Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/1996CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 4, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chair Alan Fellorer. Members Present: Alan Fellmer, Frank Blundetto, Diane Nagler, Mazcia Gowling, Paul Oberg, and Karen Edgeton. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, Keith Gordon, and Mike Dougherty. Otbers Present: See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Fellorer 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 Nagler moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the draft agenda as submitted. The motion carried 6 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 21, 1996 MINUTES Chair Fellrner asked Staff and the Comrission members if they had any changes or revisions to the draft minutes submitted in the packet. There being none, he called for their approval. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carved 5 - Q with one abstention (Edgeton). 4. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to approve the items on the consetrt agenda as recommended by staff. The motion carried 6 - 0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EBD School Chair Fellmer noted that this public hearing had been continued from the last meeting in order to add to the record information concerning traffic. The City's traffic consultant has indicated that the study will not be complete until the September 18th Planning Commission meeting. Chair Felkner said that for this reason he would be continuing the hearing again until the September 18th meeting, and that he would not receive additional comments this evening because they would simply be repeated again in two weeks. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 2 B. Lyndale Gardens Conditional Use Permit Chair Fellmer opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace introduced himself as a member of the City Staff who is responsible for the analysis of this proposal. He identified the location of the site, which is the northwest corner of County Road #42 and 147th Street. The property is currently designated on the comprehensive plan for Limited Business uses, and is consistently zoned Limited Business as well. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a honditional use permit for the nursery and greenhouse operation for Lyndale Garden Ceder. It is proposed to construct a 12,161 squaze foot building on site, with an attached 6,000 square foot greenhouse, and 37,483 squaze foot outdoor display and sales yard. The site plan illustrates a total of 154 parking stalls with the greenhouse area of the building orie~ed towazd the south side of the building, and the open display and sales azea directly on County Road #42 and on the west boundary adjacent to the City Park property: Mr. Lovelace then turned the presentation over to the project proposer. Tim Duos approached the podium and stated that he is the owner and operator of the Lyndale Garden Center chain. He said that he would address issues raised in the staff report, as well as concerns and comments he had heard from neighboring property owners. He said that their operation is similar to that of Bachman's across the street, but their building is only one half the size of Bachman's. He said he understood the concerns. over adjacent residents concerning lighting, and that they will follow all of the City requirements and guidelines to prevent the light from being misdirected onto neighboring properties. Also, he understands their concern about. an outdoor public address system and will not use one. He indicated that neighbors had also expressed a concern about the noise of garbage. collection activities in the evening hours. He stated that their trash collection area would be enclosed, and that garbage trucks could access it only during normal business hours, not during the evening.. He said that he will buffer the site on the north to try and protect the homes located on the north side. He said that they would construct a 6 foot high berm and save as many of the existing mature trees as possible. He will also thicken these plantings with additional landscape materials to provide a complete visual screen of the parking lot. Mr. Duos said that they have placed the outdoor display and sales azea along County Road #42 with the belief that the noisiest customer activities should be located as far away from the existing residential properties as possible. This would mean the south side along County Road #42. He said that the parking area along the north side of the property is furthest away from the front entry, and he believes that these stalls will be occupied only during the peak seasonal sales periods. He said that it is his belief that the 154 parking stalls on the site plan meet the City code requirements. Concerning the possible traffic impacts on 147th Street, Mr. Duos noted that over the dinner hour this evening, he counted the number of cars using 147th Street which accessed the Bachman's facility. He noted that only a very small percentage of the cars going to Bachman's approached from the north on 147th. The vast majority of them enter from the south from County Road #42. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 3 Gary Lalley of Hoyt Properties approached the podium. He stated that BRW had performed an analysis on behalf of Lyndale Gazden Center concerning the amount of expected trips from this facility versus those other uses allowed in a Limited Business zone. He said that the numbers are per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, 1991 and updated 1995..He said that the proposed nursery garden center at this location would generate 450 trips per day. He said a gas station with ten pumps would generate 460 trips; a full service restaurant would generate 2,220 trips per day; a general office building would generate 490 trips per day; a bank with adrive-through teller isle would generate 2,000 trips per day; and a medical clinic would generate 300 trips per day. Mr. Lalley said that in his experience he knows that proposed retail uses are always of concern to adjacent residents.. He said, however, that the proposed gazden center would not generate nearly the same impacts as a restaurant, gas station, or even a church. There would only be a few weeks per year during seasonal sales times that lazge levels of traffic would be generated. Chair Felkner asked the petitioner if it was correct in assuming that they wish to have a recommendation made by the Commission this evening. Mr. Lalley said that they would not be able to constmct this yeaz if it is not approved based on the amount of time that the item would still need to be considered by the City Council. Commissioner Gowling asked about the decorative fence around the display azea. General Manager of the New Hope Lyndale Garden Center said that it would be a black wrought iron fence. Commissioner Gowling asked where items such as bagged bark, landscape. rock, and fertilizer type materials would be placed. Mr. Duos stated that they would be stored on the west side of the building and not directly along County Road #42. They said that they would not have bulk sales. Everything that they would sell of this nature would be prepackaged. He said that they are in the business of selling. beauty, and that they want to have a variety of color textures and pleasing street appearance of thew display azea to the public. He said that the front side along 42 would contain all of the planting materials, whereas on the west side of the building such things as the mulch, rock, bird baths, flower urns and similar materials would be placed. Commissioner Oberg asked how the proposed driveway locations line up with the existing Bachman's driveway locations on the opposite side of 147th Street. Mr. Duos stated that staff has told him that the driveway center lines should line up, and that he will comply on his site plan with this requirement. Commissioner Oberg asked how much traffic would be generated in the Spring months. Mr. Duos said that the four weekends in May aze their busiest times. He said that at their location in Minneapolis, they typically hire the local police department to help direct traffic. Commissioner Nagler noted that the city forester has commented on the use of different plantings along the west. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Duos said that he would like to save as many trees that exist on site as possible, but that the forester has indicated that many of these are at the end of their useful life. He said that they like to have shade over their display azea, and would certainly agree to make replacement plantings to help screen the view from the pazk to their outdoor display and storage azea. Commissioner Gowling asked if the outdoor display area would be paved. Mr. Duos said that they could either pave it all, or pave the area. that people would walls on, leaving openings where the plantings would be placed. He said that they will do whatever the City requires. City Engineer Keith Gordon said that the City prefers that the entire site be paved with concrete curbs in order to control storm water runoff. Commissioner Oberg asked if Staff has reviewed in detail the lighting plan. Mr. Duos stated that whatever Staff recommends, he will comply with. He understands that this would be downcast factures to confine the light to the site. Chair Felkner asked if he was correct in assuming that no outdoor public address system would be installed. Mr: Duos. said that was correct. Chair Felkner asked if the petitioner was awaze of what the City sign code was; and that they would comply with that without a variance. Mr. Duos stated that he understood. Chair Fellorer then asked Staff if there were any other additions which needed to be addressed. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace noted that the landscaping needed to be beefed up on the south and the west sides of the lot to prevent it from having a similaz appearance as the site in Minneapolis on Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Lovelace noted that 75 parking stalls are required if calculations aze done as a pure nursery use. hi recognition of the type of retail activity that usually occurs, however, calculations would indicate 150 stalls are necessary; 154 are shown on the site plan. Mr. Lovelace noted that unusual peak pazking conditions are not addressed in the City code, and that if this occurs, there is potential for some street pazking to occur along 147th Street, unless the City signs it for no parking. Mr. Lovelace noted that development on this vacant commercial parcel will increase the amount of traffic on 147th Street, regardless of the type of use. As the traffic increases, the City is likely to move to prohibit on-street parking. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Lovelace went on to suggest that the conditional use permit requirements might need to have a stipulation concerning increased pazking demand requiring a reduction in the amount of outdoor display and sales area if necessary. Mr. Lovelace also noted (regarding the storm water rnarragement plan) that sheet storm water drainage to the pond is not acceptable, and it will be necessary to construct catch basins and pipe the storm water into the pond. Commissioner Edgeton asked why some retail pazking calculations aze being applied to this site, as opposed to pure gazden/nursery pazking requirements. Mr. Lovelace noted that the gazden/nursery requirements aze for those that handle only lazge plants. In the case of operations such as this or across the street at Bachman's, some of the building area has been calculated to generate parking requirements at the retail standazds. The difference is retail requires one stall per 150 squaze feet of building, whereas nursery and greenhouses require one stall per 800 squaze feet of building azea, plus ten stalls for employees. Commissioner Edgeton asked what kind of problems would occur if pazking is not allowed on either County Road #42 or 147th Street. Mr. Lovelace noted the most likely occurrence would be to have some Illegal street parking along 147th Street. Such pazking would contribute to congestion along 147th Street at such time as all of the vacant commercial property along 147th Street is developed. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she did not think that a significant problem would occur. Mr. Lovelace noted that there is some resident concern that on-street. parking would begin to occur along Hauen Drive to the north if the parking lot at the proposed. Lyndale Garden. Center were full. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she does not believe people would walk that far carrying relatively large and bulky landscape material purchases. Commissioner Nagler asked if the City was awaze of problems occurring with not enough parking on the adjacent Bachman's site. Mr. Lovelace stated that the City was not awaze of any at this time. Chair Fellmer then opened the hearing to audience comments. Todd Bachman of Bachman's Garden Center approached the podium. He stated that with him this evening were Dale Bachman, Don Swenson, and Alan Bachman; all of the Bachman's operations, as well as Ernest Lindstrom their legal counsel. Mr. Bachman went on to state that in 1991 they were invited to consider Apple Valley as a location for one of their new stores by Mayor Branning. He said they consequently developed approximately 5 acres late in 1991 for the Bachman Garden Center. He said that at the time that they built, the site under consideration this evening for Lyndale Gardens was intended for an armory. Because federal funding for armory operations have been substantially reduced since that time, this site has been deselected for an armory purpose, and a deed to the property was returned to Apple Valley. In February Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 6 of 1995 the City held a public hearing to consider rezoning the property to Limited Business, and the rezoning occurred before the City Council in March of 1995. Mr. Bachman stated that in the review and approval of their project, much detailed site planning occurred concerning what was going on around their property, and how the internal private roadway system would be constructed. He said at that time they knew there would be additional commercial uses to their east and to their north, but believed that this site would be maintained in public ownership. Mr. Bachman said that he does not think that this site supports a retail type use. Mr. Ernest. Lindstrom approached the podium. He stated that he is the legal counsel for Bachman's and was pleased to be here before the Commnission. He said that he has served as a Planning Commissioner in other communities and has never had the opportunity to be involved in planuiug a piece of land that was actually owned by the government. Mr. Lindstrom went on to note that Bachman's are typically invited into a community, and they receive more invitations than they can realistically build. He said they cazefully evaluate where they are invited to analyze market conditions and wmpetition. He stated that they will typically only choose a site where they believe that they can prosper. Mr. Lindstrom went on to state he questions why the City would desire to dispose of this parcel of land, but understands that that decision has already been made. Mr. Lindstrom then recited the purpose contained in the City's Limited Business zoning ordinance, followed by the list of permitted uses, and finally the list of conditional uses. Mr. Lindstrom stated that be does not think that the term "nursery and greenhouse" permits retail sales because the purpose clause in the Limited Business zone excludes retail sales activity. Mr. Lindstrom then noted that the former Planned Urut Development. zoning category, of which the Lyndale Garden Center parcel was one time zoned, limited it to governmental type uses. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the City Attorney would ultimately have to render an opinion as to whether or not the proposed Lyndale Garden. Center is an appropriate use given the City's zoning regulations. Commissioner Blundetto asked Mr. Lindstrom to clarify that comment. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he simply meant that the City Attorney will need to render a legal opinion and interpretation over the permitted and conditional uses in a Limited Business zone regazding this proposal. Finally Mr. Lindstrom went on to reiterate similaz development requirements that the Bachman's Garden Center was required to meet concerning special assessments for municipal improvements, dedication of right-of--ways and easements, landscape plantings, construction of private streets, and deceleration lane along County Road #42. John Hessol of 164 Strese Circle approached the podium. He stated that he has been a resident of Apple Valley for 33 years, and at one time bought and sold land for the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA). He stated that he is against this conditional use permit. He said that overall the City Planning Department and Planning Comrnissioners have done a good job in the City. He stated that he has been informed and understands that the issue before the City is a conditional use permit, not a rezoning. He stated that he does not live adjacent to the site, but in the old section of Apple Valley. He said that he believes that this type of general business use should be restricted into higher activity zones and areas. He noted that the recent local newspaper story concerning the sale of this property made Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 7 it look like the City was under pressure to accept the purchase offer without doing a thorough evaluation. He stated that he did not feel that that was necessary, because if it was actually a good deal for the buyer, they would come back and extend their purchase offer. He stated that he thinks this garden nursery operation would severely impact the neighbors located immediately to the north because this is primarily a retail type use. He concluded by stating he thinks the only possible recommendation from the Cormmission should be denial. Wes Smith of 14849 Haven Dtve approached the podium. He stated that he is concerned about traffic and parking along Haven Drive. He said that they already have a great deal of traffic, plus the problem with speeders. He asked when a signal light might be installed at the intersection of 147th Street and County Road #42. Chair Felkner noted that this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. Roger Boelter of 124 County Road #42 approached the podium. He said that he lives across from Fire Station Number One. He said that he does not see the need for another nursery being constructed next to Bachman's. He said that the Lyndale Gazden Center in Burnsville closed, and that maybe there just isn't enough business for two nurseries. He said he thinks the property should be kept as a park. Chair Fellorer noted that the use of a property for a Limited Business commercial activity is a decision which has already been made. Cormnissioner Blundetto noted that the City does not attempt to deal with private marketplace conditions regarding how land would be used. Greg Descauriers of 14857 Haven Drive approached. the podium. He asked if the property could be rezoned out of Limited Business. He was informed that a rezoning would occur only if the owner of the property requests. He then asked what type of review the Metropolitan Council would have on a proposed change in the land. use. He was informed that such a review by the Metro Council would occur concurrently with a proposal to rezone the land. He asked what would happen to the conditional use permit for a garden or nursery operation if the ownership changes. Community Development Director Rick Kelley noted that a conditional use permit runs with the land, not with a particular operator. If ownership of the land changes, the conditional use permit will continue for a nursery or garden sales operation as long as they remain in compliance with the terms of the conditional use pemut. Mr. Descauriers stated that when the property was proposed for the rezoning to Limited Business, they were understanding that that was the most restrictive type of zoning category available. Mr. Kelley noted that Limited Business zoning is a very restrictive category, but certain things such as on sale liquor, or the nursery operation, are listed as conditional uses in that zone. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 8 Roman Ostapowicz of 14849 Haven Drive approached the podium. He asked what the approval process for Lyndale Garden Center entails. Chair Fellmer noted that the Plaruihig Commission holds a public hearing to receive input on specific development proposals, and that the standard process is that they receive comments at one meeting, and make their recommendation at a following meeting. This recommendation then goes forwazd to the City Council who makes the final decision. He said that it is very typical that during the fall months, developers will request the Planning Commission to act the same night of the hearing because of their concerns regarding the. end of the construction season, particulazly if an early winter occurs. Mr. Ostapowicz went on to state that he is concerned about parking. He stated that they have watched cars park along the rear drive of Bachman's and carry planting materials some distance from the store to their cazs. He stated that he believes if no pazking is permitted on 147th Street, there would be people parking along Haven Drive. He said that he is particularly concerned over comments that peak periods during the spring require police to direct traffic. He does not want to deal with that level of congestion in his neighborhood. He expressed concern over what the business hours might be, and over the possibility of lights being on all night. He is concerned over the exposure of his children in his rear yard to the parking area, and the potential easy access from the parking lot into his rear yard. Because of this close proximity, he does not believe the police could respond quickly enough in an emergency situation. Commissioner Edgeton asked if this similar type of potential problem might occur if an office, medical clinic, restaurant, or day Gaze might locate on the site. Mr. Ostapowicz stated that a different use might not have the parking lot located along the north boundary of the property. He went on to state that if parking of Lyndale Gazden Center customers occurs along Haven Drive; they would also have problems with potential trespassers cutting-through. their yards to get to the Gazden Center. This would result in homeowners having to bear the cost of putting up a fence to prevent this trespassing.. He said that comments from the owner of Lyndale Garden Center stating that he simply counted the cazs at Bachman's over the dinner hour is not sufficient evidence to convince him, especially in September. He went on to state that there would have to be control of debris and blowing materials on the site, and that he is concerned about the eye sore that on site snow storage from plowing a large parking lot would cause. There being no further comments, Chair Felkner then closed the public hearing. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace distributed a letter from adjacent resident Ann Lazson, who was not able to be present this evening. Commissioner Cowling asked what the paving limits and green space to the property line would be. Mr. Lovelace noted that the parking setback would be 5 feet on the west, 20 feet on the east, 50 feet on the north, and between 20 and 40 feet on the south. Commissioner Cowling asked if a different permitted or conditional use were established on this property, how much parking area, building area, and green space would exist in comparison. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Lovelace stated that that would be very difficult to calculate because we do not know the specific use or the specific building size which would influence the amount of required pazking and green space rernaining. Commissioner Gowling asked how the required parking calculations were done. Mr. Lovelace noted that the building itself was computed at retail standards (1:150 squaze feet) and the greenhouse and outdoor display azea were calculated at the nursery ratio (1:800 squaze feet plus ten). Mr. Duos stated that as the operator he does not want to be under pazked. He noted that at their New Hope facility, they have a 21,000 squaze foot building with only 110 stalls and have no problems. Todd Bachman noted that they have 202 stalls at their site across the street, with a lower percentage of the lot being utilized for building area than the proposed. Lyndale Gazden Center. Corrunissioner Edgeton asked the City Attorney if the Lyndale Garden Center as proposed qualifies as a conditional use under the City's Limited Business zoning requirements. Mike Dougherty stated that he had not been previously asked to render such an opinion, but noted that an interpretation of law stipulates that unless otherwise defined, an interpretation of specific terms must be based on the normal. usage of those terms. Commissioner Blundetto asked if there has been a problem with the amount of parking at Baclunan's. Todd Bachman stated that there had been no problems to his knowledge. Mr. Oberg went on to state that when this property was rezoned to Limited Business, he had not expected this type of heavier commercial use and believes that it is similar to a General Business or heavy business use such as Menazds. Chair Felkner then closed the public hearing with the standazd remarks, but noted that action had been requested by the petitioner due to the lateness of the construction season. Commissioner Gowling stated that she is not comfortable with acting on the proposal this evening. Commissioner Blundetto raised again the issue of parking requirements under the retail business category versus greenhouse nursery category. Community Development Duector Rick Kelley noted that applying retail business zolling requirements to the building azea is consistent with the approach used for the Bachman's Garden Center. Commissioner Blundetto went on to state that he is generally opposed to having attorneys telling the Planning Commission what they can and cannot consider, or can and cannot do. Commissioner Nagler asked if the City needs to know what is being sold from the building in order to determine whether or not it is a retail versus agreenhouse/nursery use. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 10 ruling. Mike Dougherty said that the City simply needs to have sufficient information in order to make a Mr. Duos approached the Commmission and stated he feels that it is very unfair that Bachman's appeazs to be trying to delay his project by raising legal issues simply to confuse the matter. He said they simply don't want to have the competition, and that they know if he is delayed, his project won't go forward. Chair Fellmer noted that neither the Commission or the City consider private place competitive issues in their decisions concerning development proposals. Commissioner Blundetto noted that if the Commission acts in haste and it is done incorrectly, it could end up delaying the project much more than if the Commission takes an extra iwo weeks in order to do it right. Comtrussioner Edgeton noted that in the past the Planning Commission has made recommendations based on some type of subsequent determination or review by staff, and feels that that might be an appropriate manner to consider the issue this evening. Commissioner Cowling noted that since the City owns this land, we should take extra care in reviewing the development proposal in answering any concerns or objections. Commissioner Blandetto asked if the City Attorney would be comfortable rendering an opinion this evening. Mike Dougherty noted again that if not specifically defined in code, the terms take on the meanings that they are given in the common vernacular. Commissioner Blundetto asked. if the manner in which the preamble to the City's limited business zoning category is written would. prohibit any type of retail from occurring within the zone. Mike Dougherty stated that that was not the case. Gary Lalley stated that he thinks the City Council ultimately decides this, and that they knew of the proposed use when they first entered into the purchase agreement. Mike Dougherty noted that the introductory statement and preamble of the Limited Business zoning district simply states its general purpose, but does not control in all cases. For instances, a restaurant certainly involves retail sales of food. He also noted that a specific term would be addressed based on the common dictionary definitions, as well as the historical usages of those types of uses in the City. Commissioner Edgeton asked Staff what they believe is the correct interpretation here. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace thinks that the Staff method of blending parking requirements for both retail business and nursery and greenhouse uses has unintentionally confused the issues. He stated that the retail sale of plants and related garden supplies was expected by Staff, and he believes that that is the traditional manner in which nurseries and greenhouses have been defined. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 11 Commissioner Nagler asked if there were others like it in the City. Rick Kelley noted that Minnehaha Falls was a similaz situation in a Limited Business zone. Mike Dougherty reminded the Commission that determination of whether or not the proposed Lyndale Gazden Center use is consistent with the definition of a nursery/greenhouse is separate from its decision on whether or not to issue such a conditional use permit for this particular plan. Chair Felkner asked if the Commission wished to consider making a recommendation in accordance with the suggestion made by Commissioner Edgeton. A general discussion ensued, but no motion was made. Rick Kelley noted that the City Council would evaluate this project and the Planning Commission recommendation at a single meeting since it does not involve a rezoning or any changes to a City ordinance. This means that if the Planning Commission waits until the September 18th meeting to make their recommendation, it would go to the City Council on the September 26th meeting for final disposition. He believes that this would still give the petitioner time to construct the project this fall if it is approved. Tim Duos stated that based upon consideration of the City Council at the September 26th meeting, it would be acceptable to him for the Planning Commission to wait until September 18th to make their recommendation. Chair Felkner called a recess at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Walgreens Setback Variance Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced herself as a City Staff member, and noted the project's location at 15250 Cedar Avenue. It is proposed to const<arct an overhead canopy for an expanded drive-thru operation at the Walgreen's drug store. In order to constmct the canopy, the setback variance to Cedar Avenue would need to be approved. Ms. Bodmer identified the location on a series of overhead transpazencies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. The site plan for the existing building illustrates a single drive up area with a small fabric canopy over-the drive-thm window. It is proposed to extend this drive-thnr area with an overhead canopy and a pneumatic tube arrangement to add a second drive-thnr lane. The initial proposal was to allow a 17 foot canopy extending into the setback area which has now been reduced to a 16 foot canopy. This reduction was necessitated in order to allow enough space between the edge of the canopy and the driveway curb area adjacent to Cedaz Avenue to allow semi-trailer access around the building to the delivery bay. Ms. Bodmer noted that the City's traffic consultant has indicated that given these relatively close dimensions, the canopy will probably be hit by asemi-trailer at some point in time, but that it would be due to driver error, not a dimensional deficiency. Ms. Bodmer then turned the presentation over to the petitioner. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 12 Gary Vogel approached the podium. He stated that he is from the Runyan/Vogel Group, and has been responsible for designing the proposed drive-thru canopy. He also had with him Mr. Scott Connelly, the local Walgreen's manager. Mr. Vogel referred to the building elevations and identified the materials and colors proposed for the canopy structure. He noted that under current peak periods, traffic is backing up five to six cars deep to utilize the single drive up pharmacy window. He stated that in regazds to the hazdship requirement, they have looked at the rest of the building and have been unable to find an alternate location on the building for adrive-thru. Mr. Connelly stated that when they opened this Walgreen facility five years ago, it was the first full sized Walgreen's store to have adrive-thru pharmacy window ever built in the nation. He said the response to the drive-thru windows has been so significant that Walgreens will no longer build a freestanding facility unless the site can accommodate adrive-thru pharmacy window. He said their elderly customers especially appreciate having adrive-thru pharmacy window, as do parents with sick children who do not any longer have to take the child out of the car seat and bring them into the store. He said that the purpose of the canopy is to provide additional weather protection for customers utilizing the drive-thru window when their windows are rolled down. Commissioner Nagler asked if it would be possible to put two windows into the building face on that same side. Mr. Vogel stated that there would still be significant back-up because they do not have quick turnaround at the pharmacy windows. Commissioner Cowling asked that the traffic problems be clarified. Mr. Connelly noted that currently during the p.m. work rush hour period between five and seven cazs aze typically lined up. The budding was initially constmcted to allow stacking. of up to three cars. He said under the current configuration with the single. window; the queue of waiting cazs wraps around the northwest corner of the building and aetnally blocks one or two pazking stalls adjacent to the building.. He said that during periods of bad weather, the backlog becomes even worse because people don't wish to leave their cars in the rain. Mr. Connelly emphasized that these windows are for convenience, but not necessarily quick service. He said that the pharmacists at the drive-thru window are there to provide additional information and counseling on use of medication, and don't simply toss the prescription to the customers. Chair Felkner asked if staff had anything to add on the petitioner's proposal. Kathy Bodmer noted that the petitioner has addressed the design of the structure and circulation needs. L` the Planning Commission determines that their azgument concerning the hardship is appropriate, the proposed drive-thru canopy will function appropriately. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she believes that the heavy use of the drive-thru window has inadvertently created a dangerous or hazazdous situation due to the backup of traffic into the parking area, and that the proposed variance would improve the situation. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Cowling, to recommend approval of the variance to allow a 16 foot canopy to be constructed due to the hardship created by the backing up of traffic into the parking area. The motion carried 6 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 13 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Valley Pines Sketch Plan Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace identified the site located on the northeast wrner of County Road #42 and Embry Path. The site is currently designated on the Comprehensive Plan for low density multiple residential uses, and is appropriately zoned under. Planned Unit Development Number 163, Zone 4. The sketch plan illustrates 12 townhouse dwelling units with access to a single private drive that would intersect with Embry Avenue. The site is constrained somewhat by the requirement for an additional 25 foot wide right-of--way dedication for County Road #42. The petitioner is asking for feedback from the Plamanig Commission prior to requesting a formal public hearing on the development. Commissioner Edgeton asked what the uses are to the north. Tom Lovelace noted that the Embry Pines Townhomes are located directly to the north, and that the site is in fact completely surrounded by other multi-family uses. Chair Felkner noted that the density is consistent with the adjacent uses. Chair Felkner asked if there were pictures or drawings of the unit elevations at this time. Mr. Broback, the petitioner, stated that he has not yet prepared that. Commissioner Edgeton asked if porches or decks on the reaz ofthe buildings would be provided. Mr. Broback noted that they intend to have only patios available on the rear of the structures. Commissioner Cowling stated that she appreciated the petitioner wanting to pull the units back from County Road #42 as much as possible, but asked if there would be some type of design release to prevent a from building face from being presented to this major road. Mr. Broback stated that the plan being reviewed this evening shows the lot layouts, and in fact the building lines actually move in and out somewhat within the lots themselves and are not simply straight across. Chair Felkner and Commissioner Cowling stated that they would also like to see architectural relief along the rear of the building as well. Chair Felkner stated that overall the development proposal looked to be okay. He reminded the petitioner to make sure that overflow guest parking is provided, and that the Commission does not want to see long straight walls without any breaks. Commissioner Nagler asked that landscaping be provided on the north to respect the existing neighborhood. Chair Felkner also stated that landscaping would provide privacy for new residents seated on their patios. Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 1996 Page 14 8. OTHER BUSINESS -None - 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 6 - 0. The meeting adjourned 9:25 p.m.