Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/1995CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7,1995 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning. Commission meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by C}iaiiman Alan Fellmer. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Dave Swanson, Kazen Edgeton, Paul Oberg, and Frank Blundetto. Members Absent; Mazcia Cowling and Diane Nagler. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, Keith Gordon and Milce 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. Rick Kelley stated that the petitioner listed on Item 6A should be corrected to read Alan and Pat Cohen. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Blundetto; to approve the draft agenda as amended: The motion carried 5 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MAY 17,1995 MINUTES Chao 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 Oberg moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - Planning Commission Minutes June 7,1995 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rodeo Hills 3rd Addition Expansion Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standazd remarks: Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the item, which is a development proposal for the property located on the south side of Palomino Drive at Hunters Way. The property is currently designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan for either Visitor Business, or medium density Multiple Residential, and is consistently zoned under Planned Development #144, Subzone 5. The public hearing is to consider a preliminary plat for five townhome dwelling units, which would be incorporated into the adjacent Rodeo Hills townhome developmem. The incorporation of this property into the Rodeo Hills townhome area was first suggested during the initial deliberations of the Palomino Drive realignment request. Ms. Bodmer displayed a series of overhead transparencies which illustrated the location of the proposed dwelling units, the grading plan, and the interconnections of the private roadway system out to Palomino Drive. The developer Bill Diedrich of Diedrich Builders, Inc, added that this would simply be an expansion of his existing development with similar townhome dwelling units. There was a general discussion concerning the status of the planned development zoning. Community Development Director Rick Kelley explained that the Planning Commission had previously acted on the planned development amendment, but that it was still before the City Council until such time as the Palomino Drive realignment project actually commences. At that point; the final text of the planned development would be placed before. the City Council for approval. Chair Felkner then asked if there were any public continents concerning this issue. There being none,. he closed the public hearing. Chair Felkner noted that while it is the policy of the Commission to not take action on an item the same night as its public hearing, the relative small size of this development proposal and. the lack of any public continent indicated that action might be appropriate. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Swanson, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to publication of the planned development ordinance, and incorporation of this area into a single final plat. The motion caned 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Swanson, to recommend approval of the site plan and building pernrit authorization, subject to a listing. of foundation plantings, submission of a nrnsery bid to verify the 2-1/2 percent landscape requirement; and submission of a site plan illustrating all porches and decks in conformance with the required setbacks. The motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 7,1995 Page 3 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A, Cohen Setback Variance Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented this proposal for the property located at 13099 Ferris Court. It is proposed to construct a 96 square foot storage shed, with a 3 foot setback from the back of the existing garage, rather than the 10 foot setback required by the zoning code. Staff review of the variance request indicates that while there would not be an adverse impact upon adjacent properties if this variance were approved, there does not appear to be a demonstrated hardship inexistence. upon the land in order for them to support approval of the variance. Chair Fellrner asked the petitioner to explain the rationale behind the variance request. Mr. Cohen stated that after he had had a concrete slab poured for the shed, the concrete contractor suggested that he check with the City to find out if any special permits or conditions would apply to this shed. When he called the City he was informed that no pemut was requued for a structure as small as this, but that a 10 foot setback was required. He then passed out photographs of this property and the. concrete slab awaiting construction of the shed upon it. He said that the reason he wishes to have the shed this close to the garage is to keep the snowblower and other related equipment in it close to the garage for ready use during the winter time. He stated that he has a degenerative back disease, and that it would be difficult for him to have to clear a walkway to the shed just to reach the snowblower. He said that there is an existing evergreen tree which would have to be removed if the 10 foot setback were adhered to, and also that there would probably have to be changes to the underground lawn sprinkler system in that area. Chair Felkner then asked about the suggestion in the Staff report concerning. additional building materials to increase the fire rating of the shed if it's located closer than 10 feet to the garage. Mr. Cohen said that he would be happy to abide by that recommendation. Commissioner Edgeton asked Staff what the purpose of the 10 foot setback was. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace stated that it was his understanding that the setback was for both fire suppression and aesthetic issues. Commissioner Blundetto stated that there are many homes in his neighborhood where, rather than having to meet the 10 foot building setback requirement, they have physically attached the sheds to the houses. He said that the City might want to consider changing its ordinance and simply let the state building code apply to any fire rated construction. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to recommend approval of the setback variance as requested, based on the hardship. created by the existing trees, lawn Planning Commission Minutes June 7, 1995 Page 4 sprinklers, and subject to a one-hour rated fire wall on the side of the building adjacent to the garage. The motion carried 5 - 0. Chair Felkner asked Staff to review the history of this particulaz caning regulation and come back with any recommended changes. He also asked that articles be placed in the quarterly newsletters regazding setback restrictions on decks, sheds, fences and the like, as well as the setback requirements. This could then be repeated on a seasonal basis. He also suggested that this same information be distributed to building contractors that are currently doing business in the City. DISCUSSION Tl'EMS A. Diamond Path Townhomes 2nd Addition Sketch Plan Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the proposed development, which is located in the general vicinity of the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and Diamond Path, at the west dead end of Echo Lane. The Diamond Path Townhome Development is currently being wnstruded along Echo Lane, and the developer has now acquired the vacant property located immediately to the west. The property is currently zoned Agricultural, but guided for Low Density Multifamily at a density range. of three to six dwelling units per acre. It is proposed to extend Echo Lane to terminate in a cul-de-sac and have a series of private drives access the new street to serve several new townhome dwellings. The developer would prefer to use a system of all private drives, but was informed that the City would require the dead end of Echo Lane to temvnate in a public street. built to City standazds. A general discussion among the Commissioners concerning. the proposed sketch. plan then ensued. Commissioner Blundetto asked what was meant by the term "disturbed ground" in the Staff memo. Ms. Bodmer explained that the site had previously been used for a landscape business and that the termination of that business had resulted in the removal of a substantial amount of landscape materials. Also, the former use of the property was for a farmstead, and that barn and holding pens had been. used to raise pigs in the past. Chair Felkner noted that the proposal looked relatively dense and asked that green space calculations be done, and that consideration be given to some type of private open space or recreation area in the common owned property. Commissioner Edgeton asked to see a plan illustrating how the alignment of the townhome buildings to the east would fit in with this. She did not want to approve a development which would create a "barracks" look. Tom Bisch of Heritage Development and Bob Wiegert of Paramount Engineering approached the Commission to provide additional information on the proposed development. Chair Felkner noted Planning Commission Minutes June 7,1995 Page 5 that the purpose of having a sketch plan review is to allow the Commission an opportunity to provide eazly input on preliminary plans prior to the preparation of the detailed plans for which a public hearing would be held. In this case, the developer has proceeded to finalize the development plans and has scheduled a hearing for the next Planning Commission meeting. Consequently, there does not appear to be too much opportunity for the Commission to provide guidance at this point. Mr. Wiegert stated that they prepared and submitted the preliminary plat in order to meet the deadlines for the public hearing publication notice. They did this because they feel like they aze akeady rurming into timing problems in order to get the project constructed during 1995. Mr. Wiegert then explained the existing conditions on the site, and that their calculations indicate the density would be 5.2 dwelling units per acre, consistent with their M-3C caning request. He noted that the grade changes across the site aze quite significant. He also said that in order for them to build on the property there would have to be some changes in the existing wetlands. 1~Iitigation for this would be required. He also noted that in order to meet the grade changes, many of the buildings will be stepped at different elevations. 8. OTHER BUSIlVESS A. Ethics A general discussion among the Commissioners was held concerning the publication from the League of Minnesota Cities on ethics and potential conflicts of interest. City Attorney Mike Dougherty noted that when the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting goes out, if any member of the Commission sees an item on the agenda where they think they nilght have some involvement or be familiar with the property owners, the best course of action would be to call Staff and the Gity Attorney's office for direction. Several of the Commissioners noted that beyond the legal conflict of interest, there is always the issue of a perception of conflict of interest in a project, and that they would prefer to avoid that perception problem as well. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Swanson, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m.