Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1995CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 2, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Dave Swanson, Karen Edgeton, Paul Oberg, and Diane Nagler. Members Absent: Marcia Gowling and Frank Blundetto. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, Keith Gordon and Jim Sheldon. 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 Rick Kelley stated that Item 6E had been withdrawn by the petitioner. Commissioner Swanson stated that he felt Item 6F was a very minor proposal, and for expediency purposes should be moved to the front of the agenda under Item Number 6. MOTION: Member Swanson moved, seconded by Member Nagler, to adopt the agenda as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. 3. APPROVAL. OF JULY 19, 1995 MINUTES Chair Felkner asked Staff and the Commission members if they had any changes to the draft minutes submitted in the packet. Commissioner Edgeton stated that on page 9, at the end of the second from the last paragraph, the word "permitted" should be changed to "submitted." There were no other changes to the draft. Chair Felkner then called for their approval. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS - None - Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None - 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS F. Coulson Setback Variance Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace noted that the proposed variance request would be located at 833 Mcintosh Drive. The variance consists of a one foot nine inch intrusion into the standard 30 foot frontyard setback requirement for the purposes of constructing a kitchen addition. Mr. Ken Coulson approached the Commission. He stated that he and his wife have lived at the current residence for just over 18 years. The house is a relatively small rambler. They would like to remain in their current neighborhood and simply expand the size of the kitchen and the kitchen eating space. They felt that the variance request being made was for a relatively small intrusion in the setback. Commissioner Swanson noted that the proposed intrusion into the setback variance was not only relatively small in terms of depth, but would also encompass only the. 19 foot wide kitchen area. The rest of the house would remain substantially behind the 30 foot setback. There being. no other questions from the Commission, Chair Felkner asked Assistant Planner Lovelace to offer any critique on the proposal. Mr, Lovelace displayed an overhead transparency illustrating the proposed floor plan of the addition and noted that the sides of the addition were angled which would further soften the appearance of the addition from the street. He noted that the City has in the past encouraged additions. in the older parts of the City in order to foster neighborhood stability and ongoing investment in the community. He stated that if the variance were to be improved, the addition should be constructed of materials compatible to the existing primary structure. Commissioner Edgeton questioned if the required setbacks had been changed since the time that this house was first constructed. Assistant Planner Lovelace stated that he does not have that specific information at his fingertips, but that a 30 foot front yard setback is generally considered an industry standard in suburban communities. Commissioner Oberg asked if the lot size at this address was different than typical lots. Mr. Lovelace noted that the dimensions of the lot were 85 feet by 125 feet, which is a fairly typical lot size in this part of the community. Chair Felkner noted that historically the City had approved minor setback variances in the older parts of the community in order to foster the changing needs of the residents. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 3 MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Swanson, to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Commissioner Nagler asked if that motion for approval included the requirement that similar or compatible building materials for the addition be used. Commissioner Oberg stated that that was the case. Commissioner Edgeton addressed a question to legal counsel, asking if the motion needed to include a statement of hardship. City Attorney Jim Sheldon responded by stating that if an undue hardship exists, the City is essentially obligated to approve a variance. If the request for a variance is simply to utilize the property for a reasonable use, there is more discretion available on the part of the Commission and City. He noted that the Staff report and the current discussion to date are all. part of the official record, and that that would be sufficient concerning the hardship test. The motion carried 5 - 0. 6C. White Oak Ridge Residential Driveway Access Chair Felkner opened the issue by stating the Community Development Director had some additional information that would affect the Commission's action on this item. Community Development Director Rick Kelley began by stating. that this request for use of a public street right-of--way for construction of a private driveway was not technically a variance, but rather a change in the manner in which an improvement within the right-of- way would occur. At the time the request was initially made to the City, it was felt that the Planning Commission, the public body charged with reviewing all land use issues, would be the most appropriate form for discussion purposes. The Staff was aware that additional information would be submitted this evening from adjoining property owners, whichwould raise a number of different legal issues, as well as technical interpretations of the intent of the Wetlands Conservation Act. While these issues are germane to the construction of the proposed driveway, they are outside the scope of normal Planning Commission review and would require the Commission to render judgments outside of their area of expertise. For this. reason, Staff is recommending that the Commission accept the additional information and then forward the item to the City Council without a formal recommendation. Staff would then prepare. additional information concerning the newly raised issues for deliberation by the City Council. Mr. Ron Dorkin approached the Commission and distributed some additional information. He stated that he felt that it is wise to postpone a decision on this item until all the information had been thoroughly evaluated. Cindy Dorkin also approached the Commission and distributed copies of a petition with signatures of residents around Long Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 4 Lake objecting to this proposal. She stated that the previous evening she had attended an open house concerning Dakota County's proposed widening of Pilot Knob Road, adjacent to Long Lake. This widening would also entail some filling within the water body; all of this filling will ultimately have an adverse effect on the lake in her opinion. Chair Felkner asked Staff when this item would appear on the City Council agenda. Rick Kelley stated that the next council agenda is on August 17th. However, given the amount of additional information which has been submitted, it is not likely that a response will be prepazed in time to appear on that agenda. It is more likely that it will appear on the September 14th City Council agenda. Chain Felkner stated that residents interested in attending the City Council meeting at which this item will be discussed should call the City on the Monday prior to the City Council meeting after the agenda has been prepared to find out if this item has. been listed. Mr. Wilt Anderson approached the Commission to ask exactly what they had done with this proposal. Chair Felkner noted that the Commission had received all of the public input on the proposal that they could, and that they were finished with the item. Mr. Dorkin asked if he understood correctly in that no recommendation had been made concerning the request. Chair Felkner stated that no recommendation had been made. 6I). Cedar Ridge Clinic Sign Variance Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that this item concerned the request for a variance to the sign regulations for the Cedar Ridge Clinic located at 15650 Cedar Avenue.. She noted that the specific request was to locate. a building sign on the north side of the building which fronted vacant land that could be used for multi-family residential purposes. It was also requested to approve a variance to allow a ground sign to be 160 square feet in azea instead of the 60 square foot maxhnum listed in the ordinance. Pam Zeller approached the Commission and introduced herself as the manager of Cedar Ridge Medical Associates, the primary tenant of the building. She stated that she was present to give additional information to the Commission on why the variances were being requested. Ms. Zeller displayed a series of overhead transparencies of photographs of the site viewed from Cedar Avenue in both a northbound and southbound direction. She stated that the current limitation on the signage makes it very difficult to identify the site as a medical clinic. She noted that when the clinic was constructed they tried to integrate it into the adjacent residential neighborhood by using an architectural style more reflective of a residential design. She said that perhaps they succeeded too well, in that it is difficult to identify as a professional building. She said that the current ground sign has letters only 3 1/2 inches in height, which is visible and legible only from a distance of about 100 feet. Because there are multiple practitioners operating in the building, they feel that at least the primary practitioners need to be listed individually on a sign. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 5 Ms. Zeller then introduced the newest tenant of the building. Jan Tiffany of Park Dental stated that they moved into the building in mid-July. Since that time they have received numerous customer complaints about it being hard to find the building. She said that because of the nature of the dental business, most of their patients are seen only once or twice a yeaz. She believes that this will become an ongoing problem for them unless they get larger signage. Commissioner Edgeton asked the petitioner if they had considered using the extra squaze footage of ground sign available to them under the ordinance (20 squaze feet) for the purposes of listing their street address. Ms. Tiffany stated that if they do erect a larger sign, they will probably include the address. Commissioner Edgeton compared the existing or permitted signage at this site to the other limited business signs throughout the community which have similar size restrictions. She stated that. as long as the name of the building and the address are emphasized on those signs, most people find the facilities relatively easy to identify. Comrissioner Nagler asked about the size of the proposed building sign. It was noted this sign was approximately 150 squaze feet in area, but that the petitioner considers that it is only a temporary sign because it might have to be removed if the vacant area is developed for multi-family residential; this is an ordinance requirement. Commissioner Swanson noted that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the other representative of the clinic was told that the requested ground sign size (160 square feet) was simply too much for the City to consider swallowing. He noted that this evening they seem to be continuing to ask for the 160 square feet, rather than something. smaller. If 60 square feet is the maximum allowed under the ordinance, what is the minimum amount of additional signage the petitioner thinks that they would need to have to better identify their property. Ms. Tiffany said that they would take whatever they could. get. Comrnssioaer Oberg stated that he feels very strongly about this issue. He said that any business can make an argument that if they had a bigger sign, they could attract more patrons. He does not want to see a sign constructed here which, by its size, implies that it is drawing in business from some places. as far as the Wisconsin Dells. He noted that other medical clinics have much more modest sized signs, and they are relatively easy to find. Chair Felkner stated that he echos Commissioner Oberg's thoughts. He said it is true that every tenant within amulti-tenant building would like to have their name listed on a ground sign, but it simply is not possible. He stated that the Commission has always been very stingy in approving vaziances for sign sizes. He does not believe that the petitioner has made a case demonstrating a sufficient hazdship. He does think that the proposed building sign on the north face would be appropriate. MOTION: Member Swanson moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to recommend that the building sign on the north face be approved because the property is currently vacant; the sign would have to be removed if amulti-family use were constructed on it. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 6 Commissioner Oberg asked if the 150 square foot maximum was included within the motion. Both the maker and the seconder of the motion responded that it was. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Swanson moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to recommend denial of the variance for an enlazged ground sign. The motion carried 5 - 0. Rick Kelley stated that this item would appear on the August 17, 1995 City Council agenda. Mr. Kelley also noted that the intersecfion of 157th Street and Cedar Avenue, where the clinic is located, would have a traffic semaphore installed this summer. He said that the existence of this semaphore will change the nature of this intersection, slow down traffic, and help make the clinic more identifiable. Janet Tiffany asked if any additional approvals would be necessary from the City Planning Commission or City Council to move their existing ground sign and increase it from 40 square feet to 60 squaze feet. She was informed that all of this can occur with a simple permit application made to City Staff. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Sketch Plan for Outpost Java. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the item, which is proposed to be located. at the Target Greatland parking. lot. She noted that this would be a small modular premanufachued structure that would be located at the west edge of the Target Greatland parking lot, adjacent to the internal north/south circulation drive. The property is currently designated shopping center on the Comprehensive Plan, and zoned under a planned unit development for shopping center purposes. A freestanding use such as this would require an amendment to the planned development, as well as a conditional use permit if anything other than masonry materials are proposed for the exterior building cladding. Ken Claussen of Outpost Enterprises Limited introduced himself to the Commission. He then distributed a narrative and introduced several other members of the business team: Mr. Jeff Stark, Vice President; Mr. Mike Callis, Attorney; and Mr. Mazk Johnson,. the Property Manager for Target Greatland. Mr. Clausen then read from the narrative explaining the nature of their business organization and what their business plan was. He stated that they have worked closely with the Minnesota Department of Health to develop this modulaz coffee kiosk, and believed that the growing market for gourmet coffee and expresso will assure their project's success. He said that they have chosen Apple Valley to locate one of their first coffee kiosks due to the Cit}~s reputation for promoting business entrepreneurialship. He said that he wanted to emphasize that the type of structure that they were proposing was not a Photomat-type structure. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 7 Commissioner Swanson asked what hours the kiosk would operate. Mr. Clausen said that they expect to operate from six in the morning to either six or seven in the evening. Mr. Swanson asked if they had considered using a building material that would be compatible with the existing Target Greatland Store. Mr. Clausen responded that they have chosen to use astucco/dryvit type material under the conditional use permit procedure in order to have the ability to color it to match or mirror the colors. used on Target Greatland. Commissioner Nagler asked how many employees would be present at any one time. Mr. Clausen responded that there would be two employees at the building. Commissioner Edgeton asked if cars could pull up and be serviced on both sides. She was answered in the affirmative. She then stated that she felt that this would create some traffic flow problems. She said that she was having a difficult time interpreting the drawings submitted by the petitioner in seeing how the traffic would work around the structure. Conmussoner Oberg said that he was experiencing the same difficulty. Ken Clausen then walked the Commission through the series of overhead transparencies to illustrate how the traffic situation would work around the kiosks. He noted that the kiosk was being proposed in an area where there was not a landscape island adjacent to the mini ring route, but rather just painted lines to delineate parking stalls. Commissioner Oberg stated that he was concerned about possibly having. traffic visibility blocked by the kiosk due to the adjacent landscaping. Mr. Clausen responded that the only landscaping at the islands near the end of the parking isles was Iow shrubbery which vehicles can look out over. Concerning traffic circulation at the kiosk proper, he stated that they expect that a transaction would take between 45 seconds and 1 minute per customer. They believe that they can handle between 45 and 60 automobiles per hour per side. Conunissioner Nagler asked if the traffic might somehow be able to be slowed down along that mini ring route. She thinks that there might be a traffic safety or congestion problem with the mixing of the customers at the kiosk with the other patrons of the shopping center using that mini ring route. Mr. Clausen responded that the vast majority of their customers will be commuters coming by during the a.m. peak hour period. They don't expect very much traffic during the rest of the day or early evening hours. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she thinks the idea is generally okay, but she is not very keen on the location selected within the parking lot. She asked where else the kiosk might. possibly be located besides adjacent to that roadway. Chair Felkner stated that he is concerned with the amount of stacking that might occur at each of those drive-through windows at the kiosk. He said that for other drive- through operations the City typically wants to see stacking available at between 5 or 6 cars per drive-through lane. He would like to see a plan prepared that shows the availability of stacking. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Mark Johnson addressed the Commission stating that, as the property manager, they also share a concern about interference with traffic circulation. They chose this location because they believe that it is best suited for the business, as well as an area that will have the least amount of impact on their customers. He also noted that the joint powers arrangement between all the different owners of the shopping center needed to be amended to provide for this use, and that has been accomplished. All of the owners share concern that nothing will be established on the property that would have an adverse impact upon the shopping center tenants. Mr. Claussen also stated that it is their estimation that if there are more than two cars waiting at one of these kiosks, a potential customer will simply drive by and not attempt to wait in line. Commissioner Edgeton thinks that all of the issues and information brought up so far only serve to support the City concern about traffic circulation and stacking relative to location. She asked for further clarification on the drawing showing the kiosk located among the parking stalls. Mr. Claussen noted that actually the drawing shows two different scenarios, which might be contributing to the confusion. One of the drawings shows the kiosk located within the current painted diagonal pazking stalls, while the second illustration shows the kiosk located with restriped parallel parking stalls. Chair Felkner stated that he believes that if a commuter actually leaves Cedaz Avenue to purchase coffee, and sees cazs waiting to be serviced at the kiosk, that they will choose to wait in line .because they've already made a significant detour from their commuting. trip. He is concerned that stacking will back up into the outer "mini. ring" circulation drive. Mr. Claussen stated that he believes there is room for up to five cars to stack without interfering with movement on that outer ring, although the drawing is not to scale and somewhat difficult to interpolate. Chair Felkner stated that this is a concern and that a scale drawing is needed for them to evaluate the proposal. Also, the issue. of buildmg materials and use of brick remains a concern. While the City has allowed alternate materials in the past, they also have insisted upon at least some level of brick facing. Mr. Claussen stated that perhaps they could use a wainscoting approach for the brick, bringing it up perhaps halfway on the structure. Chair Felkner asked how this would be possible on a premanufactured building. Mr. Stark responded that aone-eighth inch thick face brick could be attached to the kiosk with adhesives. Commissioner Oberg asked if the building would be placed on a permanent foundation. Mr. Claussen responded that it would be mechanically attached to the ground, and not placed on a permanent concrete pad. The buIlding can be picked up and moved. Commissioner Nagler asked if it was possible to locate the kiosk adjacent to 153rd Street. Mr. Johnson stated that that property is not under Target's control, but is rather owned by Dial Riet. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 9 Chair Felkner asked about utility service. Mr. Claussen stated that electric power can be taken from a nearby transformer with the line trenched in beneath the parking lot. Chair Felkner then asked about water service. There are holding tanks within the building. Chair Felkner then asked about garbage. Mr. Claussen stated that the small amount of trash that would be generated would be kept inside the building and serviced each day by the cart manager. He also noted that rolls or muffins probably will also be sold from the kiosk. Commissioner Edgeton asked if there might be a problem with snow plowing operations in the parking lot because of the location of the ldcsk. Mr. Claussen said that they will have to work with the contractor doing the snow removal. Commissioner Nagler asked about restroom facilities for the employees. Mr. Claussen responded that as part of the lease, the Target Greatland Store would provide restroom privileges for their employees. Commissioner Oberg asked a general question concerning health and water issues. Mr. Claussen responded that these issues have been looked at closely with the Minnesota Department of Health, and that the kiosk has been designed and operations delineated in a fashion that satisfies the Department's concerns. Chair Felkner asked what the next step in review of this proposal would be. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer noted that the succeeding steps will involve a public hearing to consider amendment to the planned unit development to allow for such a kiosk use, as well as a conditional use permit for any materials other than a masonry unit. Commissioner Edgeton asked, just what use is it? Kathy Bodmer stated that for the most part it appears to meet the criteria listed under the City's definition of a Class II restaurant. Currently the planned unit development does not permit this as a freestanding use. Commissioner Edgeton stated that because this is something somewhat different, perhaps a new class, such as a Class III restaurant, might be created. City Attorney Jim Sheldon noted that because this project would involve a zoning. amendment and conditional use permit, there would be ample time to review and include appropriate language in the approval. Mr. Oberg suggested that the non-permanent nature of the structure be included in the new definitions. SB. Sketch Plan for Townhome Development in Academy Village Commissioner Swanson left the meeting at this time, stating that his company is likely to be the supplier for this project if it is approved. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the item which consists of 27 units located on the northeast comer of 143rd Street and Heywood Avenue. The property is currently designated on the Comprehensive Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 10 Plan for medium density multi-family use and is zoned under a planned unit development for up to 28 dwelling units. Chair Felkner asked for a clarification on the number of the amts. The write-up indicates 27 units, but one of the landscape plans indicates 28 units if they are totaled up. Ms. Bodmer turned the presentation at this time over to the developer, Mr. Mark Hebert. Mark Hebert approached the Commission and stated that he is proposing 27 units, but that the landscape plan included in the packet was of an earlier draft that showed 28 units. He stated that he is considering the construction of one level townhome units, with walkout basements which were larger than the original anticipated 8-plex units for this property. He said that because he is proposing a single level unit, the amount of lot coverage has increased beyond what the current planned development ordinance provides. He said that his proposal meets all of the performance standards relative to parking and building setbacks, but the lot coverage and green space standards are not met. Mr. Hebert then noted that the elevation plan that he has submitted at this time is a very prelinunary layout. He said that if the project moves ahead, he would adjust the elevation plan to add more interest with additional gables and further architectural relief. He said that he is looking for direction from the Planning Commission concerning his layout, which again is quite different than the previously approved 8-plex project for this property. If he is given the green light to proceed, he will make the adjustments necessary on his plan to meet the City's approval. He noted that it is an awkward site to work with in that it has some very severe topographic conditions and limited access points. Chair Felkner noted that the Commission has been very reluctant to deviate from its standard of 60% required green. space. He said that previously approved projects having less than this 60% requirement are very busy and convey a sense of crowding on the land. He said that while many developers indicate to the Gity that they must have a certain number of units in order to make projects work economically, the Commission has not been receptive if their site plans have fallen below the 60% green space standard. Mr. Hebert noted that if the unconstructed portion of 142nd Street on the north side of the project were vacated, he believes that he could make the 60% requirement by incorporating that old right-of-way into his project. Commissioner Edgeton asked that the location of this unused right-of-way be illustrated on the plan. Mr. Hebert approached the Commission dais to indicate where the right-of-way e~sted, and an overhead transparency was displayed that illustrated its location as well. Commissioner Edgeton asked if it would be possible to moderate the linear lineup of the northern units if that northern right-of-way were vacated. Mr. Hebert said that he felt that it would be possible. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 11 Chair Felkner and Commissioner Edgeton noted that the proposed private street arrangement connects roadways on both the east and the west side of the proposed project. They both felt that this connection might serve as a shortcut for high school oriented traffic since the high school is located directly on the east side of Hayes Road in the same neighborhood. Mr. Hebert stated that he did not believe that the private drive would become a shortcut, but that if the Commission were concerned over that, he would be open to modifying his layout to eliminate a through private drive connection,. and instead install emergency vehicle turnarounds. City Attorney Jim. Sheldon explained the basic vacation procedure and how ownership allocation to abutting properties is determined once the vacation is complete. Conunssioner Edgeton asked if the vacation of the right-of--way and inclusion of the property within the development would also change the calculations for the building coverage. Kathy Bodmer said that it would, but that she did. not know by how much at this time without knowing the amount of right-of-way that would be included. Mark Hebert engaged in a general discussion about how the additional right-of-way being added to his project, a redesign of the units, and a possible reduction from 27 to either 24 or 25 might meet the City's requirements for green space and. building coverage. Chair Felkner asked what the densities on the surrounding properties were. Kathy Bodmer said that at this time that calculation has not yet been performed since this is only the sketch plan stage. Chair Felkner stated that it appears that if the number of dwelling units were reduced slightly,. vacated right-of-way is added. to the project, and the building elevations and linear appearance is modified, the project will probably work. Mr. Hebert asked if there was any flexibility on the 20% and 60% requirements. Chair Felkner said that they want to see the 20% and 60% requirements both met. Mr. Hebert noted that as part of the right-of-way vacation, the installation of a bituminous. pathway would most likely be required by the City. He asked what the pathway would cost. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that a rough estimate would be $10.00 per linear foot. There was some general discussion of this pathway. It was noted that, given the topography and wooded nature of the northern part of the site, the pathway should probably be designed to meander throughout the area rather than run in a straight line. Mr. Hebert stated that there are many mature trees in this area, and he would prefer not to have to clear cut a path for a straight pathway. He noted that as it is, many mature oaks on the property will be lost as part of the grading to create appropriate building paths, and he does not want to cut down any more trees than necessary. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1995 Page 12 Chair Felkner stated that the Commission would want to save as many trees as possible. He suggested that the developer talk and meet with the Forester on the site about these significant trees. The developer then thanked the Commission for their time and direction. Commissioner Swanson rejoined the Planning Commission at this time. Commissioner Oberg suggested that in the near future the Planning Conmzission might want to discuss relaxed setback standards for additions in the older parts of Apple Valley. Chair Felkner suggested that this would be an appropriate topic to discuss at the next Planning Commission work session this fall. The other Commissioners agreed that this would be an appropriate topic for discussion. It was also suggested that in preparation for this work topic, that Staff investigate adjacent communities to determine what they have done to provide for house additions in older parts of the community. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Swanson moved, seconded by Member Nagler, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.