Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1995CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 16,1995 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Vice Chair Karen Edgeton. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Frank Blundetto, Mazcia Gowling, Paul Oberg, and Alan Felkner (arrived 7:06 p.m:). Members Absent: Dave Swanson and Diane Nagler. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, Keith Gordon and Mike Dougherty. Others Present: See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Edgeton asked Staff and the Commission members if they had any changes to the proposed agenda. There being none, she called for its approval.. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to adopt the agenda. The motion carried 4 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 2, 1995 MINUTES Vice Chair Edgeton asked Staff and The Commission members if they had any changes to the draft minutes submitted in the packet. There being none, she called for their approval. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to approve the August 2, 1995 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 2 - 0, with two abstentions (Gowling and Blundetto). 4. CONSENT ITEMS - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Revised Permitted and Conditional Uses in "RB" Zores Concerning Rental Operations and Outdoor Storage Vice Chair Edgeton called the public hearing to order with the standazd remarks. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented the proposal, and noted that this heazing was Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1995 Page 2 instituted by the City upon request of the owner of Dakota Rental. The proposal is to consider amending the Retail Business zoning district to allow as either permitted or conditional uses rental operations with outdoor storage. Dakota Rental had requested the City evaluate the retail business zoning requirements because they have been evaluating the possible relocation to other sites within the community, which are currently zoned retail business. At a previous sketch plan, Dakota Rental had suggested rezoning one of these sites to a general business category,. which would have been inconsistent with the City's comprehensive plan designations. As an alternative, a potential of revising the Retail Business zoning permitted uses was broached. As part of this hearing, Staff had been requested to contact surrounding communities to find out how rental businesses were regulated in those cities. Mr. Lovelace noted that in Burnsville, Eagan; and Lakeville, rental businesses are allowed within Retail Business, General Business, and Highway Commercial zoning districts. Also, conditional use permits are required for any type of outdoor storage or display related to the rental operation. Mr. Lovelace went on to note that in contrast to the adjacent communities, Apple Valley does have a downtown core commercial area, whereas the other cities considered scattered strip retail centers appropriate within. neighborhood centers, and allowed. for a wider variety of uses within those centers. He went on to note that Staff felt it was important to carefully evaluate what Apple Valley's intent was to provide for in retail areas, such as creating synergy among. similar uses which feed off one another and create a more vibrant and dynamic retail azea. It is questionable whether a rental operation would contribute to this environment. Mr. Lovelace also noted that outdoor storage for either materials or rental trucks and trailers is typically associated with rental operations. While screening. would help soRen this effect at the site on which the Dakota Rental operation is considering locating (northeast. corner of Pennock and 146th. Street), a change to the zoning code would provide for this use in all Retail Business districts, such as those near the Target Greatland operation. Again, it is questionable whether this fits into what the City had intended for Retail Business areas. Finally, one of the issues regarding either rezoning of pazcels or amendment to the zoning code has to do with the availability of other vacant properties within the City that could accommodate the proposed use. There is a substantial amount of vacant land located on the east side of Galaxie Avenue adjacent to the City's downtown commercial core which is zoned either General Business or General Business 1, as well as Light Industrial and Planned Development No. 409 at 145th Street and Galaxie. All of these zoning districts would allow for the rental business operation. Mr. Lovelace then displayed a series of overhead transpazencies to summarize the Staff analysis and conclusion of the request. First, because of the nature of the rental business and its typical association with outdoor storage and rental trucks and trailers; it would not generally be compatible with other retail businesses. Second, there are other sites available in the community that are properly zoned for the use. Third, the intent and purpose clauses in the Retail Business district and General Business district r.~ake it quite cleaz that the rental type operation belongs in the General Business category, and not the Retail Business category. Planning Commission Minutes August 16,1995 Page 3 Vice Chair Edgeton asked if any of the Commissioners had questions of Staff concerning the proposed zoning amendment. Felkner asked if a time limit could be imposed on a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. City Attorney l~fike Dougherty noted that a conditional use permit runs with the land and must be allowed to continue as long as the terms of the permit are kept in compliance. The conditional use permit would lapse if the use for which it were issued were abandoned or terminated. Felkner asked if a conditional use permit for outdoor storage would be required in other zoning districts for this use. Mr: Lovelace noted that a conditional use permit is required in a General Business zoning category or Light Industrial. However, outdoor storage would. not be allowed in a General Business-1 district. Cowling asked if all of the ring route area is zoned for retail use. Tom Lovelace reviewed the zoning map transparency. He noted that the majority of the property is zoned Retail Business, shopping center, or some type of planned unit development which provided for office. or retail. uses. Felkner asked that at the next meeting a transparency and map be prepared of a blowup of the downtown zoning districts, with an i}lustration of where this type of use would be permitted: Vice Chair Edgeton then opened the hearing. for any public comments. There being none, she then closed the hearing with the standard remarks. At this time, Vice Chair Edgeton turned the Chair over to Felkner. Chair Felkner then addressed Mr: Chapman, the owner of Dakota Rental. He noted that since this. was a City initiated hearing, Mr. Chapman was actually a part of the public and perhaps did not understand that that was his opportunity to comment on the Staff review. Mr. Chapman approached the podium to offer several comments. He noted that the City of Rosemount allows rental operations in Retail districts, with outdoor storage permitted by right, as does the City of Farmington. It is his opinion that Apple Valley is the only community that does not allow it in Retail Business districts. He said that he is not requesting outdoor storage of any materials, and that in his opinion, trucks and trailers do not fall in the category of outdoor material storage. He then listed several rental shops that he is aware of that do not handle either trucks or trailers for rental purposes. Mr. Chapman stated that he "inherited" the truck rental portion of the business when he bought Dakota Rental from the former operator. He noted. that July and August are the busiest moving months, and that is why there have been so many trucks around his operation the past several weeks. He stated that the trucks are not actually stored on the site, and that the Penske Rental Truck Depot is located in the City of Roseville. The trucks appearing at his place of business are either awaiting a customer pickup, or have been recently dropped off. With the exception of the three or four trucks committed to local rental operations, all of these trucks are constantly being shuttled back and forth to the Roseville depot. Planning Commission Minutes August 16,1995 Page 4 Mr. Chapman went on to state that hardware stores typically rent gazden equipment, and that paint stores typically rent paint sprayers or wallpaper removing equipment. He said that overall the rental and retail business is changing, and that he ultimately expects to become 40 percent retail, and consequently believes that he fits into a retail district. Chair Felkner reiterated that there would be no action tonight, with the earliest possible action being at the September 6th meeting. The realtor representing the seller of the property to Mr. Chapman stated that NIr. Chapman has now purchased these lots and does not actually have the opportunity to go somewhere else in the community, He believes that the City should approve the request because it would be a hardship on Nlr. Chapman if he could not build on the property. SB. Deer Run Chair Felkner opened the public hearing for this development proposal with the standard remarks. Assistant Flanner Tom Lovelace introduced the item and identified its location on the east side of Safari Pass, at the 121st. Street intersection. The property is about two and half acres in size, and is currently zoned "R-1". It is proposed to rezone the property to "R-2" and to plat it into five lots, one of which would contain the existing single family home: It is also proposed to approve a 15 foot setback variance to Safari Pass for three of the lots. Chair Felkner stated that before the petitioner made his presentation, he wished Staff to identify just what the "R-2" zoning allows. Mr. Lovelace stated that there are four single family zoning categories in the. City's zoning regulations, "R 1" through "R=4". There is also an "R-5" category that. allows either single family or duplex dwellings, and then multifanvlies being permitted. in "M-d "through "M-8" zoning. districts. Don Olson, the developer, stated that he lives in the existing house at 12092 Safari Pass. He said that he wished to divide this. large tract of land to create four additional home sites. He is requesting the setback variance for the three new lots along Safari Pass in order to keep the homes as far away from the steep slopes as possible to try and minimize. disruption of the existing natural topography and existing vegetation. He noted that one of the reasons for requesting the setback variance is that Safari Pass has an extra wide right-of--way with an oversized boulevard. He stated that the homes that he would build on these lots are expected to have a value of around $300,000. For comparison purposes, he said that if the variance were approved, the houses would be set back 48 feet from the curb line of Safazi Pass, compared to a 45 foot setback on a typical residential street. Karen Edgeton asked if an overhead transparency was available which illustrated the zoning on the surrounding properties from this parcel. Mr. Lovelace stated that one was not available, but that the property located across Safari Pass to the west is the Briar Oaks neighborhood, which is zoned "R-3". Property to the south and east is zoned "R-1 ", and "R-3" zoning exists on the north. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1995 Page 5 Kazen Edgeton asked what the minimum lot sizes were. Mr. Lovelace stated that the "R-3" zoning has an 11,000 squaze foot ininhnum, but in the Briar Oaks area the lots are average between 15 and 25,000 square feet in area. Edgeton asked if the proposed lots in the Deer Run development would be larger than this. Mr. Lovelace responded that they would be lazger than the 15 to 25,000 square foot average across the street.. Edgeton then asked if the setbacks in the Briar Oaks neighborhood were similar. Mr. Lovelace stated that the setback requirements in "R-3" and "R-2" aze the same, with a standard 30 foot front yard setback. Oberg asked how the setback figures were arrived at. Mr. Lovelace stated that the Safari Pass right-of--way width is 100 feet, whereas a typical residential street has only a 60 foot wide right-of--way. This results in an extra 20 foot boulevard on both sides of the road. Chair Felkner noted that Mr. Olson had stated that one of the purposes of considering a variance was to retain the existing topography and save as many mature trees as possible. He asked that the City Forester evaluate just how many significant trees would be saved by a 15 foot setback reduction. Karen Edgeton asked why in the summary of issues Staff had recommended a vehicle turnaround on Lot 5. Mr. Lovelace noted that Lot 5 would have street frontage only along Galaxie Avenue, which has a higher speed limit and higher trafFic counts. than the internal streets. Consequently, Staffis recommending that a turnaround be provided so that a motor vehicle would not have to back out from the driveway directly into the Galaxie Avenue traffic. He also noted that because Galaxie is a community collector, a 40 foot setback would be required for the house. Chair Felkner asked what the actual lot sizes in the Deer Run plat would be. It was noted that Lot 1 would be 41,932 square feet in azea; Lot 2, 41.,527; Lot 3, 34,080; Lot 4, 45,157; and Lot 5, 51,447. Chair Felkner noted that the minimum lot area in an "R-2" zoning category would be 18,000 square feet. He asked if once the zoning and preliminary plat were approved, the petitioner might come in with a final plat having more lots since he appeared to have more area. Mike Dougherty noted that the final plat must be consistent with the preliminary plat. If he wished to increase the number of lots, he would have to come back and request an additional public hearing. Tom Lovelace also noted that the "R-2" zoning district has not just a minimum lot area of 18,000 square feet, but a minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet. Even though these are large lots, they are just slightly over the 100 foot minimum width, which means there is not any surplus width available to increase the number of lots. Chair Felkner then opened the hearing to audience comments. He asked that each person wishing to address the Commission come to the podium and state their name and address for the record. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1995 Page 6 Dave Huffman of 12032 Gantry Lane approached the Commission. He stated that if the City approves the setback variances, he would like to have all the homes have to line up at that minimum setback to present a more uniform appearance. He stated that there was much misinformation in that it was believed that duplexes were allowed in "R-2" zoning districts, and that the 15 foot setback would be only 15 feet from the curb line: Chair Felkner stated that it is always important that people having questions over proposed developments speak to the appropriate planning personnel who are most fanuliar with the. project being proposed. A general discussion ensued about how best to get accurate information to residents concerning public hearings. Bill Bond of 7060 121st Street stated that he was still confused over how the setbacks are measured. Mr. Lovelace noted that the setback requirements in the ordinance are measured from the property line. There is always a boulevard area between the property line and the concrete curb of the adjacent public street. In this particular case, because there is an extra wide right-of--way resulting in an extra wide boulevard, the 15 foot setback variance would result in a total setback distance of 48 feet from the house to the street curb line itself. lames Littrell of 12199 Galaxie Avenue said that he lives immediately south of the proposed development. He had a question concerning the setback requirements relative to the street designations. He was informed that Galaxie Avenue is designated as a community collector road and that Safari Pass is a residential local access street. He then asked what the "R" designation means in the zoning designations, and whether it meant only single family uses were permitted, He was informed that the "R" zoning categories allow only detached single family homes,. with the exception that "R-5" allows duplex as well as single family. No multifamily structures would be allowed. Mr. Littrell said that he also believes that the turnaround should be incorporated on Lot 5, based on the speed of traffic on Galaxie Avenue. He also stated that he was worried that the placement of a house upon Lot 5 might impede the natural drainage which runs from his property across Lot 5 to a pond further on the. north. City Attorney Mike Dougherty noted that unless a City project were involved, the flow of storm water from one property across another is a private issue or right among property owners. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that the City does review building permits and surface water drainage plans as part of each house construction to make sure that any existing drainage ways are not blocked by the construction or grading. Mark Bromm of 12061 Galaxie Avenue stated that he owns the house on the north to which the storm water drainage runs. He has a concern over an increase in the amount of storm water that might go into these natural ponds. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that one of the ponds currently has an outlet pipe into the Galaxie Avenue storm sewer, which then drains north to the storm sewer system in Eagan. Mr. Bromm asked what would happen if he has to rezone his property to an "R-2" designation and create additional lots and more storm water runoff. Keith Gordon noted that the north pond on his property could also be piped out to the Galaxie Avenue storm sewer system. Mr. Bromm asked at whose cost this would be done, and how much it would cost. Keith Gordon said that he will investigate this matter further. Mr. Bromm Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1995 Page 7 stated that the change in the elevation of the ponds have been affecting a boulevard oak tree on his property, and he would like to have the city try to save that. Jeannine Olson of 12084 Gantry Lane then approached the podium. She said that because her family is related to Mr. Olson, her neighbors skipped by her home when they were circulating petitions about this development proposal. She said that was unfortunate because there was much incorrect information and rumors going azound in the neighborhood and felt that if they had simply approached Mr. Olson and asked him what he was intending to do, all of this could have been avoided. Pedro Veranin of 2119 Royal Drive asked for an additional explanation on how the setback measurements were arrived at. He was given this information. Diane Jacobs of 7042 121st Street asked for an explanation of how many new lots were actually being proposed here. Staff responded that the existing property was being divided into five lots. One of these lots would contain the existing house, and there would be three additional lots along Safari Pass. The final lot would be located on Galaxie Avenue. Tom Lovelace then distributed to the Continissioners copies of written comments from several other residents who were not able to attend this evening's meeting. Chair Felkner noted that additional written continents. could be submitted to City Staff prior to the next meeting. He then closed the public hearing with the standard remarks, stating that no action would be taken this evening. He then called for a brief recess at 8:17 p.m. The meeting reconvened. at 8:22 p.m. 7. DISCUSSION TTEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Sketch Plan for Possible Sign Ordinance Amendment Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer reviewed the existing sign regulations. concerning canopy signs which aze allowed only on a pedestrian scale near the front entries, and building signs being required within a designated band azea along the building face. Canopies without any signage are allowed. as an architectural feature without any special. regulations. Bruce Kennedy approached the Commission and stated that he has operated the Bloomington Kennedy Transmission Shop for many yeazs, and that they have recently bought out the former franchise holder at the Apple Valley location after a seven yeaz period. Mr. Kennedy said that given the orientation of the building, the amount of landscaping along Cedaz Avenue, and the difficulty in identifying the Glenda Drive intersection on 147th Street from all Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1995 Page 8 of the other driveways in the immediate location, he has concluded that additional signage is necessary to get customers to their store. Mr. Kennedy presented photographs of his Bloomington operation which has a similar canopy with signage on it. Edgeton asked if the canopy is internally lit. Mr. Kennedy said that it was. Mr. Kennedy also distributed photographs of the adjacent buildings and amount of landscaping to emphasize his point about reduced visibility from Cedar Avenue. A general discussion ensued concerning the existing signage on the building and whether or not they were visible enough to Gedaz Avenue traffic. Mr. Kennedy says that they have repeatedly heard customer comments about it being difficult to locate this building. Frank Blundetto stated that as the proposed canopy signage has been drawn, the entire canopy with logo appears to be a sign, which in his opinion would result in a measured sign azea greatly in excess of 250 squaze feet. Bruce Kennedy said that he wished to emphasize that the purpose of the canopy is not simply to call attention to the building, but that the lighting of it creates, in his opinion, an aesthetically pleasing appeazance and helps light the parking lot for safety purposes. NIr. Blundetto stated that he respected NIr. Kennedy's position, but that in his opinion this approach simply is creating a very lazge sign. Dowling stated that she believes the issue of screening caused by maturing trees will continue to become more of an issue to the businesses along County Road 42, Gedaz Avenue, and the Ring Route as all of the boulevard plantings continue to mature. Rick Kelley stated that ground signs as an alternative to pylon signs is one possible solution since the ground sign would be visible beneath any tree canopy. Bodmer stated that the City Forester has suggested selective pruning of the trees until such time as they mature and grow tall. enough so that they are actually above the signs and buildings. Chair Felkner stated that he concurred with Commissioner Blundetto's assessment in that the entire canopy is just a lazge sign. Oberg agreed that a properly designed canopy can be attractive, but also that as currently designed, the entire canopy can be construed to be a sign. Don Ryan of Attracts Sign presented drawings of other canopy and canopy signs on other buildings throughout the metropolitan azea. He said that both St. Paul and Minneapolis measure only a rectangle azound the letters or graphics to determine the sign area, and not the entire sign canopy. It was noted that in this case the additional canopy and canopy sign would not replace the building sign, effectively allowing two building signs for Kennedy Transmission on each sign if it were to be approved. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1995 Page 9 The Planning Commission had a general discussion concerning the proposal, and reached a consensus that some type of amendment allowing signage upon the canopies should be considered, but not as an additional sign, but rather as a substitute for a building sign. Otherwise, the current restriction providing for pedestrian scale identification signage on the canopy would be the only type permitted. Chair Felkner stated that he also felt the amendment should stipulate a manner in which the sign area should be measured for canopy signs as opposed to calculating. the entire canopy as the sign. area. Commissioner Blundetto stated: that there: should also be restrictions. to prohibit the: canopy material from extending above the top of any building. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Gowting, to direct Staff to prepare proposed language amending the sign ordinance to allow canopy signs as a substitute for building signs. The motion carried 5 - 0. 9. ADJOi7I2NMENT MOTION:. Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to adjourn the Punning Commission meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.