Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/1995R CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 1, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Paul Oberg, Marcia Gowling and Karen Edgeton. Members Absent: Frank Blundetto and James Cady. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Mike Dougherty and Keith Gordon. Others Present: See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Felkner asked Staff and the Commission Members if they had any proposed changes. to the draft agenda. There being none, he called for its approval, MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to adopt the draft agenda as submitted. The motion carried 4 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 1995 Chair Felkner asked Staff and Commission Members if they had any changes to the draft set of minutes that were distributed with the Planning Commission packet. There being none, he called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton; to approve the minutes of January 18, 1995, as submitted. The motion carried 4 - 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS - None - 5. PUBLIC FIEARINGS - None - Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1995 Page 2 6. LAND USE ACTION ITEMS - None - DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sketch Plan Review for Hyland Pointe Townhomes by Diedrich Builders Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the item. The proposed project is located on the northwest corner of County Road #46 and Garden View Drive, and it is bounded on its north by Hyland Pointe Court. G~rrently the properly is zoned for agricultural purposes, but is guided on the Cit}~s Comprehensive Plan for low density multiple at a density range of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed developer will be requesting an M-3 Multiple Residential zoning category, which allows up to 6 units per acre. The sketch plan as submitted this evening illustrates the "B" performance standards and setback requirements. This category provides for a minimum 75 foot setback adjacent to County Road #46, and a 40 foot setback adjacent to Hyland Pointe Court. There appears to be some discrepancy in the density calculations. The sketch plan shows 23 townhome dwelling units. The sketch. plan illustrates a private east west street running from Garden View Drive to Hyland Avenue, across the outlot owned by the Hyland Pointe Shores Association on the west. The sketch plan also Illustrates that the three-season porches on the north side of the project encroach into the minimum 40 foot setback to Hyland Pointe Court. There also appears to be an encroachment along the west property line. Access to the west across the outlot is to be provided via an option which was to have been dedicated to the City. It is not clear whether this option has actually been recorded at the county, however. It was noted that the "C" performance standard category would allow a 50 foot setback to County Road #46, and a 35 foot setback to Hyland Pointe Court. These reduced setbacks would allow the project more flexibility in its layout, so that instead of a straight east-west road, a curved road could be used and the dwelling units could be staggered to eliminate a "row' effect. This should also eliminate the setback encroachments of the three- season porches. The initial grading and drainage plan shows road surface drainage only that would discharge onto Hyland Avenue, working its way to the catch basin on Hyland Pointe Court. The City Engineer has noted that this is not acceptable, and that the internal storm drainage must discharge into its own catch basin for ultimate discharge into Lac Lavon. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1995 Page 3 In order to minimize the amount of sediments and nutrient loading into Lac Lavon, it is recommended that the discharge from this new development first go into a small pond to allow some sedimentation and nutrient filtration prior to discharge into Lac Lavon. Such a pond could be constructed between units if there is some rearrangement of units, or perhaps on the south side of the property, adjacent to County Road #46. The north side of the property adjacent to Hyland Pointe Court has a maximum three to one slope, and does not require construction of retaining walls. However, some modification to the landscaping may be necessary to minimize erosion caused by surface water ntnning toward Hyland Pointe Court. The landscape plan has been reviewed by the City Forester. Ms. Bodmer identified the materials illustrated on the plan, as well as the entrance plantings at each unit. She noted that a public hearing has been scheduled for this project at the February 15, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cowling asked how much green space was being provided. It was noted that the plan illustrates a 63% green space calculation. Commissioner Oberg asked about the number of guest parking stalls. Ms. Bodmer noted that while some guest parking. is provided, the plan is short of the code requirements. The code requires one-half stall per dwelling unit to be provided in a ganged parking arrangement available for all guests of the project's residents. Commissioner Edgeton had a question concerning the density and the rationale behind the Comprehensive Plan designation of "LD." Community Development Director Rick Kelley noted that the adjacent Hyland Pointe Shores neighborhood is also designated as an "LD" area, and is zoned under a planned unit development to allow small lot detached single family homes and some two-unit townhomes located immediately to the west of the proposed townhome development. He said that the average density in this planned development is about 4 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she thought the proposed layout was very linear and not very imaginative. She asked what the dwelling units would look like. The developer Bill Diedrich displayed an overhead transparency, illustrating. the building elevation which is similar or identical to the dwelling units in his Foxmoore Ridge project in Apple Valley. He noted that the preferred purchaser options include three-season porches on the rear and sides of the buildings. Commissioner Oberg asked if the units were predominantly all two bedroom units. Mr. Diedrich responded that they were. He also noted that the average size was 2,200 square feet on two floors if a finished basement is included. Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1995 Page 4 Commissioner Gowling asked what the side to side setbacks were on the sketch plan. Mr. Diedrich stated that they were about 19 feet apart. Commissioner Gowling asked what is in between the dwelling units. Mr. Diedrich responded that it was. just green space. Chair Felkner asked how much space was between the three-season porches on a side to side basis. Mr. Diedrich said that it was about a 15 foot separation. Chair Felkner and Commissioner Gowling both stated that they thought the appearance of this project was too dense for the neighborhood, and that the minimum space between units was not acceptable to them. They also felt that this particular layout created too much of a uniform row appearance. A general discussion ensued. concerning road access to the site. It was noted that if access across the outlot on the west was not permitted, either a cul-de-sac or a hammerhead turnaround would have to be installed. Also, it would probably be desirable to move the east access from Garden View Drive to Hyland Pointe Court on the northeast corner. Commissioner Oberg asked if there would be too much traffic from this development to be served with a single access. Chair Felkner asked what the maximum length of a cul-de-sac would be. Rick Kelley stated that the code states a cul-de-sac may not be longer than 900 feet. in length, or provide access to more than 25 multiple residential dwelling units. Commissioner Edgeton stated that it was her preference that the "B" zoning category be used and provide some type of variance to the County Road #46 setback to allow the 50 foot minimum. She wants to maintain a minimum 40 foot setback to Hyland Pointe Court.. Commissioner Gowling asked. if this was done, what would be the hardship. Commissioner Edgeton thought that the shape, size, and proximity of the parcel to County Road #46 would probably be hardship enough. Rick Kelley stated that if it is the Commission's wishes that a mixture of setback requirements apply, the cleanest administrative process would be to allow the "C" zoning category, but then to require as part of the subdivision agreement, a scenic or conservation easement along Hyland Pointe Court or other property lines to increase the amount of setback necessary on those lines. Commissioner Gowling asked what the elevation of the site was. Bill Diedrich responded that it is about six feet lower than County Road #46. Commissioner Oberg asked if the units move 25 feet closer to County Road #46, what would happen to the proposed pond. City Engineer Keith Gordon responded that the Planning Commission Minutes February 1, 1995 Page 5 pond would only need to be about 30 feet wide, and that it could be located near the west end of the property. Even with a 50 foot setback, there would be room for this pond. Ms. Bodmer stated that up to now there has not been too much discussion concerning the appearance of the north dwelling units on the face adjacent to Hyland Pointe Court. She said that this was an issue of concern for both Staff and the residents. A general discussion. ensued among the Commissioners concerning either addition of brick or architectural enhancements to the north face of these buildings across the street from the existing single family units. Bill Diedrich explained his proposed market for these units. He said that the north units would sell for between 120 and $180,000 a piece, and that the units along. 160th Street would sell for less because of the impact of the traffic. He said that his target market is the empty nester market, where people prefer to live on a single level and do not generate much traffic. He will try to have some additional information and plans available at the public hearing at the next meeting. 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None - 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Cowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 4 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.