Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1996CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 20,1996 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Pkuming Commission meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chair Alan Felkner. Members Present: Alan Fellmer, Marcia Crawling, Diane Nagler, Paul Oberg, and Dave Swanson. Members Absent: Frank Blundetto and Karen Edgeton. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Tom Lovelace, and Mike Dougherty. Others Presents See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ckiair Fellarer asked Staff and the Conm~ission members if they had any changes or revisions to the proposed agenda. There being none, he called. for its approval. MOTION: Member Swanson moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to approve the draft agenda as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MARCH 6,1996 MINUTES Chair Fellmer asked Staff and the Commission members iftheyhad any changes or additions to the draft minutes. submitted in the packet. There being none, he called for their approval. MOTION: Member Cowling moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to approve the March 6, 1996 minutes. as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None - 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Whitney Plaza Planned Development Revisions and Site Plan Building Permit Authorization Assistant Planner Tom Lovekuz introduced himself and identified the location of this proposed project on the northwest corner of Cedaz Avenue and 155th Street (Whitney Drive). The project would involve the constrnction of a 16,345 square foot multi-tenant retail building. The Comprehensive Plan currently designates this area for a combination of retail business and general business uses, and it is caned under Planned Unit Development Number 532, Subzones 1 and. 2. Planning Commission Minutes March 20,1996 Page 2 A public hearing on this proposed plumed development revision and site plan was held at the last PLmning Commission meeting and several issues were raised at that meeting. Mr. Lovelace then introduced the project applicant to respond to those issues. Wade Johnson of AMCON irdroduced himself. He stated that he is the project rnauager for the design and constmetion of the proposed project. He stated that the issues raised at the last PLuwing Commission meeting. involve access to the site, the facade of the building, and the landscape parking islands. Mr. Johnson then presented a photo reamdering of the proposed building to illustrate the use of rock faced block below the window line, with the. baLmce of the strcture to be corrstmcted of face brick. He stated that they have chosen the use. of rock faced block alongthe lower portion of the building in order to break up-the 17 foot high expanse of brick which would otherwise occur. Mr. Johnson stated that they had increased the area of the pazking lot devoted to landscape isLurds, although they are still below the 5% requirement listed in the planned unit developmer performance standards. He stated that they are above the amount ofLrndscape islands required in a standard conmmercial development, and feel that what they are providing is appropriate. Mr. Johnson then noted the recommendations of the traffic engineer employed by the City concerning the change of the southern access to a one way enter-0nly; which would necessitate exiting traffic to use the access point onto the north/south portion of Whitney Drive in the northwest corer of the site, He stated-that they believe that the change of the southern access to an errter-0nly arrangement would encourage a circular traffic movement along the front of the building that would make pedestrian moveretrts between the parking area and the entrance to each retail. space less safe. Chair Felkner asked Staff where else a 5% Lmdscape island requirement exists. Staff expLtiued that the standazd requirement is 2%. However, in this planned unit development, the percentage was raised to 5%. Chair Felkner then asked about the use of the southern access as a two way enter and exit arrangement as opposed to a one way emeronly arrangement. He stated that he feh that during the morning peak hour with the. adjacent Cedar Park Elementary School experiencing. school bus activity, as well as parent drop off activity, that having an entrance only at this location would be safer. A general. discussion ensued concerning this access point: Commissioner Oberg noted that the current site plan shows 89 parking stalls, and that City code would require 88 stalls for a building of this size. He said that if an additional access were provided to the north/south portion of Whitney Drive in accordance with the traffic enghmeer's recommendation, several parlang stalls would be eliminated. In addition, if more Landscape islands were installed, there would be even more parking stalls lost. Commissioner Swanson noted Brat if the south. access is changed to an entrance only via signage, unless the City polices this constarrtly, the majority of customers would most likely ignore that signage; he cited the exanmple of the access to Gub Foods on 153rd Street. He went on to say that in his opinion it would make more sense to widen this southern access and acknowledge that it would be used for two-way purposes: Commissioner Nagler asked Staff if pazking was cun-errdy penuitted along Whitney Drive. Community Development Director Rick Kelley stated that pazking is curm~errtly allowed on both sides of Whitney Drive. He explained that when the Whitney Plaza project was initially approved, a condition of approval was the establishmern of convenarrts on the property that would allow the parking stalls on the west side Planning Commission Minutes March 20,1996 Page 3 of the property to be available for public parking, specifically for athletic and school evems at the adjacent Cedaz Park Elementary site. This condition was placed. on the development approval because the City knew that the additional traffic expected from a retail use on the site might necessitate the City having to restrict on-street pazking, at least along the east side of Whitney Drive. Dave Johnson of Mattress Liquidators; who would be the owner and primazy tenant of this project, stated. that they are aware of the existing covenants concerning the parking, but also noted that the coveuazrts prohibit them from altering the current driveway access poimrts and circulation on site without approval from the other property owners. Conunissioner Nagler asked. a question concerning the 5% landscape island requirement. She asked if the project would still be able to go ahead if thei 5%° requirement is adhered to. Wade Johnson said that they would go ahead; but they would probably gave to redesign the site by reducing the building size somewhat in order to meet the parking requiremerrts. The' latest landscape plan was then. revised to illustrate the location of the plantings around the perimeter of the site as well as the landscape islands. Commissioner Nagler asked if this landscaping was consistent with the first phase of the Whitney Plaza Development. The developer noted that it was consistert, and in fact most. of it was ah~eady in place; having been installed with the first phase development. Most of the new on-site landscating would be installed. behind the screening. wall and in the new landscape islands within the parking lot. The latest landscape plan indicates that slightly over 2% of the parking aces is devoted to landscape islands. About 21 percent of the total site would be within;green space. Chair Felkner noted that in order to meet the 5% landscape island-requirement, the. size or number of landsealme islands would just about need to be doubled. He asked what the coverage in: the phase.. one area had been. Staff responded that the 5% landscape island--was met and that the phase one buikling occupied about 18% of the lot area. Chair Eelkner then asked about the: proposal to revise the building coverage requirements within the Planned Unit Development. Wade Johnson noted that the cm~rent planned. development establishes. a maximum building. coverage of 20%. The building plan being presented this. evening has a coverage of 22%. The maxiruum building coverage in a retail business district would be 30%. I-Ie stated that the request to revise the coverage upward to 30% is simply to make the coverage consistent with other Retail Business canes in the community, although all they are interested in is the 22%. Wade Johnson also noted that the existing phase one portion of Whitney Plaza is dedicated primarily to auto service uses which do not require as much pazking, and consequently had no difficulty in installing landscape islands rather than pazking stalls, while still meetumg their pazking requirement. Commissioner Dowling asked Staff why this planned development required a 5% landscape island performance standard rather than the 2% in other zoning. districts. Planning Commission Minutes March 20,1996 Page 4 Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace noted that in reviewing the public hearing records when the Whitney Plaza project was initially approved, it appeared that more stringent perfommance standards, such as the 5% requirement, were included in order to try and soften the appearance of a retail use with additional landscaping, since it was adjacent to an elementary school and other residential uses such as apartments and townhomes. Wade Johnson said that it is his belief that the planned development perforniance standards were driven by the design of the phase one building, which he again emphasized is devoted to auto services uses that did not require as much parking and could easily accommodate additional landscape islands withinthe parking lot. Conmmissioner Oberg asked if the access and shazed driveway agreeurerrt with the. property owner to the north had been signed. Dave Johnson noted that this is an existing agreement; which they as a subsequent property owner would be bound to follow.. He stated that it is the terms of the excYing agreement which gives them some concern about being required by the City to make the south access anenter-only situation. He is afiaid that they would have to get the other owner to consent to this change. Commissioner Oberg asked if a master signage plan had been. prepared, Wade Johnson stated that they have not prepared an overall sign package, but have called out a location for a freestanding sign on the site plan. He said that all signs would meet applicable City co$es. Gity Attorney Mike Doughertynoted that a copy of the portion of the development agreement stipukrting the shared access and pazking isles for Whitney Plaza. has been included in the packet of information on this project. Chair Felkner Umen asked the petitioner to address in more detail the use of rock-faced concrete block along the lower portion of the building rather than all brick. Wade Johnson said that if the Gity requires it; they are more than willing to use a layer colored brick along the base of the building, but it is their firm belief that the use of a rock faced block gives a better design to the building because it offers not only a difference in color, but also a difference in texture: I3e emphasized that there is almost no difference in cost using a rock Faced block in this area as opposed to brick. Chair Fellamer then asked Tom Lovelace. if he had any additional comments or observations on the project at this point. Mr. Lovelace noted that another issue over which there was much discussion at the public hearing had to do with the amount of pazking being provided. He stated that he has done a thorough analysis of the pazking requirererrts, and that a chart was included in the Plannt'ng Commission packet. The analysis concludes that, in addition to the retail space, the building. has a potential of housing restaurants with a total of 138 seats, using the 89 pazking stalls illustrated on the site plan. Mr. Lovelace stated that the Commission had also. asked for a synopsis of the public hearings held during the initial Whitney Plaza Planned Unit Development Zoning approval in order to identify any other issues concerning the use of the property. He stated that the number one issue had been the potential for a significant increase in traffic along Whitney Drive that would have occurred if the freestanding Class II restaurants with drive thm's as initially proposed had been approved. The discussions and conclusions of the City were that traditional Class II restanmnts with drive-thm's would be incompatible with the existing uses in the neighborhood, consisting of an elementary school, townhomes, and an apartmem building. Planning Commission Minutes March 20,1996 Page 5 Mr. Lovelace also noted that the proposed amendment to the planned development that would allow on- sale beer or wine as a conditional use permit bas been withdrawn by the petitioner based upon the comments received at the public hearing. Mr. Lovelace concluded by stating that Staff was reconnneading approval of the project, subject to the use of 100% brick facing on the building; the southern access to be used for an entrance only; and that the requirement for kmdscape islands equal to 5% ofthe paved area be met. Chair Felkner then asked if the Commission members had any additional. discussion on the issues which were raised. Commissioner Oberg stated that after looking at the rendering, he believes that the use of rock faced concrete block along the lower portion of the building makes sense. He also. said that in his opinion,. the project should meet the 5% landscape island requirement. Finally he said that the south access does need some attention, but be was not completely clear on what the best: solution would be, other than widening the access somewhat. A general discussion then ensued among the commissioners concem,_ng the recommendation from the traffic engineer regarding this access, as well as the potential of placing an additional access onto the north/south portion of Whitney Drive. Commissioner Nagler stated that she believes that this. project should be consistent with. the 5% requirement, the same as phase. one. She also thinks that the requiremenrt for 100% brick facing should be maintained. Commissioner Swanson stated that he thinks that the traffic engineer wanks a perfect world, and that it simply isn't possible in all. cases. He believes that the south access should be left as atwo-way access, but that it should be widened. He stated that he likes the use of rock faced block along the lower portion of the building. He said that times and situations cluv~ge, and believes. that this also applies to the 5% requiremear. I3e thinks that on this building and other buildings, the use of alternate accent materials such. as rock faced block is okay, and that there is not a compelling reason to maintain the 5% landscape island requirement. Chair Felkner referred to the photographic rendering, and asked if they intend to have windows all around the building. Wade Johnson said that the building would have windows all along the front side facing Cedar Avenue, and part way along the north and south sides. The rear of the building would be windowless, having only service doors. Chair Fellrner then asked about the architechual treatment of the rear wall. Wade Johnson responded that it would also have a rock faced block wainscoting about five feet in height with brick above that. There would also be service enclosures. Chair Felkner stated that he feels the all brick requirement should. be reexauwted in order to consider alternate materials for trim and accent purposes. Commnissioner Dowling stated that she agrces with such a reexamination, and compared it to the changes for multifamily buildings, which now allow for the use of vinyl siding. Planning Commission Minutes March 20,1996 Page 6 Commissioner Nagler stated that perhaps a rcexarnination could provide for a certain percentage of a building face to be surfaced with alternate accent materials. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Swanson, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development ordinance; allowing. for up to 33% of a muhi-tenant building to be used for either Class I or Class II restaurants, but not providing. for any drive-thm's; to allow fiuniture sales to be in the Planned Development; and to increase the maximum building coverage to 22%. A general discussion ensued concerning the building coverage requitement. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace noted that the building as drawn actually is slightly over 22%, being 22.3%: The amendment. to the Plamieci Development would reflect this. Chair Fellmer then called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried S - 0. MOTION:. Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Swanson to adjust the boundary of Zone 1 to include Lot 2. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Swanson to recommend approval. of the site plan and building pemut authorization, allowing for the use of rock faced block along. the lower portion of the building as illustrated,. but subject to the widening. of the. southern access to Whitney Drive as a two-way access point, and subject to the widening of the access to the north/south portion of Whitney Drive on the west side of the project. Prior to the vote, Commissioner Nagler stated that it is her opinion that afive-foot high band of rock faced block alongthe rearofthe building was too high for her to support. Chair Felkner then called for a vote on the motion: The motion carried 4 - 1 (Nagler). It was noted that the form of this motion of approval does not relax the standard for the project to have to meet the 5% landscape island requirement.. This item will appear onthe March 28th City Council. meeting.. There was a general discussion on placing the use of alternate materials for accent purposes on commercial buildings on the agenda for the next Planning Commission work. session. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS -None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Petitioner Presentation Guide Community Development Director Rick Kelley noted that based on comments received from the Commission, Staff has prepared a handout for petitioners to help them understand what type of information they should be providing to the Comrission during the public meeting fonuns. Planning. Commission Minutes March 20,1996 Page 7 Commissioner Swanson noted that the number one fear of the American public is to have to speak before a group such as this. He thinks that this infom~ation will assist petitioners, particularly individuals seeking setback variances for their homes. He also noted. that he is pleased with the change in the mamier of presentation so that Staff does not appear to be an advocate of development proposals. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Swanson moved; seconded by Member Dowling, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.