Mankato has no limit on the number of dogs allowed per dwelling unit and asked if that has worked for them. Bob Abel stated that he studied 40 different communities, and the number of animals allowed varied significantly. He stated that animal control staff favored what they were doing, but it also brought in revenue. Costs were substantially less with more animals than what St. Cloud is experiencing. Andzenge asked what problem the City is attempting to solve. Glaesman answered that the City is trying to address irresponsible pet ownership by establishing a by-right standard; while the multiple animal permit would allow responsible pet owners more animals. Glaesman noted that staff opposed the creation of a multiple animal permit given the administrative time associated with the permit. Andzenge said it is his opinion that having one dog that is a problem is worse than having six dogs that are not a problem. Glaesman explained that the ordinance would establish a reasonable density of animals for the character of a residential neighborhood; staff recommends the number of dogs not be increased and that two is a reasonable standard. Holtberg asked for staff to address kennels and the State Statute regarding dangerous animals. Glaesman stated that the ordinance establishes standards for keeping dangerous and potentially dangerous animals, which calls for a declaration by City staff that the animal meets one of the definitions and then sets a higher standard of control for the animal. The owner may appeal that determination to the City Council. Relative to kennels, Glaesman stated that exceeding the number of dogs allowed by-right in addition to those allowed with the multiple animal permit would qualify the 6
property as a kennel. A kennel would only be allowed within certain commercial or industrial zoning districts as a conditional or permitted use. Langsjoen stated that she has a miniature schnauzer that barks excessively. Even though that is a small dog breed, she said she would never have four of that dog breed. She believes that allowing three dogs in an apartment is excessive, and four dogs by-right for a single family dwelling unit is not fair to neighbors. Langsjoen said she would be willing to consider the permit process if the fee is large enough to justify the time that would be invested by City staff. DeVine said a total of four dogs (including the multiple animal permit which allows for an additional two) is acceptable; however, that does not come without a price for the owner, e.g., vet bills, food, licensing, yard cleanup, multiple animal permit fee. She pointed out that apartment manager's rules will also limit the number of animals allowed in apartment units. Chirhart moved to recommend to the City Council the following standards: no more than two dogs, four cats, four rabbits, or four ferrets; a maximum congregate limit of eight for single family dwellings and four for apartment units; and a multiple animal permit only for specific situations such as military deployment, fostering for a recognized humane society or animal shelter for housing animals through illness, injury or pregnancy/nursing or other hardship cases to be proved. Glaesman clarified that the congregate limit is four for apartment units and eight for single family dwelling units (this number includes non-licensed species). Holtberg seconded the motion. Andzenge asked if the City s noise ordinance applies to uncontrolled barking by dogs. Glaesman answered that barking is addressed in the Animal Control Ordinance which is a part of the Code of Ordinances. He added that the Task Force is recommending that the time period for excessive barking be reduced in order to find a violation. Radaich suggested that the multiple animal permit have a substantial fee to cover City costs unless the applicant can prove they are fostering the extra animals. Langsjoen said she would like the multiple animal permitting process expanded so that an owner who has an elderly dog and wants to get another dog could do that if they can prove they are a responsible owner. Holtberg agreed with two dogs by-right and the congregate total. However, he thinks responsible owners should be granted the multiple animal permit for two additional dogs without proving hardship. 7
Andzenge stated that he would vote against the motion because he does not think the ordinance language regarding the number of animals allowed addresses the real problem. The motion failed on a 1-5 vote (Chirhart in favor). Langsjoen moved to recommend to the City Council the following standards: no more than two dogs, four cats, four rabbits, or four ferrets; a congregate total of eight for single family dwelling units and four for apartment units; a multiple animal permit with a significant fee to allow up to two additional animals of any kind; and that the City investigate any complaints against that owner prior to approval of the permit. The motion was seconded by Holtberg. Chirhart asked if dogs that have not been spayed or neutered would be allowed with the multiple animal permit, and Langsjoen said that is her intent. Radaich said that if that is the case, he believes the fee structure should be higher for those that are not spayed or neutered. Glaesman explained that the incentive to spay or neuter is incorporated into the license fee and it should be assumed that same incentive can be included in the license fee with the multiple animal permit. Andzenge reiterated his opposition as the motion does not address the nuisance problem. Chirhart asked Langsjoen if her intent in recommending the multiple animal permit is to support staff s recommendation that approval of 80% of surrounding neighbors within 100 of the property are required to approve issuance of the permit. Glaesman stated that was a discussion item, not a staff or task force recommendation. DeVine assumed that provision was part of the multiple animal permit. DeVine asked Langsjoen if her motion included the neighbor approval. Langsjoen clarified that her motion included the neighbor approval requirement, but asked the opinion of the other Commissioners. Chirhart pointed out that there are many small lots in the City. Four large dogs on a small lot may be too intense for adjacent property owners even with responsible pet owners. Holtberg stated that requirement would place additional burden on City staff. Chirhart stated the neighborhood approval requirement would require a high permit fee to cover staff time; DeVine concurred. Glaesman pointed out that the multiple animal permit is applied for on an annual basis. Given the current staffing levels and reductions, staff does not feel the neighborhood approval requirement would be beneficial. Langsjoen stated that her motion did include the neighbor 8
approval requirement. The motion failed on a 3-3 vote (Holtberg, Radaich, and Langsjoen in favor; Andzenge, Chirhart, and DeVine opposed). Andzenge asked why staff opposed the Task Force recommendation. Glaesman responded that staff thought two dogs was reasonable in an urban setting. Staff did not support the multiple animal permit because it becomes staff s burden to prove the owner irresponsible. DeVine asked if this item can be forwarded to the City Council with the failed motion. Glaesman stated that the item could be tabled. City Council representative Pederson said he prefers that the Planning Commission forward some type of recommendation to the City Council. Glaesman added that the Commission could ultimately state that they cannot come to a conclusion, but suggested making a motion to table for further consideration. Chirhart said that the Commission must consider how this ordinance affects land use in the City of St. Cloud. Staff has stated that the City cannot hire additional staff and asked that Rosie Deffinbaugh, animal control officer, address priorities relative to animal control within the City before the next meeting. Glaesman said that would be appropriate. Chirhart moved to table this issue to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Andzenge seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Radaich asked if the remainder of the animal control ordinance will be addressed by the Commission at its next meeting. Glaesman responded that is not necessary and wanted the Planning Commission s recommendation on the number of animals allowed because it is based on zoning districts. Andzenge requested further information regarding staff s statements that a by-right limit of two is more manageable than four relative to health concerns, general nuisance, etc. Andzenge noted that the Task Force has collected substantial data from other cities and should be considered. Andzenge said he is bothered that the problem is not being solved in the correct manner; addressing the number of animals does not address irresponsible owners. Recommendation on the Preferred Alternative from the University Drive Corridor Study Regarding Future Transportation Improvements Along the Corridor from 5th Avenue South to Trunk Highway 10: Matt Glaesman, Planning Director, stated that the University Drive Corridor 9
project extends from 5th Ave. So. on the west side of the river to what would be the extension of Univ. Dr. to Hwy. 10. At least three construction phases are anticipated. The first phase is on the west end. The second phases would be in the middle of the corridor, probably 10 years or more into the future. The final phases would be the connection to Hwy. 10 which would be projected for 20 years or more. The study attempts to balance the regional transportation need and the local impact upon safety and mobility for both pedestrians and motorists. Comprehensive Plans over the past 20 years have addressed the importance of this corridor and construction of the roadway. Glaesman stated that recent studies indicate that by the year 2030, 33% of the roads in the APO area will be at Level of Service (LOS) E or F which is a 433% increase from the year 2000 or a failing grade. Also, the 2025 forecast would indicate that a full build-out from TH 15 to TH 10 would result in a LOS E for the combined capacity of the three bridges. He added that a new 33 rd St. So. river crossing might reduce University Dr. traffic in the short term, but future growth would result in traffic demanding both bridges. Glaesman stated that the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) met numerous times, and two open houses and a public hearing were held. The two conceptual layouts both are 4-lane divided roadways with 11 lanes, bike lanes, ADA accessible, and have connections to parks. Concept 1 has roundabouts at 5 th Ave. So., Kilian Blvd. SE, 15 th Ave. SE and 19 th Ave. SE; trail on the north side of University Dr. east of the bridge; sidewalk on the south side of University Dr.; and access control. Glaesman stated the key difference in Concept 2 is traffic signals at 5th Ave., Kilian Blvd., and 15 th Ave. SE as opposed to roundabouts. Glaesman noted that closures of several streets onto University Dr. suggested by both concepts would limit the slowing and entering movements. Glaesman pointed out that the LOS goes up significantly with the roundabouts compared to signalized intersections. Concept evaluations were done based on transportation, social, economic, and environmental criteria. Based on these factors, the PAC s preferred alternative is Concept 1. The first construction element of the project under Concept 1 would likely be the roundabout at 5 th Ave. So. to prevent backup on the bridge. Other roundabouts would be located at Kilian Blvd and 15 th Ave. SE increasing the LOS due at those key intersections. The roadway would then continue on to the interchange for TH 10. 10
Glaesman reviewed some of the public comment concerns. One of the greatest concerns was the need for the corridor and its connection to TH 10. Staff s response is that the City has approved the MnDOT TH 10 corridor study which concludes that this interchange is needed to address 2030 regional transportation need. Neighborhood disruption is another concern. Glaesman stated an attempt will be made to balance the regional connectivity and neighborhood disruption. Relative to direct property impacts, a number of properties partial or full takings would be needed for the street improvements through the already platted areas. Concern has been expressed about the function of roundabouts and whether people will learn how to use them. Glaesman stated that people have expressed objection to the extension of the corridor through George Friedrich Park and the undeveloped property going east toward Hwy. 10. DeVine said she assumes the funding for the connection to Hwy. 10 will come from a different source and asked where the corridor would stop prior to that connection. Glaesman answered that the project would continue to stop just east of 15 th Ave. SE until the interchange is constructed. Chirhart commented that the use of roundabouts is an excellent method of moving traffic, but the public needs to be educated in using them. He stated that the east end of the alignment going to Hwy. 10 through the area owned by SCSU follows a street that has been dedicated. He added that there is a definite need for another east-west connection. Langsjoen said she has been a strong advocate of a bypass for many years, but the suggestion from the neighbors for a bypass is not realistic. She supports the roundabouts and Alternate 1. Andzenge stated that he also supports roundabouts; however, they slow traffic, and he is concerned about locating several of them that close together. Holtberg said he supports the plan and the connection to Hwy. 10 and assumes the APO and MnDOT are in support. Glaesman stated that the APO staff were on the PAC. Holtberg asked if the roundabouts are pedestrian friendly. Glaesman answered that the pedestrian crossing is safer given that the cross walk is moved one or two cars back from the car entering the roundabout. Also, the pedestrian can cross the two lanes of traffic from a single direction and have an area to wait to cross the other lanes of traffic. Holtberg asked if there will be frontage roads along Hwy. 10 to access the Northstar Corridor station. Glaesman responded that frontage 11
roads are incorporated into the design. DeVine stated that as a former resident of the southeast side, it was very difficult to get her kids to school and believed this will be a significant improvement. Glaesman noted there was a member of the School Board on the PAC; a mid-block pedestrian crossing would be included at Talahi School. Langsjoen moved to recommend to the City Council Concept Layout 1 as the preferred alternative. The motion was seconded by Holtberg and carried unanimously. Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. Emil Radaich, Secretary 12