Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1996CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 1,1996 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission. meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chair Alan Felkner. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Marcia Cowling, Karen Edgeton, Diane Nagler, Frank Blundetto, and Paul Oberg. Members Absent: Dave Swanson. Staff Present: Rick Kelley; Tom Lovelace, Kathy Bodmer, Keith Gordon, Mike Dougherty, and Neil Heuer. Others Present: See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Felkner asked Staff and the Commission members if they had any changes or revisions to the proposed agenda. There being none, he called for its approval. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Cowling, to approve the draft agenda. The motion carried 6 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF APRIL 17, 1996 MINUTES Chair Felkner asked Staff and the Commission. members if they had any changes or additions to the draft minutes included in the packet. There being none; he called for their approval. MOTION: Member Cowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to approve the April 17, 1996 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0, with one abstention (Oberg). 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Phillips 66 Conditional Use Permit Chair Felkner reopened the public hearing with the standard remarks. He noted that this public hearing was initially opened at the Aprii 17, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, but continued to this evening. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace identified the project location and request. The site is located on the southeast corner of Cedar Avenue and 155th Street. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider a conditional use permit for motor fuel sales, a car wash, and alternate building materials. The planned Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 2 unit development zoning that exists on the property provides for convenience grocery as a permitted use, but the previously identified uses require a conditional use pernut. The site is an existing lot, platted as part of the Carroll Center Sewnd Addition. He noted that the site plan illustrates a single access from the property to 155th Street, with a counter clockwise vehicular circulation pattern. Mr. John Bannigan approached the podium. He stated that he is representing the petitioner this evening and noted that Bob Hart of Phillips Petroleum and Carl McKee, a local site designer, were also present. Mr. Bannigan referred to a prior conditional use permit approval that was granted in 1991 for what he felt were essentially the same plans, but then expired in October of 1995. Mr. Bannigan referred to site exactions for the Cedar Avenue and 155th Street right-of--way that were required as part of the plat approval which reduces the building site area to just under one acre in size. He noted that the prior plan provided for two access points onto 155th Street, but did not believe that Cedaz Avenue access had been restricted as part of the dedication. He noted that a single access to the site was designed based on direction provided by the City Staff, and noted that the specific site design elements and internal circulation patterns were dictated to a large extent by the size of the site, and the single access so directed by Staff. Mr. Bannigan then stated that he would go through the issues raised by Staff in the report and try to address them. one by one. 1) The provision for a sidewalk along. 155th Street is acceptable to Phillips and would be installed. 2) The requirement for 18 parking stalls can be met by adding two parallel parking stalls on the east side ofthe lot. 3) Revisions to the landscape materials will be done. 4) Revisions to the architectural style to meet the "prairie style" architectural design is not acceptable to Phillips. Mr: Bannigan noted that the home office of Phillips Petroleum in Bartlesville was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. He stated that overall Phillips has been unhappy with the existing building design, and they do not want to construct additional buildings of this design. He noted that the new design being displayed here this evening represents a prototype that they want to use for their future stores. 5) The masonry screening wall referred to in the report around the trash enclosure was acceptable to them. 6) Logos. on the canopy as illustrated in the site plan will be deleted if they are not in conformance with the sign ordinance. Commissioner Gowling asked the petitioner for a clarification concerning changes to the landscape plan per the forester recommendations, and the screening on the west side of the building. Mr. Bannigan responded that they aze amenable to making these changes. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner Edgeton asked the petitioner to respond to the Staff comment in the report about using a site plan that could accommodate the development of the adjacent property. Mr. Bannigan repeated his comment about the limitations imposed by the site plan and a single access that make it difficult to change the site circulation or move the buildings azound. Chair Felkner asked Staff Planner Tom Lovelace to amplify on his comment in the report. Mr. Lovelace noted that the property to the south and the east of the site is currently under option by the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. Discussions with the MVTA have centered azoand a mixed use transit center, and the potential incorporation of the Phillips site into the overall development. via similaz building orientations or alignments, as well as interconnection of parking lots. Commissioner Edgeton asked if such a consolidation or accommodation between sites can be made. Mr. Lovelace noted that the MVTA plan is still conceptual at this point, and acknowledged that the small size of the Phillips site gives them limited flexibility in moving buildings around. Commissioner Nagler questioned whether access. can be made to the south of the Phillips site. A general discussion ensued on possible pedestrian and vehiculaz access points and potential conflicts between the two. Commissioner Edgeton asked about future road alignments for the property to the south, and how other uses along 155th Street would be oriented. It was noted that additional driveways to 155th Street would be permitted. Chair Felkner asked a question on different architectural styles and. building materials. Bob Hart of Phillips Petroleum noted that the original plan presented to the City had a stone face which was later changed at the City's request to a brick facing. He also noted that this proposed convenience store is larger than the model presented to the City for approval in 1991. Chair Felkner then opened the public hearing to comments from the audience. Jerry Rasmussen, a resident of the Orchard Square Senior Complex to the south, asked what had been originally planned for this site at the time that the Senior building was approved for construction. Chair Felkner asked Staffto respond. Community Development Director Rick Kelley noted that at the time that the senior housing project was proposed, this property was already zoned under a planned development for mixed residential and commercial uses. Mary Jean Charlebois of 15560 Gateway Path approached the podium. She stated that she was disappointed to hear that a gas station was proposed for this comer. She stated that traffic at Menards over the weekends already backs up at the intersection, and that this will just make the problem worse. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 4 She also stated that she was concerned over vehiculaz traffic noise generation, as well as potential pollution of the ground water by leaks in the gas tanks. She also stated that she felt that it would create a problem due to its close proximity to Cedar Park Elementary School on the other side of Cedaz Avenue. Tom Novitzka approached the podium. He stated that he is the caretaker for the Orchard Square Senior Building, and presented a petition to the Commission of residents of the senior wmplex stating that they were opposed to the Phillips 66 proposal. He also noted that the senior housing building is designed to be expanded, which would expose even more residents to the nuisance characteristics of a gas station. Commissioner Nagler asked if it would be possible to increase the amount of landscaping on the south side of the building. Mr. Bannigan noted that there is only a five foot wide strip between the circulation drive and the property boundary which was not wide enough to do much more than simply plant grass on. He said he also felt that the Dakota County HRA knew that these uses were listed as either permitted or conditional in the planned development zoning ordinance at the time that they chose the site for the senior building. He also felt that the Phillips 66 site would provide convenience grocery service to residents of the building. Mary Lee ?approached the podium. She stated that she was a resident of the Cedaz Point Townhomes, and stated she does not believe that it makes sense to put a gas station on such a busy street. She explained about the possibility of gas fumes. There being no further continent, Chair Fellrner closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. He noted that there would be no action taken this evening. SB. Preliminary Plat for Orthodontic Clinic Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standard. remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer noted that the proposed location of the project is on the southwest corner of 140th Street and Essex Avenue. The property is currently zoned Retail Business, and the proposal is to subdivide an existing vacant outlot to create a new buildable lot directly on the corner. This lot would contain an orthodontic clinic with access onto Essex Avenue, and a potential auxiliary parking lot onto Upper 141st Street. Ms. Bodmer identified the land uses surrounding the property, and noted that the current site plan represents a 10 foot setback deficiency along Essex Avenue, as well as a need to increase the parking lot turnaround on its western end. Brian Hanson of Krueger Hanson Architects then approached the podium to provide a more detailed explanation of the development proposal. He stated that because the dental offices require good even light, the building has been designed and oriented such that the examination rooms are on the north side of the building in order to receive north natural light. He stated that in his opinion, because the proposed lot would haue street frontage on three sides, a reduced setback to the Essex Avenue side would be justified. He said that the building could not be pushed any further east because they need to have a 20 foot setback on the interior common lot line in order to avoid having to construct a fire rated wall on that side of the building. Planning Commission Minutes May 1,1996 Page 5 Mr. Hanson referred to the building elevation and stated that it is a modified "liichazdsonian" architectural style, which predated Frank. Lloyd Wright Prairie School style. He said the building would be a one story structure constructed slab on grade with all mechanical equipment housed within the attic space. Mr. Hanson stated that they have reviewed the Staff report and comments concerning revisions to the landscaping in the monument sign. He said that they will review the forester recommendations concerning the species mix. further with the forester. Mr. Hanson went on to say that they would modify the pazking lot turnaround to meet Staffs wncems over the amount of available space. But they would like to be able to delay the installation of sidewalk along Essex Avenue until the balance of the Essex Avenue sidewallc is installed. Commissioner Edgeton asked a question about the north elevation of the building. Mr. Hanson referred her to the elevation drawing on that side. Commissioner Gowling asked a question about signage on the building. Mr. Hanson stated that it is their intent to provide only the single freestanding sign, but that there would be address numbers on the building face. Chair Felkner asked the City Attorney about the potential delay of the sidewalk installation. Mike Dougherty responded that this would be appropriate if the petitioner deposited with the City a cash escrow in an amount sufficient to cover the future cost of the installation of the sidewalk. Commissioner Edgeton asked if it would be possible for them to acquire the additional ten feet from the current property owner to make the lot wide enough to avoid needing a setback variance. Dr. Snyder stated that this would be a cost issue, although the property is available from the underlying property owner. Chair Felkner noted that financial issues aze not justifications for a variance; and asked Mr. Snyder to evaluate this situation further prior to Planning Commission action. at the next meeting: Mr. Hanson stated that he felt the amount of green space being created on the north and south side of the building in effect compensates for a reduced setback along the Essex Avenue side. Commissioner Blundetto noted that the building orientation and its shape wuld be modified to meet the 40 foot setback, for instance by turning it 90 degrees. Dr. Snyder stated that he thought that his building design, carrying a residential look, should count for something in his request for a variance. Commissioner Gowling asked Staff to review if similar variances had been considered for lots which have streets on at least three sides. Chair Felkner asked Staff if they had anything to add to the presentation. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 6 Kathy Bodmer responded by stating that the petitioner had covered the items listed in the report. She noted that discussions with the representative of the underlying. property owner indicated that provision for an easement on the Essex Avenue side (west side) would be accommodated. She stated that it is Staffs viewpoint, that since this is a lot which is being created at this time, it should be created large enough to accommodate the proposed building without any setback variances. The City is reseazching the established timetable for construction of the missing ]inks in the Essex Avenue sidewalk. Chair Felkner then opened the public hearing for audience comment. Lamar Johnson of 14012 Essex Court asked what type of development plans are being wnsidered for the rest of the vacant retail business outlot, and what the maximum height would be. Kathy Bodmer stated that she would look up the maximum height requirement. There is nothing being proposed for the balance of the outlot at this time. Mr. Johnson stated that he would prefer to see one level buildings and low traffic generators established on the rest of the outlot. It was noted that the retail business maximum height is 45 feet. Norm Johnson, a resident of the Foxmoore Ridge Townhomes, asked if the proposed driveway entrance onto Essex Avenue lined up with the existing driveway access to the Foxmoore Ridge Townhomes on the opposite side of the street. Staff will check on this. Mr. Johnson also questioned the proof of parking azea on the south side. of the properly with access onto Upper 141st Street. It was noted that these parking. stalls were intended for staff use, and would only be installed if necessary. Mc Johnson stated that he thinks that as much traffic as possible should be directed to Essex Avenue, and limit the number of driveways onto Upper 141st Street since in his opinion this is primarily a residential street. Mr: Hanson noted that the "proof of parking" lot will not be interconnected to the main lot. There being no further comments, Chair Felkner closed the public hearing with the standard remazks. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission. will make a recommendation at the next meeting. SC. Conditional Use Permit for Kwik Trip Car Wash Chair Felkner opened the public heazing with the standazd remarks. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace introduced the item by identifying the location of the previously approved Kwik Trip Convenience Grocery and Motor Fuel Sales Operation on the northeast comer of County Road 11 and realigned Palomino Drive. The property is currently designated under a planned unit development that provides for limited commercial use. The purpose of the conditional use permit request is to add a car wash to the backside of the previously approved convenience grocery store. In order to accommodate this, the lot on the previously Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 7 approved preliminary plat would be widened by 25 feet. He noted that in the building elevation that the roof line has been expanded so that the caz wash will not look like an "add-on." Scott Tegen of Kwik Trip Incorporated approached the Commission. He stated that originally they had not intended. to install a car wash on their facility, but as they have continued to evaluate their competition they have concluded that it is necessary. In responding to the comments in the Staff report, he stated that they would increase the amount of landscaping on the north side of the lot so that there would not be pavement from edge to edge. He also stated that the signage dedicated to each of the particular uses. will "shrink" so that the overall sign size will not change. Commissioner Fdgeton questioned what the remainder of the lot on the north side of the plat would be used for. Mr. Teigen responded that they have had discussions about establishing a day care facility on the lot to the east. But at this time nothing firm on the north property has been. decided. He did note that a small real estate office has been suggested. Commissioner Edgeton asked for a staff analysis of the maximum size of building and parking area which could be constructed on this northern lot remainder. It was noted that this lot is approximately the same size as the previous item's lot for an orthodontic clinic. Chair Felkner asked if staff had any additions concerning the presentation. Mr. Lovelace stated that the petitioner has indicated compliance or revision ofthe plan to satisfy the Staff review. Commissioner Blandetto asked that the traffic circulation for the caz wash be pointed out on the site plan to him. He stated that there aze other situations where it has been found necessary to install an "exiting car" warning light to advise pedestrians when a vehicle is leaving the building. He stated that this might be necessary on this project as well. Mr. Teigen explained that there is approximately 40 feet between the exit door from the car wash and the drive and sidewallc area. Chair Fellrner asked if there were any comments from the audience on this item. There being none, he closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. No action would be taken this evening. SD. Conditional Use Permit for Additional Height fora 125-foot Antenna Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standard remazks. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented the item, which is a joint petition by AT&T Wireless and the City of Apple Valley as the underlying property owner. He noted that it is proposed to erect a freestanding 125 foot high antenna at the central maintenance facility, located on the south side of 140th Street, approximately halfway between Galaxie Avenue and Johnny Cake Ridge Road. The antenna would be located in approximately the center of the central maintenance site. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner Gowling asked why this antenna was being proposed to be located on city property. Neil. Heuer, the City's Utilities Supervisor, approached the podium. Mr. Heuer explained that with the recent federal deregulation of the telecommunications industry, many new service providers aze attempting to locate facilities to erect antennas for wireless communication. Also, as demand for such cellulaz communications has grown, it has become necessary for facilities to be located closer together as the density of cell phones increases. These providers typically prefer to locate on government property and on existing government tall structures. The most common location is upon water towers or elevated reservoirs. In this particular case, there is no such tall existing structure in the center of the city, so it is necessary to erect a freestanding antenna. When government property is not available, the next choice is to arrange some type of lease arrangement on private properties. City Attorney Mike Dougherty noted that this is a very typical approach and is used. in cities throughout the nation. Peter Beck approached the podium and stated that he is an attorney representing AT&T Wireless. He noted that Mr. Max Thompson and Mr. Ron Mielke of AT&T Wireless were in the audience as well. Mr. Beck gave a brief explanation concerning the manner in which cellular and digital communications technologies operate. He also displayed a photo rendering of what the property would look like. from 140th Street with the proposed 125-foot tall antenna. He explained that the cellulaz phone service involves a low power M technology, and that increased demand for cellular phone service is leading to multiple new and smaller cells centered around: antenna facilities. Commissioner Oberg asked about the safety of the structure and its fall zone. Tom Lovelace noted that the fall zone is completely contained within the City Maintenance Facility property. Mr. Beck noted that the proposed antenna is a monopole design. and is extremely safe. There has never been a case of pole failure of this design. And in fact, one of them survived Hurricane Andrew last year. He said that the engineers have designed the pole to fold over if it should experience stress beyond its design load. Chair Felkner asked if staff had any additional comments. There being none, he then opened the hearing to comments from the audience. No audience comments were received. Chair Fellrner then closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. Mr. Beck stated that while he understood that it was the practice of the Commission not to act the night of the hearing it is important for them to have the antenna. facility operational by June or else cellular phone service for Apple Valley customers would. begin to suffer. Chair Felkner stated that since no comments were received at the hearing, he would be willing to entertain. a motion for recommendation this evening. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Fdgeton, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for a structure greater in height than 40 feet to allow for a maximum of 125 feet for the antenna as described on the site plan. The motion carried 6 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes May 1,1996 Page 9 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS - None - 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS -None - 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 6 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p:m.