Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1995 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 3, 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 Fellrner, Dave Swanson, Marcia Cowling, Diane Nagler, Karen Edgeton and Paul Oberg (amved 8t 12 p.m.). Members Absent: Frank Blundetto. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Tom Lovelace; Kathy Bodmer, Keith Gordon and Mike Dougherty. Others Present: See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Felkner asked Staff and the Commission members if they had any changes. to the proposed agenda. There being none, he called. for its approval. MOTION: Member Cowling moved, seconded by Member Nagler, to approve the draft agenda as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF APRIL 19, 1995 MINUTES Chair Felkner asked Staff and the Commission members if they had any changes to the draft minutes submitted in the packet, There being none, he called for their approval. MOTION: Member Cowling moved,- seconded by Member Nagler, to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0. 4. CONSENT TTEMS - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Apple Valley Ford Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the proposal by displaying a series of overhead transparencies. The property is located on the south side of 151st Street, west of Galaxie Avenue. The property is currently designated for general business use on the comprehensive plan, and is zoned under a Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 2 planned unit development for automobile uses. The proposal is to consider a preliminary plat to subdivide the property, a conditional use permit for additional outdoor storage and display of motor vehicles, and a building permit authorization to provide for an addition to the existing Apple Valley Ford building. Ms. Bodmer noted that it will be necessary to vacate an existing common lot line utility easement in order to provide for the expansion of the building. She noted that one or more of the proposed lots to be created will have to be incorporated into the existing property description. She also noted the existence of Outlot A in the Apple. Valley Ford First Addition, and that the planned development requires a minimum 20 foot setback from this outiot in order to accommodate the possible reconstruction of 151st Street if the use of the property for auto sales and service should terminate. The site plan indicates a number of parking lot islands which contain landscaping. The area of these parking lot islands must be computed in order to verify the 5% standard in the planned development. Ms. Bodmer also noted that the City Forester has expressed some concern over the use of clump River Birch in the parking islands since they typically require a very wet and cool environment, which may not be present in the middle of a parking lot. She also stated that the minimum tree size must be increased. to meet the 2 1/2 inch caliper requirement. The addition to the building would be constructed of face brick with a decorative rock faced block accent which would match precisely the existing building. The separate used car building. would again. duplicate. the materials used on the existing primary structure. As part of the subdivision approval, the missing "ring route" streetscape elements along Galaxie Avenue would. have to be installed. Commissioner ldgeton asked where the precise location of the missing "ring route" streetscape elements were. Conununity Development Director Rick Kelley noted that the fencing, benches, and trash receptacles were the missing streetscape items referred to that would be installed along the west side of Galaxie Avenue. Mr. Kelley further explained that it is during the subdivision approval process that the City has the legal authority to require installation of off site improvements. Darwin Lindahl, the architect representing the petitioner, explained to the Commission some more of the details of their development plans. He stated that at this time the use of the building addition has been designated as service space; they have not determined whether or not they would provide body shop service in the building. He stated that the intent of preparing the overall development layout was to demonstrate to the current owners just how much land area would be necessary to accommodate their ultimate development plans. In doing. this, they could then determine how much of the property on the east side they could sell off to another party. Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 3 Commissioner Edgeton asked. if the petitioner would have a problem in meeting the required setbacks from Outlot A. Tim Price, the petitioner, stated that they would be willing to commit to remove any of the buildings that violated the 20 foot setback. if the use of the property as a car dealership should ever cease. City Attorney Mike Dougherty stated. that since Outlot A is wrrently being leased to the petitioner, this might be able to be addressed within the language of the lease. He emphasized that it should not be the City's responsibility to pay for the removal of the buildings in the future. Mr. Price stated that he would be comfortable with whatever method meets the legal requirements established by the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Edgeton asked about the timing of the improvements. The petitioner responded that the. expansion of the pazking and display azea would occur this year, as well as the "glass box" customer delivery space. The used caz building might be constructed this yeaz, but is more likely to be constructed in 1996; the major service area would be constructed in 1996. Chair Felkner asked about the size and species of the trees being. proposed in the parking lot. Mr. Price stated that they had no problem with the change in increasing the caliper size; per the Sfaff recommendation, but that they would like to retain the use of River Birch. He said that. they are currently using. it now, and that none of them have died. He understands that the roots must be kept cool and moist, but the current parking lot islands aze irrigated. Chair Felkner then opened the hearing for public comments. There being no public comments, he then closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Hyland Pointe Townhomes (tabled) B. Tutor Time Daycare & Office Building Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented the proposal which is located on the southeast corner of Glenda Drive and 143rd Street West. The development proposal consists of a 10,000 square foot daycare facility and a 5,700 square foot professional office building. The property is currently designated on the. comprehensive plan for limited business use, and it is zoned consistently for limited business. A conditional use permit is required for a daycare facility on the site, as well as for proposed alternate exterior building materials. He noted that the site plan provides for a consolidated pazking azea that straddles the common lot line, and that patrons of these businesses would have access to all pazking stalls. A driveway access is provided to both Glenda Drive and to 143rd Street. Mr. Lovelace then went through a synopsis of the comments received at the public hearing with appropriate responses. The types of building materials used on the surrounding buildings were reviewed. For the most part, the proposed use of a combination of rock faced Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1995 Page 4 block and stucco material is consistent with adjacent buildings. Regazding the history of the zoning on the property, the 1969 zoning map illustrates this. property as being designated "B- 1" which was the old nomenclature for the "LB" or Limited Business zoning district. Mr. Lovelace noted that the area occupied by the Pennock Shores townhomes was also originally zoned for Limited Business use, but was subsequently rezoned for multifamily in the mid 1980's. Concerning traffic, an overhead transparency was displayed, illustrating the most recent traffic counts on the adjacent streets. At this point, Glen Van Wormer of Short, Elliott Hendrickson, made a brief presentation to the Commissioners concerning the traffic generation from this proposed. development. It was noted that all of the. traffic to be generated would be well within the safe design capacity of the surrounding street network. Mr. Lovelace noted that the City had just recently received the revised grading and drainage plan and had not had a chance to do a thorough analysis to determine if it met all of the City standards. Commissioner Nagler asked about the landscape materials and the Staff recommended revisions to the plan. Dale Runkle, representing the petitioner, stated that a revised landscape plan and drainage plan will meet all of the City requirements, and that the value of the landscaping will meet or exceed the 2 1/2 percent standard. He also noted that an average four foot high berm would be constructed along Glenda Drive to screen the pazking lot and some of the noise. from the project. He also stated that they intend to meet. all of the ordinance requirements for exterior building materials. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that while some. details remain to be worked out, the overall storm water and drainage issues aze quite routine. The capacity of the existing storm sewer lines and storm water holding pond were designed with the development of this property in mind: Chair Felkner then stated that while this was not a public heazing, he would be willing to entertain audience comments on new issues that had not already been brought up at the previous public hearing. There being no audience comments, he then moved on to discussion of the project. He stated that he does have a concern over the use of a rock face block rather than brick. He stated that in his opinion, a stucco surface was okay, but that that rock faced block should be eliminated and a brick facing substituted instead. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she did not feel that a brick facing would fit into the other decorative tiles being proposed within the stucco face. Commissioner Gowling asked the petitioner if the exterior building materials for the office building had been selected yet. Mr. Runkle stated that they had not selected the materials yet. Mr. Runkle then passed the sample board azound for the Commissioner's inspection. Planning Commission Minutes May 3,1995 Page 5 Commissioner Nagler asked about the size of the individual rock faced blocks. Mr. Runkle responded that they are the same size as a standard concrete block. He noted that the block is being used as an accent feature where the architect has determined it is desirable to have a very heavy texture. Commissioner Swanson asked what color the mortar around the block would be. He was told that the mortar would be died to match the. block. A general discussion ensued concerning other recently constructed commercial buildings and the building materials used on them. It was noted that the Evergreen Senior Citizen residence was required to have brick on the commercial street side, but was allowed to have vinyl siding adjacent to the single family residential neighborhood. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved; seconded by Member Swanson, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a daycare facility in a Limited Business zone, with a combination of block and stucco siding. Chair Felkner and Member Gowling both stated that they thought brick would be a better material than block. The motion failed 2 - 3 (Felkner, Gowling, Nagler). MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Nagler, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for a daycare facility in a Limited Business zone, with. an exterior building face of brick and stucco. Bale Runkle asked for an explanation of the ordinance criteria on masonry materials. Rick Kelley explained that the conditional use permit criteria specifically calls for brick with alternate masonry materials being permitted only if it could be demonstrated that they are equally attractive. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she believes that the. block will look better than brick on this building. The motion carried 4 - 1 (Swanson). MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Swanson, to recommend approval of the overall site plan for the daycare and office building. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Swanson, to recommend approval of the building permit authorization for the daycare. The motion carried 5 - 0. Tom Lovelace noted that the final landscape and drainage plans had not yet been received based. on the latest revisions. He asked that receipt and approval of these plans be made a condition of the Planning Commission recommendation. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Nagler, to require that revised landscape and drainage plans be submitted and approved by Staff as a condition of the building permit approval. Member Gowling then addressed the members of the audience who were in attendance concerning this daycare issue. She said that she recognizes that a number of people are unhappy with this recommendation, but that the property is currently zoned for Limited Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 6 Business uses, and in her opinion this is one of the best possible uses for the property, which will actually have the least amount of impact on the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Oberg attended the meeting at this time. Chair Felkner noted. to the audience and to the petitioner that the recommendation from the Commission would be heazd by the City Council at the meeting of May 11th, and that the City Council makes. the final decision on the development proposal. Chair Felkner then called for a recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:27 p.m. 6C. High School No. 4 Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented the development proposal which is located on the southwest corner of 140th Street and Johnny Cake Ridge Road on approximately 125 acres of land: The majority of the property is currently owned by the City, and this would be a joint development between Independent School District 196 and Apple Valley. While the property currently owned by the City is presently designated and zoned for institutional. purposes; the property that is proposed to be acquired by School District 196 must be redesignated and rezoned to allow for an institutional use. It would also be necessary to consider a conditional use permit for additional height of the fourth high school, as well as to consider the site plan itself Mr. Lovelace reviewed the site plan and noted the outstanding planning issues, the most important of which are the two access points being proposed to 140th Street, and potential traffic safety issues. He stated that Glen Van Wormer of Short Elliott Hendrickson would be doing an analysis on this issue. Commissioner Swanson asked what the distance. between the access points was: He compared it to the existing dual access from the Apple Valley High School onto Hayes Road, and stated that the close proximity of those access points makes it very difficult to make left turns out of the parking lot. Kevin Sullivan of Wold Architects introduced the rest of the design team to the Commission, and said that they would be happy to answer any additional questions Commissioners might have concerning the development proposal. Member Gowling asked about the traffic flow patterns that will exist along Ferris Avenue as part of this high school project. Mr. Sullivan stated that initially all of the traffic would have to head north on Ferris Avenue and access 140th Street. When Ferris is completed to the south to connect to County Road 42, they would expect an equal traffic movement split. Member Gowling then asked if they were comfortable with providing a driveway access to the existing pump house azea. Mr. Sullivan stated that they were. Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 7 Chair Felkner asked if the issue with the underlying property owner (McNamara) has been resolved. Mr. Sullivan stated that the details of the terms of the purchase agreement were still under discussion. Chair Felkner then noted that while this was not a hearing, he would take any audience comments concerning new issues: There being none, he called for the Commission to make a recommendation. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried 6 - 0. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of a rezoning of the property to Institutional. The motion carried 6 - 0. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of a conditional use pernut for additional building height. The motion carried 6 - 0. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of a preliminary plat: The motion carried 6 - 0. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of a site plan/huilding permit authorization subject to a report and recommendation from SEH concerning the safety of the access. points onto 140th Street. The motion carried 6 - 0: 6D. Mattress. Liquidators Member Edgeton stepped down from the Commission table for this item, stating that she owns the adjacent property to the proposal. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented the development proposal which is located on the southwest corner of 147th Street and Glenda Drive. The property is designated and zoned for retail business use,-and it is proposed to erect an 8,198 square foot multi tenant retail building on the premises. Approximately one half of the building would be occupied by Mattress Liquidators. He then displayed a series of overhead transparencies illustrating the site plan, landscaping, and building elevations. He noted that with a change in the driveway access points onto 147th Street,. some of the ring route streetscape furniture would have to be relocated: The building would have brick on all four sides of two different colors and textures to provide architectural interest. There would also be a series of different height parapet's along the roof to provide additional architectural relief and to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. Finally, canopies would be provided over the windows and doors. Mr. Lovelace noted that the site plans calls out the location of a pylon sign right at the street intersection of 147th Street and Glenda Drive. The petitioner will have to identify the height and area of this sign in order to confirm its compliance with the sign code, as well as to Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 8 evaluate its possible interference with an adjacent street lamp post. Mr. Lovelace also noted that the site is currently being infringed upon by a parking lot on an adjacent parcel located to the south. The petitioner intends to remove that portion of the parking lot which overlies the common lot line and install landscaping along that side. Commissioner Oberg noted that the City's sign regulations are strictly adhered to. He asked a question concerning the use of a neon tube along the building parapets and whether or not this is considered a sign. It was noted that this is a very narrow tube intended to provide some additional architectural character to the building and would not be considered a sign under the current code. Commissioner Dowling asked if the rooftop. mechanical equipment would be screened. Nh. Lovelace noted that the parapet wall would screen the mechanical equipment. It was also noted that the trash dumpsters would be located within a screened enclosure on the southwest comer of the building. Chair Felkner asked if the petitioner had anything to add concerning the development proposal. Dale Sonnichsen of Amcon Corporation stated that they are in complete agreement with all of the Staff and Forester review, with the exception of placing a planting. bed between the building and the front sidewalk. Tom Lovelace noted that there is not enough room to both place plantings and shrink the amount of sidewalk necessary to provide easy pedestrian access from the parked motor vehicles to the front doors of the tenant spaces. Mr. Sonnichsen then went on to state that they have not yet selected the specific colors for the brick, but they expected it to be in shades of brown or reddish brown. They also have not yet designed the pylon sign, and that they fully intend to comply with all of the City sign ordinance requirements. He also stated that the decorative neon tubing is about nine millimeters in diameter. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Nagler, to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization per Staff recommendations, with the deletion of the requirement for foundation plantings. Chair Felkner asked if the colors should be finalized prior to consideration by the City Council. Both the mover of this motion and the second agreed to add an additional condition that the colors be selected prior to consideration by the City Council. The motion carried 5 - 0. 6E. Hayes Ice Arena Community Development Director Rick Kelley presented this item, which is located at 14595 Hayes Road. The property is currently designated and zoned for institutional purposes, and the Ice Arena would be constructed and operated by the City. The arena would be served by the existing parking lot. An analysis by the Parks and Recreation Staff determined that the Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 9 peak parking demand for the arena and the other facilities all vary based on time of day and season of the year such that there would be very little overlap. Randy Johnson, Parks and Recreation Director, then addressed the Commission to explain the Ice Arena project in more detail. He stated the exterior would be constructed of a masonry material to match the existing community center. The overall intent here is to continue to emphasize the campus concept for the City's major recreational facilities. They do believe that there is adequate parking already existing on site. However, there is space to add an additional 30 to 35 spaces if experience warrants it. Member Nagler asked about landscaping: Mr. Johnson stated that they would be doing foundation plantings and relocating several trees. However, the intent is not to place landscaping materials out in actual playing field areas;. this would be treated as all other City athletic facilities are when it comes to landscaping. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization. The motion carried 6 - 0. MOTION; Member Gowling moved; seconded by Member Oberg; to adopt a resolution finding that the Hayes Ice Arena project is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried 6 - 0. 6F. Heritage Lutheran Church Addition Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the item which is located on the northwest corner of Johnny Cake Ridge Road and. 134th Street. At the previous Planning Commission meeting the site plan: and building permit authorization for an addition to the church had been recommended for approval. Subsequent to that approval, the church has evaluated its finances and the site improvements required; consisting of the landscaping and installation of the concrete parking lot curbing. They have determined that they would be unable to complete both their addition and the required site improvements simultaneously, and are asking the Commission for more time to install those site improvements. Chair Felkner asked Staff a question on the timing of site improvements. Rick Kelley responded that for a typical commercial building, no financial guarantee is required for the site improvements. However, if they wish to occupy the structure prior to completion of the site improvements, the City usually requires the posting of a financial guarantee with a deadline for the missing site improvement installation. Commissioner Swanson asked the church group what type of time frame they were looking at for the installation of these site improvements. They responded that they would expect that all of the landscaping would be installed over a two year period after the end of the building construction. They were not sure, however, how long it might take to install the parking lot curbing. The reason for this is that the landscaping is expected to be installed by Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1995 Page 10 the parishioners themselves, while the concrete curbing would actually have to be done by an independent contractor who would be paid for the work. Commissioner Nagler asked City Staff if there was some other form of guazantee to ensure completion of site improvements. City Attorney Mike Dougherty stated that other than a financial guarantee, there was no other mechanism. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she was sympathetic to the financial restraints of the church, but was concerned over setting a precedent on the delay oflandscaping and parking lot improvements. City Attorney Mike Dougherty stated that in this particular case, the precedent issue would be very narrow, and that there is a special relationship between governmental. regulatory authority and religious institutions. He also noted that there appeared to be some type of tradeoff for the City in that the restraint on the finances for the church group really related to their desire to upgrade and refinish the exterior of the existing portion of the building at the time that the addition is constructed. The Commission directed the City Attorney's office to prepare a draft agreement for further discussion concerning a "best efforts" pledge from the church to complete the landscaping and the parking lot at a specific date in the future: 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS -None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS -None - 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowling to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 6 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.