Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/1995CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 6, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Cha;rman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Karen Edgeton, Frank Blundetto, Mazcia Gowling, Paul Oberg, and Diane Nagler. Members Absent: Dave Swanson. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, 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 Blundetto, to approve the draft agenda. The motion cazred 6 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 16, 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 Blundetto, to approve the August 16, 1995 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0, with one abstention (Nagler). 4. CONSENT ITEMS - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Outpost Java Chair Felkner opened the public heazing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the item, which is proposed to be located on the west side of the Target Greatland parking lot. The property is currently designated Shopping Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 2 Center on the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned under a planned unit development. It is proposed to amend the planned development to allow for adrive-thrn coffee kiosk as a newly defined Class III restaurant. It is also proposed to consider a conditional use permit for alternate exterior building materials on the kiosk itself, along with the site plan and building permit authorization. Kenneth Clausen of Outpost Enterprises Limited then approached the Commission to offer a more detailed explanation of his development proposal. He stated that he did not have too much to add from the previous sketch plan presented at the August 2, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed coffee kiosk would be a modular premanufactured building, which would be modified to have an exterior dryvit/stucco building material that will be painted to match the color of the existing Target Greatland store. Chair Felkner asked about site plan changes from the sketch plan relative to vehicular stacking. Mr. Clausen referred to the overhead transparency, and noted that the coffee kiosk had been moved further east away from the internal circulation drive to allow for five stacking spaces for each of the drive-thru windows. He said that their peak demand time will be just after 6:00 a.m., weekdays, prior to the opening of the Target Greatland store. Mr. Edgeton asked if there was any information available from traffic engineers concerning: peak hour generation of this type of use. City Engineer Keith Gordon said that he does. not believe that this type of use is listed in any existing textbooks, as it is a new use. Mr, Clausen. stated that they expect 80% of their business to be generated from the early morning.. commuter traffic. This would occur between 6:00 and 8:30 a.m. Commissioner Edgeton asked if this. proposed restaurant meets the Class II restaurant definition. Kathy Bodmer stated no, that is the reason it is being proposed as a separate new class, Glass III restaurant. Commissioner Oberg asked if the hours of operation for the kiosk would be from six in the morning till closing of the Target Greatland store which occurs between nine and ten in the evening. Mr. Clausen said that while they would open at 6:00 a.m., they would expect to close between 6:.00 a_nd 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Oberg asked the petitioner what the estimated amount of traffic would be. Mr. Clausen said that they expect about 300 sales per day. If 80% of that occurs during the peak hour period, that would equate to 240 sales or 120 sales on each side of the kiosk. Since they expect to provide service at the rate of one sale per minute per car, they feel they can easily accommodate that within the 2 1/2 hour window of 6:00 to 8:30. Mr. Clausen went on to say that their success will be based on their ability to deliver very quick service to the commuter and not delay them on their work trip. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 3 Chair Felkner asked the petitioner about the Staff comments concerning the landscape plantings. Mr. Claussen stated that they will meet the recommendations of the City Forester. Chair Felkner asked City Staff if there were any other issues that remain to be addressed. Kathy Bodmer displayed an overhead transpazency of the issues that had been identified: (1) Is the use consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan? (2) Is the concept of a Class III restaurant acceptable? (3) If approved, should it be permitted or a conditional use. (4) Have traffic concerns been adequately addressed with five stacking spaces. (5) Are alternate building materials acceptable? (6) Is the landscaping acceptable? Commissioner Nagler asked if any continents had been received from other restaurants in town. Bodmer said that the City had not received any comments, but that because other restaurants are such a great distance away from this site, they would not have received direct mail notice. Commissioner Nagler then asked about some of the criteria in the Class III restaurant definition that was proposed. It was noted that the City Attorney had not yet formally reviewed the proposed language of the Class III restaurant. Commissioner Edgeton asked if a conditional use pernut was necessary for a portable structure. Kathy Bodmer stated that the conditional use permit was necessary for the alternate building materials. Commissioner Edgeton asked if the proposal was approved, is there a likelihood that a similar type of structure will be requested elsewhere in the community. Bodmer stated that this development proposal is specific to this planned unit development, and if it was approved in the form being requested, it could not occur elsewhere except within this planned development. Commissioner Oberg noted that other drive-up facilities are associated with permanent structures where restaurants are being operated as opposed to portable StL'lZCtLlreS. He Said ghat a permap ent Stnietiire ceemc tp reprecept a, degree of inyegtment in the community, completely different from a portable structure. He said that the City has established strong performance standards for permanent buildings, and that the allowance of a portable building such as this does not seem to be consistent with those standards. Commissioner Nagler asked if it would be possible for the City to notify other restaurants in the community to get their feelings about this new Class III restaurant definition. Commissioners Edgeton and Cowling stated that they felt this was beginning to deal with issues of competition and were not appropriate for the Planning Commission deliberations concerning land use. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 4 Chair Felkner also noted that the charge of the Planning Commission is to evaluate the most appropriate use on the land. He asked that Staff talk to the Cit}~s consulting traffic engineer to determine if there were any other circulation or weekend peak hour problems; also, that the City Attorney evaluate the Class III restaurant definition. Commissioner Edgeton asked if the. petitioner had considered any other location within the Tazget Greatland pakking lot. Mr. Claussen stated that they had evaluated two other locations: at the large north landscape island, and at the center diverter island. He said that the Target operations team preferred the site that was being presented this evening. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he believes there are similar operations on the West Coast, particularly in Seattle. He asked that Staff see if any data is available from communities that have these types of kiosks. Commissioner Cowling stated that while she does not want to get involved in a discussion concerning competitive issues between other restaurants, she thinks the issue of fairness of applicability of performance standards for permanent structures versus portable structures be considered. Commissioner Edgeton asked the petitioner why they had not considered a permanent structure for their business, Mr. Claussen stated that the kiosk is not intended to be a plumbed structure with separate utility connections since their development concept is for leased properties with shared plumbing facilities at the. primary structure on the property -- in this case, the Tazget Greatland commissary. Commission Edgeton asked if the City had a definition of a permanent structure. It was noted that this could be obtained from the State. Building Code. Chair Felkner said that he still had some. issue associated with the lack of separate utilities, particularly water and sewer. Mr. Claussen said that this issue had been discussed thoroughly with the Minnesota Department of Health concerning just what would be occurring within the structure, and the ability to bring new water out and the small amount of wastewater back to the Target Greatland commissary. Commissioner Edgeton asked about the PCA letter concerning the avoidance of internal circulation drive interference by stacked vehicles. Bodmer stated that assuming five stacking spaces is the correct number, the internal circulation ring of the Target Greatland area would not be impacted. Chair Felkner then opened the hearing to comments from the public. Bill Shindler of 13752 Fairlawn stated that he drives through this parking lot between five and six times a week. He stated that the area where the parking lot is entered from 153rd Street neaz Walgreens is the most congested area of the pakking lot, and that this Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 5 kiosk will be located in that general vicinity. He thinks that the Cit}~s traffic engineer needs to evaluate this in detail. There being no other comments, Chair Felkner closed the hearing with the standazd remarks. He stated that the item will appear on future Conmussion agendas until a decision and recommendation is reached. 5B. Academy Townhomes Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodrner introduced herself and stated that this proposal is located on property currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan for high density multifamily, and is zoned for up to 28 dwelling units. The development proposal is for a preliminary plat and site plan approval for 22 townhome units. The property is located on the northeast corner of 143rd Street and Heywood Avenue. Mark Hebert, the developer of this proposal, approached the Commission to explain the project in more detail.. He referred to the previously discussed sketch plan at the August 2, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. He said that he has attempted to offset the buildings somewhat and has increased the amount of brick on the building. He said that the project meets the 20% maximum building occupancy standard, as well as the 60% greenspace standard by incorporating one half of the right-of-way of the uiumproved portion of 342nd Street. This would need to be vacated in order to be incorporated into the development. He said that the plan presented this evening indicates a private street system coming in off of 142nd Street that does. not go through all the way toward Hayes Road. He said that this design was. selected based. on input received from the Commission at the sketch plan review stage. He said. that since the plan was drawn the Public Safety Department has requested an increase in the size of the turnaround area to allow for larger emergency vehicles to be able to enter the project and still exit it. He said that due to the complicating grading factors and the limited amount of level ground within the development, he would now like to request that this private street have a through connection toward the Hayes side. He noted that the public hearing was necessary to provide for the subdivision of land to allow owner-occupied units instead of rental units. He said that the proposed townhomes would sell from $114,000 to $13Q000 each. He said that he has discussed the layout with several of the neighbors. He said that the use of a private street rather than constructing 142nd Street to public street standards leaves the north half of the right-of-way in its natural state, with its steep topography and existing vegetation providing a better buffer to the north. He said that he thinks that the owner-occupied units aze a better use for the City and the neighbors than the rental 8-plex units referred to in the planned development. He said that in order to avoid further disruption of topography and trees on that north half of the right-of-way, he would suggest that instead of the pedestrian pathway being constructed there, he would simply widen his private street and grant a pedestrian access Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 6 easement across it to allow pedestrian movement between Gardenview Drive and Hayes Road. He said that he will meet the 50% brick`requirement on the front of the structures, but wants to use some alternate materials on the back side. He said that he will meet the landscape requirements and match what had been done at the adjacent Wensmann multi- family project. Chair Felkner asked for some details concerning the building coverage and greenspace calculations. Mr. Hebert reviewed. the use of one-half of the 142nd Street right- of-way that had not been constructed, as well as the pedestrian easement issue. Commissioner Edgeton asked about the site plan configuration for the northern units, and asked if Mr. Hebert felt that this plan addressed the "barracks look" issue raised at the sketch plan. Mr. Hebert stated that each dwelling unit is offset by two feet and that the use of hips and gables in the roof line will emphasize this offset even more. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she is concerned over the monotonous look presented by the rear of the structures which will be visible from 143rd Street. Mr. Hebert. stated that all of the dwelling units will have decks on the rear, and that an option to change the deck into porches would be available. Commissioner Gowling stated that she also is concerned about the exposure of the rear of the units to traffic along 143rd Street. She said that with the minimal building offset being proposed, she feels that some. brick on the back of the building is necessary to improve the appearance. Mr. Hebert stated that he will meet all code requirements for building construction. Commissioner Gowling. then asked which oak trees would. need to be removed as part. of this development. Mr. Hebert referred to the site plan and noted that. all of the hardwoods on Blocks 1, 2 and 5 would need to be removed as part of the grading activities. Commissioner Gowling then asked about the tree replacement policy. Bodmer stated that there is a complex replacement formula regarding the removal of significant trees outside of the building pad area. She noted that the forester's preliminary calculations indicate that the 2-1/2% landscape requirement will generate enough new plantings to meet this replacement standard. Commissioner Gowling stated that she thinlrs that the 2-1/2 % landscape requirement does not go far enough in dealing with the loss of those mature oak trees on the hill. Commissioner Edgeton asked if any of these oaks could be saved. Mr. Hebert stated that he did not feel it was possible. He said that in order to save those trees, the grading plan would have to be modified significantly so that the building sites would all be transferred to the east side on Block 3, and in order to get the same density, the building plan would essentially be a 4-story apartment building. Commissioner Nagler asked about the 2:1 slope area, that it be identified and that the developer explain how it would be maintained. Mr. Hebert pointed out the north side Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 7 of the development in the south half of the 142nd Street right-of-way he is proposing to be vacated and turn back to himself for development purposes. He stated that a 2:1 slope would exist for a significant portion of this part of the vacated right-of-way. He also noted a narrow strip between Blocks 1 and 2 and the southern Blocks 4 and 5 where a 2:1 slope is proposed. He said that in all of these areas he would utilize a stabilization mat and the use of deep rooted natural grasses to hold the slope. The balance of the site is 3:1 or less. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that a 2:1 slope needs to be vegetated with a south maintaining material since it cannot be mowed. A 3:1 slope can be mowed, but not safely with a riding mower. Mr. Hebert added that if he installed a low approximately 3 foot high retaining wall along a portion of the site, he could soften the balance of the grades to a 3:1 slope. Chair Felkner asked the developer to work closely with the City Engineer on a revised grading plan to minimize the steep slopes. Commissioner Oberg asked the developer to explain his discussion concerning the driveway access and private street connections to 142nd Street. Hebert referred to the overhead transparency which had the private drive and street shaded so that they were more easily identifiable. He referred to the discussion at the sketch plan review concerning the closing of one or the other ends of that to eliminate the possibility of cut-through traffic of high school students. He said that the plan illustrates adead-end situation which the Fire Department said needed to have a larger turnaround area for emergency vehicles. Because of the space limitations to accommodate a larger turnaround, he was again proposing that the connection to the east end be made so that the. private street would be a through street. A general. discussion ensued concerning the potential of high school students using the private street as a vehicular shortcut between Gardenview Drive and Hayes Road, and comparisons. to other private street configurations in similar townhome projects which connect public streets. Chair Felkner asked Bodmer if she had any additional issues or critiques on the development. Bodmer stated that the developer had pretty much addressed the issues identified at the sketch plan and in a report. She noted that the real policy issue here is that the previously approved plans for 2-story 8-plexes may have preserved more trees on the site by having smaller footprints, but that in order to accommodate the marketplace for owner-occupied units, if this is what the City desires, it needs to be recognized that these will be one-level units that are spread out on the land in a more dispersed fashion which does result in the removal of more trees. Chair Felkner then opened the hearing to public comments. Robert Echo of 8469 142nd Street Court approached the Commission. He noted that 142nd Street currently acts as a division between the single family uses to the north, and the multi-family uses to the south. He stated that the proposed plan indicates 18 of the townhome units would have driveway access to 142nd Street. He stated that he believes all Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 8 of the access should be directed toward 143rd Street in order to continue to have a division between the single family and multi-family neighborhoods. Ken Barabeau of 8457 142nd Street approached the Commission. He stated that he has circulated a petition which he presented to the Commission. He said that in general they are not opposed to the proposed development, but are opposed to the proposed driveway access onto 142nd Street. He reiterated that they wanted to have a distinct division. between the single family and multi-family neighborhoods, and that by providing driveway access to 142nd Street, this division is lost. Dick Unger of 8489 142nd Street Court stated that his home is located right at the proposed driveway access. He said that he is concerned over headlights shining into his property and potential vehicular congestion. He also noted that if the private street is intended for use as a pedestrian access, there is likely to be a hazard created by cars backing out of the new garages into the pedestrian way. He noted that the Weissmann project has very attractive fronts facing 143rd Street, not the backs of units as Mr. Hebert is proposing. Mary Jo Webber of 14165 Heritage Court stated that she is concerned about the potential for cut-through. traffic of high school students along the private drive, as well as the destruction of their view to the south. Dan Shand of 14201 Hibiscus Court stated that in his multi-family development of Gardenview Place, the developer was able to grade and build to save a significant amount. of existing vegetation and mature trees. He said that he does not believe this developer should build at the maximum permitted. density if it means the. destruction of trees and natural topography. He stated that the developer and. the City should. come up with a different plan. Chair Felkner asked for any additional comments, or if they wish, they may mail them to the City. Bob Eck approached the Commission again and asked them to actually walk the site so that they can see. why the neighbors are concerned about the saving of the trees and access points. Commissioner Edgeton asked the developer why it would not be possible to take an access off of Hemlock Court to the south. Mr. Hebert stated that he wants to have the entry points as close as possible to the center of the project to improve the internal vehicular cireulatiar. and access. He also said that he believes it is too steep to bring a private street up from Hemlock Court, unless a substantial amount of additional material is removed from the site to lower it down to that elevation. He said that the. only type of unit he is interested in building is a single level unit targeted to the empty nester market. Ken Barabeau reapproached the Commission to offer his opinion that a "viable" project as defined by the developer seems to be based purely on cost containment issues to minimize development expenses. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 9 There being no further public comment, Chair Felkner closed the hearing with the standard remarks. He noted that there would be no action taken this evening and that the item would appear on future Commission agendas until a decision and recommendation is reached. Chair Felkner then called for a brief recess at 8:42 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. SC. PDQ Conditional Use Permit Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced herself and stated that the PDQ store at 15256 Essex Avenue is requesting a conditional use permit for outdoor display and sales of consumer items consisting of firewood, windshield washer fluid, and water conditioner salt. She noted that the property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan for a Convenience Center and it is appropriately zoned Retail Business. Bill McGuire, representing PDQ Stores, approached the Commission. He said that the purpose of their requesting the conditional use permit is to provide for additional consumer items located for customer convenience. Chair Felkner noted that if the conditional use permit for outdoor display is approved, it does not give the property owner cart blanche to place materials anywhere on the property. Standards for location and maintenance for the display area will apply.. Commissioner Gowling noted that there are two entrances to the PDQ store, and asked where the materials would be placed. Mr. McGuire stated that they would place the materials only by their secondary entrance, located adjacent to the gas pump area. Commissioner Edgeton. asked if they would use up the entire sidewalk width with the display area. Mr, McGuire stated that they would only use about two feet of the sidewalk width. He believes. that the sidewalk is between 6 and 8 feet deep. Staff was asked to confirm the dimensions and the specific location of the display area. Commissioner Edgeton asked if the conditional use permit can restrict the location of the display area. Kathy Bodmer stated that as long as the location is identified and restricted in a conditional use permit, that is what would govern. Commissioner Oberg stated that he can't think of any other convenience store that doesn't have a similaz type of display of these materials and felt that it would be appropriate. Commissioner Blundetto asked that at the next meeting some information concerning the restrictions placed on the back of the Coast to Coast Store storage area be included. Commissioner Gowling stated that she would want the display area restricted to only one side of the building. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 10 Bodmer stated that in the Staff review of the proposal that the standard outdoor storage or display criteria would be included in the conditional use permit approval. All of this is included in the Staff report. Chair Felkner then opened the public hearing to audience comments. There being none, he closed the hearing with the standard remarks. He noted there would be no action this evening and that the item would reappear on the next Planning Commission agenda. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Revised Permitted/Conditional Uses in RB Zones Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace introduced himself and noted that this item was an amendment to the Retail Business zoning district criteria upon request of Dakota Rental to consider an alternate location for their business. The proposed amendment would provide for rental operations as a permitted use in a Retail Business zone. Currently rental businesses are permitted only in General Business and Industrial Districts. Mr. Lovelace noted that, upon request of the. Commission, Staff surveyed similar suburban communities to determine what type of controls were placed on rental businesses and whether they were allowed in standard Retail Business zones. He noted that in the cities of Burnsville and Eagan rental operations are permitted in Retail Business districts, but that a conditional use permit is required for any outdoor display or storage of materials. He stated that upon analysis, Staff recommendation is that the Retail. Business zoning district be amended. to allow for rental operations as a permitted use; that. the current conditional use permit criteria for display of materials for sale. during: business hours be allowed outdoors, but that. outdoor storage of rental trucks or trailers not be provided for under any circumstance. He stated that this Staff recommendation was the result of looking at other established retail businesses in Apple Valley and a determination that the. outdoor storage of rental trucks or trailers would not be compatible with those uses as exist elsewhere in the community's Retail Business districts. He noted that the criteria establishing the different zoning districts in the community clearly indicate that General Business districts and Industrial districts are the most appropriate locations for this type of outdoor storage. Mr. Lovelace then displayed an overhead transparency of the downtown and adjacent industrial areas of the city, which had. been colored to illustrate the varying Retail, General, Limited and Industrial zoning districts. Mr. Lovelace then pointed out the vacant properties which were currently appropriately zoned to allow the rental business and the outdoor storage of rental trucks and trailers. Commissioner Oberg asked that the specific location of the proposed Dakota Rental site be pointed out. Mr. Lovelace identified the three lots on the northeast corner of Pennock Avenue and 146th Street. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 11 Commissioner Edgeton stated that she believes that the site Dakota Rental is interested in relocating to is appropriate for a rental operation, including the outdoor storage of rental trucks and trailers. She asked if the conditional use permit procedure aliowed sufficient flexibIlity on the part of the City to allow the outdoor storage at this location, but not on other Retail Business district lots. Mr. Lovelace responded that he believes it would be difficult to come up with criteria that would allow the use on this lot, but not on others similarly zoned. Rick Kelley asked that the City Attorney offer a brief explanation of how much discretion the City has on issuing conditional use permits. City Attorney Mike Dougherty expiained that the City must have a rational and objective basis for denial of the conditional use permit, and that such denial must be based upon facts relating to the site under discussion. He went on to state that it would be difficult to speculate or hypothesize how some other unspecified sites in the Retail,Busness zones might either receive approval or be denied for a similar outdoor storage conditional use permit. Mr. Lovelace stated that it was important to remember that this zoning amendment will affect all properties in Retail Business zones. This fact should be kept uppermost as opposed to considering the particular situation of Mr. Chapman and Dakota Rental's acquisition of the three lots. Commissioner Blundetto stated that Dakota Rental's ownership of specific properties was not germane to the current discussion. CommissionerNaglerasked if the rental trucks. and trailers could be stored elsewhere off site, Mr. Lovelace responded that it is entirely possible that a rental operation located in a Retail Business. district, if the amendment is approved, could acquire additional property located in a General Business or Light Industrial district. to provide for the overnight storage of the rental trucks or trailers. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he believed fencing or berms would be an appropriate method of screening the outdoor storage of rental trucks and trailers. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval to the Retail Business district zoning standards to allow for rental operations as a permitted use, and to include storage of motor vehicles out of doors as a conditional use. Commissioner Gowling stated that she does notbelieve that outdoor storage of rental trucks and trailers is appropriate in a Retail Business zone. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she believes the site that Dakota Rental is interested in would be appropriate for the use, although not necessarily on other Retail Business lots. She noted that she was the Commissioner who suggested that the Retail Business standards be amended to provide for, but now questions whether or not it might be appropriate to simply rezone the site Dakota Rental was interested to a General Business category. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 12 Tom Lovelace noted that this had been initially discussed, but it was pointed out that the General Business zoning district allows a variety of other uses that would probably not be appropriate at that specific location. The City must keep in mind the fact that businesses come and go, but once the zoning is established, other uses could be placed on the property with very little City control. This was the reason that General Business zoning on the lot was not pursued. Commissioner Blundetto asked the City Attorney what criteria the City could use in evaluating a conditional use permit and requiring conditions. Mike Dougherty noted that the first time that a conditional use permit might be issued for rental trucks and trailers in association with a rental shop operation is issued, the types of screening and site plan orientation would all become part of the record that would be eligible to be used in evaluating subsequent requests. Commissioner Nagler stated that she wishes the motion was in two parts, and that she believes Retail Business zones can accommodate rental operations, but that the outdoor storage of trucks and trailers should not be allowed. Chair Felkner then called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried 4 - 2 (Nagler,. Gowling). 6B. Deer Run Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented the issue which is for a five lot subdivision, rezoning, and setback variance request for five lots on Safari Pass across from 121st Street. Mr. Lovelace displayed a series of transparencies which illustrated the location and configuration of the proposed lots. He stated that the three. issues that he had identified from the comments received at the public. hearing: concerned the issuance of setback variances for three lots only to be provided for if vegetation could be saved. He noted the memo from the City Forester stating that significant trees would be saved if the variances were approved. The second issue related to the existence of a natural water course across the rear of Lot 5. He stated that if a drainage and utility easement is established across this water course, the existing drainage patterns would be preserved and not blocked. Finally, the issue of traffic safety on Galaxie Avenue could be addressed by requiring Lot 5 to have either a turnaround or loop driveway system so that cars would not have to back out onto Galaxie Avenue, where traffic is traveling at the posted speed of 45 SffileS per holly. Mr. Lovelace went on to say that Staff is recommending approval of the proposal with the conditions listed in the Staff report. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to recommend approval of the rezoning from "R-1" to "R-2". The motion carried 6 - 0. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Deer Run, subject to the requirement for a driveway Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1995 Page 13 turnaround on Lot 5 and an easement for the water course across Lot 5. The motion carried 6 - 0. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to recommend approval of the 15 foot setback variances for Lots 1 to 3 in Deer Run. The motion carried 6-0. Chair Felkner noted that this item would go on to appear on the September 14, 1995 City Council agenda. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Livable Communities Act Community Developrneut Director Rick Kelley gave a brief history of the Livable Communities Act and noted that the staff of the Metropolitan Council had indicated a willingness to appear before local Planning Commissions to provide additional information.. The Commission was amenable to this, but they requested that some background on the City's existing housing policies be discussed at a work session prior to having the Metropolitan Council Staff appear on an agenda. Staff will arrange this. B. Metropolitan Council Alternative Scenarios 2020 Rick Kelley reviewed his memo on this issue and noted that an open forum on Community Identity and Channeled Development will be held on October 9, 1995 by the Metropolitan Council. at the Rosemount Community Center. City Planning Commissioners and Council Members from Apple Valley and several of the surrounding cityies will be invited to this forum. The purpose of placing this item on the agenda was to give Commissioners an opportunity to be aware of the forum and mark their calendars now before the invitations come out in mid-September. 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None - 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Cowling, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 6 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.