Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1996 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Frank Blundetto, Diane Nagler, Mazcia Gowlirig, Paul Oberg, and Karen Edgeton. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, Keith Gordon, and Jim Sheldon. 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 Oberg moved, seconded by Member Blundeito, to approve the draft agenda as submitted. The motion carried 6 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 MINUTES Chair Fellrner asked Staff and the Commission members if they had any changes or revisions to the proposed minutes submitted in the packet. It was noted that on page 9 of the minutes; the discussion related to heavier commercial uses in a limited business area similar to Menards was incorrectly attributed to Commissioner Blundetto. It was actually Commissioner Oberg who made this statement. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Oberg, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 6 - 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EBD School Chair Felkner noted that this public hearing was a continuation of a hearing opened several weeks ago, continued to this meeting until some additional information had been assembled. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace identified the site located on the west side of Diamond Path at 144th Street. The site consists of approximately 37 acres, and it is proposed to preliminary plat the property into three lots. The proposal also includes a site plan and building permit authorization for a school for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 2 The EBD School is proposed to be located on the lot which would be on the northwest comer of 144th Street and Diamond Path. The other two lots would contain the existing Diamond Path Elementary School on the south side of 144th Street, and the existing district offices and bus garage facility on the north. Mr. Lovelace noted that the City's Comprehensive Plan designates this property for school use, and it is appropriately zoned institutional. Mr. Lovelace then displayed a series of overhead transparencies which illustrated the boundaries and lots on the preliminary plat, as well as the site and landscape plan for the EBD School, which would be approximately 50,000 square feet in area. The primary parking lot for the EBD School would be located on the west side of the building and contains 80 parking stalls. Access from the EBD School would include a private drive connection to the existing connection between the administrative offices and 144th Street, as well as access out to Diaznond Path at the north driveway access to the administrative offices. Mr. Lovelace then fumed the presentation over to the applicant. Mr. Joel Sutter approached the podium and introduced himself to the Commission as the Director of Support Services for Independent School District #196. He noted that the Commission had previously requested a synopsis of the EBD Program. He distributed a synopsis to both Commission members and members of the audience. He noted that criteria for the education of EBD students is established by the State of Minnesota, and that there are six categories of EBD students, level one through level six. This facility is intended to accommodate level five students, and the current enrolhnent in the district of level five students is azound 70. The number does fluctuate throughout the school year. Mr. Sutter then. quickly went through the highlights of the handout that he had distributed. Chair Felkner asked Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace if there were any other issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Lovelace noted that the Planning Staff had previously noted wetlands were an issue, and that these have now been delineated and the petitioner would be followhig the process necessary to fill in and mitigate their loss according to state guidelines. Mr. Lovelace noted that 80 parking stalls are provided on site, but the petitioner has indicated that at ultimate capacity there would be 90 staff persons. Staff would like to see 90 stalls provided therefore. Also, Mr. Lovelace noted that issues of traffic on 144th Street and Diamond Path had been raised at the previous public hearings, and that the City's traffic consultant has completed his analysis and is present this evening to make a presentation. Commissioner Nagler asked how many pazking stalls were behrg provided for student drivers. It was noted that there were no stalls designated for student drivers. Commissioner Gowling asked how visitor parking would be accommodated. Sutter noted that they are not providing for any student pazking as they intend to prohibit students from driving to school. This would be a similar arrangement as they have at their idea school elsewhere in the district. He also noted that they will have 90 employees at maximum emollrnent. Initially they will Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 3 have only about 50 employees. However, he indicated that he believes they could add ten pazking stalls to the site plan without very much difficulty. Concerning visitor parking, he noted that the parking lot at the immediately adjacent district offices could accommodate visitors, as well as providing for pazking along the northlsouth access drive running immediately in front of the school. Commissioner Oberg asked how they could prevent students from driving to school. Jim Omdahl of District 196 said that they have been in discussion with their legal counsel concerning this issue. He said that the school board does have the authority to develop and implement policies to prohibit driving to school. Commissioner Oberg said that he does not see how it would be possible to prohibit students from driving on a public street and then parking on the street. Chair Fellrner then asked for a presentation on the traffic study. Glen VanWormer of SEH approached the podium. He stated that they have estimated this school would generate a maximum of 700 trips per day. This is a worst case scenario, and is based on full employment of 90 employees, 12 school buses running in and out of the facility allowing for parent drop- off activities, as well as numerous other daytime activities. He said this worst case scenario would result in a peak traffic flow during the a.m. and p.m. hours at the opening and closing times of the school of 245 trips per hour. He said that if all shidents arrive on the bus rather than being dropped off by parents, and if there are staggered staffing hours, the peak hour volume could be as low as 100 to 125 trips in the a.m. and. p.m. hours. All of these numbers include the activities and traffic being generated by the district offices, the existing elementary school, and the existing residentially generated traffic along this corridor. Mr. VanWonner went on to state that elementary school use and morning and evening traffic peaks do not coincide with the typical a.m. and p.m. peak travel periods. He also noted that their traffic report is using estimates which are slightly higher than the actual traffic that exists on 144th Street, again emphasizing the worst case scenario approach. He did state that the p.m. peak period could be reduced further by providing for at least a 15 minute staggering between the closing times of the elementary school and the EBD School. Mr. VanWormer went on to address the resident concern over increased traffic on 144th Street headed west through the residential neighborhood. He said that under the worst case scenario, there would be no more than 30 vehicles per hour heading westwazd on 144th Street related to the proposed EBD School. He said it is important to acknowledge that the EBD facility draws students and traffic from the entire district and not just from the neighborhood. Because of this, the traffic will rely mostly upon Diamond Path to access other parts of the district in the northerly and the southerly directions. Mr. VanWormer then addressed the request by Dakota County Highway Staff to close the access onto 144th Street that currently exists from the district offices in the very northeast corner of the site. He said that it is the county's policy to minimize the number of private driveway accesses with spacing requirements. He said the county has questionable legal authority to close an existing access, and he does not think that they would actually try to force its closure. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 4 Mr. VanWormer noted that if for some reason the north driveway is closed, it would put all of the traffic on 144th Street and require it to use the intersection of 144th and Diamond Path. He said that under the worst case traffic generation scenario, and not having staggered start and end times for the EBD facility and the existing elementary school, there would be a problem at that intersection. If, however, there was mitigation such as staggered starting times, or the actual traffic from the EBD facility being less than the estimate, the problem would go away. In reviewing the actual intersection of 144th and Diamond Path, he noted that the site distance is not dangerous; it's just that the curvature of the road requires a motorist stopped at that intersection waiting to enter Diamond Path to look in more directions than at a standard street intersection due to the hill being located on a curve. He also evaluated the elementary school access onto 144th Street and said that this was not a problem, and also evaluated the crossing at Drake Path and 144th Street. He noted that while this intersection is very visible, the City might want to consider advanced warning signs about the pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Blandetto asked if 144th Street was appropriately designed for the amount of traffic that it was carrying. Mr. VanWormer stated that 144th Street is intended to be used as a through route through the neighborhood, and is no different or worse than other such roads throughout Apple Valley and throughout the Twin Cities area. He said that the width is appropriate for the level of traffic it is carrying, and that the slight curves throughout its length discourage, but do not prohibit; through traffic and also are of a gentle enough radius that they do not impair visibility. Conunissioner Nagler asked about the morning peak hour traffic. Mr. VanWormer noted that at a school facility such as this the arrival period is about 30 to 40 nunutes with the potential for the majority of the vehicles to either cluster or compress at the end of the peak hour period in the morning; as well as the beginnhrg of the peak hour period in the afternoon. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that 144th Street has a 32 foot wide driving surface, while streets which are actually designated as neighborhood collectors, such as 132nd Street, have a 44 foot wide driving surface in order to handle higher traffic volumes while allowing for parking on both sides of the street. It was noted that 144th Street is currently carrying about 1,600 trips per day, and bas a design capacity of about 3,000 trips per day. A discussion ensued concerning the north private driveway access onto Diamond Path. Tom Lovelace referred to the letter received from the Dakota County Plat Commission, suggesting or requesting that the access be closed as part of this plat. Commissioner Edgeton noted that the County has deviated from its access policies in the past. Chair Felkner noted that the letter from the County represents the existing adopted policy of the County, and is really no different than a city staff member commenting on setback requirements for which a variance could be applied. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Oberg asked what would happen to the Drake Path extension as existed on the City's official map as part of this development. Tom Lovelace noted that they could either dedicate the right-of--way at this time or adjust the official map. Commissioner Edgeton asked why the City would consider leaving the road on the official map. Tom Lovelace noted that the City would still expect the ultimate development of this property to require such a road under the presumption that the administrative office and bus garage are a temporary use and would at some point be removed. Chair Fellmer noted that the road is not needed at this time because none of the other land pazcels are landlocked. Commissioner Edgeton asked if the location of the EBD School on the site would foreclose any future redevelopment of the property where the administrative offices aze currently located. Tom Lovelace stated it would be difficult to say for sure at this time. Commissioner Oberg asked if the expected student population at the EBD School is weighted more towazd younger or older students. Joel Sutter noted that it is predominantly made up of middle school and high school age studems. Don Allen, who will be the principal for the EBD School, stated that about 28 of the students expected at the school would be between ages 16 and 18, eligible to have a driver's license. Their experience is that about half of these students would actually have drivers licenses. Chair Fellrner then opened the public heazing to audience comments. Lisa Schultz of 175 Juniper Lane stated that it is her firm belief that parents of EBD School children will support a policy on the prohibition of student drivers. It was also her belief that there was adequate overflow parking area along the north/south service road drive, as well as in the parking lot of the administrative building. She noted that parking in these areas are all closer to the front door of the EBD School than someone parking along 144th Street would be. Robin North, a resident on 144th Street, said she does not believe there is enough overflow parking for special events. She said that the district office parking. lot and service drive aze already being used during evening functions at Diamond Path Elementary School, and said that if a similar function occurs at the EBD School, there will not be enough parking. Joel Sutter stated that such a potential for overloading parking lots exists wherever joint school facilities exist, and there are several throughout the district. When this is the case, it is necessary for both of the schools to coordinate their evening functions, and that this will be the case for the EBD facility as well. He also said that since they would be adding between 80 and 90 parking stalls to the overall school complex, the situation would be improved. Also, they would intend to widen the north south access drive to facilitate on-street parking at that location while still not impeding traffic. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 6 Ms. North asked what would happen if some students who were late for school chose to drive, even if the policy prohibited it. Mr. Sutter stated that the policy is just being developed at this time, but if someone drove in violation of the policy, there would be some consequences the student would be subjected to. Don Allen noted that with EBD students, there are individual teaching plans that must be prepared and signed by all parties. One of the elements of these plans is the provision of curb to curb transportation, and specific prohibitions against driving would be expected to be included in this plan. Renee Falk of 14288 Drake Path noted that three lots aze being proposed, but asked what the plans would be for the use of the property west of the temporary bus gazage. She asked if it could be sold to the City for an expansion of park property. Right now she is concerned that the property is not well maintained concerning the growth of weeds azid mowing. Joel Sutter stated that there are no current plans for the sale or development of this property, and that it was not possible to obligate a future school board concerning this issue. He said that the existing buildings aze functional and that there are no immediate plans to vacate them. If, however, space becomes available in an existing school facility elsewhere in the district, it is possible that the administrative functions might be moved. He stated that he believed if the City wished to maintain this open field area and mow it, the school district would allow the City to do so. Shari Reier of 4814 143rd Street noted that the discussion concerning the staggering of start and stop tunes for the school facilities have not included any discussion concerning the Baptist School located in Rosemount across Diamond Path. She asked that information be provided concerning a final decision on the north driveway access to Diamond. Path, and if it goes before the county boazd for a formal decision. She said. that she has heazd that the types of policies considering driving to school or smoking on district property are not enforceable against EBD School students because they have a sepazate and distinct discipline policy. Joel Sutter stated that it is not within their ability to control the start and stop times of the Baptist School. He said that he believes their primary access is onto 144th Street, not onto Diamond Path. He said that it is their intention to stagger the EBD School start and end times at least one half hour from the Diamond Path Elementary School He said that the EBD students aze supervised, and it is not their policy to allow them to leave district property in order to smoke cigarettes. Lisa Schultz approached the podium again and stated that it is again her belief that parents of EBD School children can and will work with the district on the prohibition against driving. Larvae Gabert of 4780 144th Street asked why the proposed building was not being constructed of brick. She said it will not match the existing buildings in the neighborhood or in the district. She also stated that the Baptist School does have an entrance to Diamond Path directly across of 144th Street intersection. Joel Sutter stated that the reason for using an architectural precast panel is two-fold. One concerns the cost of the material, and the other has to do with the fast construction timetable that would allow them to occupy the building by the Fall of 1997. He stated that everyone should expect to see more schools constructed of this type of building material in the future. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 7 Commissioner Edgeton asked for examples of the use of this type of exterior construction material. Eric Linner, the architect, said that most of the use of this type of material in Apple Valley has been for industrial properties. He stated that the panel is an architectural grade precast panel and is either asset etched or sand blasted to give it additional texture. He said they have not settled firmly on the choice of colors at this time, but did display a product sample. They expect it will be some type of buff color panel and will have aluminum window moldings of a contrasting or accent color, and also include accent tiles of a matching color along the top of the building. Tom Lovelace noted that the City does not have an exterior buildings requirement in institutional zones. Eric Linner noted that none of the schools in Apple Valley are constructed of this material. Jim Omdahl noted that the school districts eazly education building is, however, made of a precast material. It was noted that the eazly education budding is located in an industrial park. Commissioner Edgeton asked that the azchitect bring the rendering up to the dais so the Commissioners could get a closer look at it. Renee Falls asked the Commission if Drake Path was removed from the official map, if it would be possible to finish offthe existing dead end into a permanent cul-de-sac. Chair Felkner closed the heazing with the standazd remarks. He noted, however, that since this hearing had been continued from several weeks ago, he would entertain a motion to move the item onto the City Council. Commissioner Edgeton asked City Engineer Keith Gordon at what pohrt the City could prohibit pazkhig along 144th Street in the same fashion as it is prohibited on the streets near the Apple Valley High School. Keith Gordon said that the City Council could make that decision at any time. Commissioner Nagler asked what type of access the undeveloped property could have if Drake Path was eliminated from the City's official map. Keith Gordon noted that other roadways could be constructed internally out to either the west or to the south to intersect 144th Street. Glen VanWormer noted that ultimate redevelopment of the school district property along Drake Path would be done with a public street as opposed to a private driveway, and the county policy is different for public streets than it is for private driveways. Commissioner Edgeton noted that much of this discussion has centered around the older EBD School children driving to school in violation of any formal policy. She noted that this school, like any other school, will have rules which are expected to be followed, and if they are not obeyed, there is going to be some type of action taken against that student. Also, the parents are ultimately going to be involved. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page S Chair Fellrner stated that he was in agreement with that sentiment. He also noted that if there aze only 28 school children old enough to have drivers licenses, and experience indicates that only about half of school children that age actually end up having licenses and cars, the worst case scenario seems to be 14 additional cars. Commissioner Oberg noted that School District #196 still has quite a lot of vacant land around the EBD site, and, if necessary, there was adequate room to add more parking. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowihig, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the Staff recommendations concerning the north access and wetland mitigation. The motion cazried 6 - 0. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Cowling, to reconveend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization for the EBD School, subject to construction of 90 parking stalls. Commissioner Blundetto stated that while he supports the project, he is disappointed with the choice of materials. He understands the issue about saving money for building construction, but noted that the use of existing district owned property has also allowed for substantial savings. He would like to see the appearance of this facility consistent with other fine facilities constructed by the district. Commissioner Cowling stated that she echoed this sentiment. The motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Fellarer asked when this item would appeaz on the City Council agenda. Rick Kelley stated that it would appear on the September 26th City Council agenda. Chair Fellrner then called a recess at 8:13 p.m. Chair Felkner reconvened the meeting at 8:22 p.m. SB. Valley Oaks Townhomes Chair Fellarer opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer reviewed the location and the details of the project. The proposed site is located on the east side of Pennock Avenue at 128th Street. The site was reviewed in 1994, and at that time the Comprehensive Plazi designation was changed to its current designation of medium density multiple residential, as well as being rezoned to "M-6B" to allow six to twelve dwelling units per acre. The largest portion of the site is located on the east side of Pennock Avenue; adjacent to the Cedar Avenue expressway between the New Horizon Daycare Center on the south, and the MVTA park and ride lot on the north. The smallest portion of the site is located on the west side of Pennock Avenue, and it is a narrow strip of land lying between the entrance to the Eaton Mobile Home Park on the south and 128th Street on the north. Ms. Bodmer noted that the initial submittal to the City by this developer had a different unit arrangement with multiple required setback variances for a total of 50 dwelling units. Most of these setback variance requests were due to a location of an existing sanitary sewer forcemain in the center of the easternmost property. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 9 Since that time the developer has agreed to be responsible for the cost of a relocation within the property of this forcemain, and has allowed a different configuration of dwelling units. The latest plan indicates a total of 46 dwelling units with only three variances to the perimeter building setbacks necessary. None of the units located on the west side of Pennock Avenue would need a setback variance. Ms. Bodmer then turned the presentation of the project over to the developer. Bill Diedrich of Diedrich Builders, Inc. stated that he has. between ten and twelve different floor plans for the unit layouts, and thinks that this is the best possible layout that he can come to given the characteristics of this property. He stated that he recently had a neighborhood meeting with the residents of 128th Street, and that the residents preferred a design layout which had a cul-de-sac turnaround at the northwest corner of the larger development site in order to avoid having afour-way intersection at 128th Street, which is the entrance to their neighborhood. He stated that he had told the residents that pernussion to utilize a cul-de-sac rather than a complete intersection would ultimately be up to the City as part of the review and approval process. He stated that his townhome units would be a rambler style with a sales price of between $120,000 and $170,000. He displayed a series of building elevations to illustrate what the townhomes would look like. He stated that the townhomes along the very north property line adjacent to the park and ride lot would have crawl spaces, while all of the others along the east side of Pennock Avenue would have full basements with wallcouts. In addition, units would have deck and four season porch options, as well as bays and other different architectural treatments. He stated that the ten units located on the west side of Pennock Avenue would be a two story townhome design with a tuck under gazage. All of the tocm~homes in the project (both sides of Pennock Avenue) would have double garages. Mr. Diedrich then displayed a transparency of the proposed landscape plan, indicating the location and size of landscape plantings. He noted that the residerts had requested the use of some evergreens along Pennock Avenue near 128th Street rather than Ash trees. Commissioner Gowling asked if the developer owned parcel "C." Mr. Diedrich answered that this parcel would be part of the development. He stated that he does not have a plan on exactly how the property would be utilized at this point, but understands that it is to be landscaped in accordance with conditions established as part of the prior project's approval (1994). He noted that the overall greenspace calculations are 63% including parcel "C." A general discussion ensued concerning where the requirement for the use of parcel "C" for greenspace came from. It was noted that the City Council added this condition when the project was approved, and that a further condition was that the final landscaphig to be installed on this parcel was to be amved at via a meeting between the developer and the residents of 128th Street. Chair Fellrner asked for calculations to verify whether the minimum 60% greenspace requirement would be met without the inclusion of parcel "C." Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 10 Kathy Bodmer noted that the very first set of plans submitted to the City by Mr. Diedrich did not include parcel "C", and that the greenspace for that plan was 61 %. Commissioner Edgeton noted that the 60 percerrt grcenspace standard was established to enhance the visual appearance of projects, as well as a sense of opeaness. She would like to see separate calculations far both the east and the west side of the projects since they appear to be very different in nature. Commissioner Gowling asked if setback variances were necessary for the proposed porches on the project. Mr. Diedrich stated that the first plan he had submitted to the City did include setback variances for porches. With the relocation of the sanitary sewer line, the minimum 50' separation between. buildings and porches is met. He stated that setback variances aze only necessary along the east side of the property adjacent to Cedar Avenue at building number 5 (10'), building 6 (12'), and building 36 (18'). Commissioner Edgeton asked about the 75' Cedar Avenue setback. It was noted that the setback along Pennock Avenue was 50', which is the requirement in this zoning district for neighborhood collectors and community collectors, while arterial roads such as Cedaz Avenue require 75'. It was noted that in all cases, the units are 50' or more from Cedaz Avenue, even if variances are approved. Commissioner Blundetto asked who would be responsible for the cost of relocating the sanitary sewer forcemain. Keith Gordon noted that this cost would be born by the developer. Chair Felknerthen opened the public hearing to audience comments. Rick Kot of 7694 128th Street stated that he was representing the Saddle Ridge neighborhood, and that he was in one of the. homes closest to Pennock Avenue and the proposed development. He stated that they had questions over the proposed driveway access locations and the density on the project as they relate to the busy traffic already existing on Pennock Avenue. Mr. Kot asked what the zoning was on the pazcel "C." He was informed that the zoning on this property was single family, and that a townhome could not be built upon it. Mr. Kot went on to say that the neighborhood had concern about the appeazance of the proposed project, and wanted whatever was built here to be consistent with their existing neighborhood. He stated they would want to see brick with natural wood siding, and not the use of aluminum or vinyl siding. They would like to have the opportunity to sit down and negotiate this out with the builder. He said that they aze very interested in continuing to see property values maintain in this area, and that the appeazance of the buIldings are key to this. They have heard that Mr. Diedrich's other projects have been white in color, and they are worried about an "army barracks" look. Chair Felkner asked that uifonnation concerning traffic impacts be available for the next meeting: both current traffic counts and the design capacity of the road. Chair Felkner also noted to the developer that he should not expect any relaxation of the 50% brick requirement. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 11 Bruce Frederick of 7823 128th Street asked that everyone from the neighborhood please rise to illustrate to the Planning Commission how many concemed residents were in the audience. Mr. Frederick then returned to his seat. Bill Milon of 7840 128th Street stated he wished to address the entrances onto Pennock Avenue. He stated that their neighborhood does not want any intersection at 128th Street going into the proposed townhome development. They would rather see a turnaround. He said that maintenance of landscaping on the development is also important. He would like to see a sprinkler system installed to keep the landscape materials healthy. He said the project needs to be as congruent as possible with the existing neighborhood, which to him means the use of wood siding as opposed to a synthetic material, and also that earth tones be used, similar to the Oxford Hollow development at Cedar Avenue and McAndrews Road. He stated that in his mind the name of this proposed development (Valley Oaks) implies a warm and earthy look, azid the project should in fact. be built that way. Chair Fellrner asked Staff what the cul-de-sac standards would be. Community Development Director Rick Kelley stated that the proposed change to create a cul-de- sac in this location would meet both the standard for the maximum cul-de-sac length, as well as the maximum number of units on a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Blundetto suggested a possible loop road connection along the northeast corner paralleling Pennock Avenue back to the south. Vicki Lair stated that as well as the single family residents on 128th Street, there were also a number of residents of the Eaton Mobile Home Park present this evening, and she felt that their needs had not been addressed at all. She said she currently lives on Lot # 12, and was concerned over the loss of the stand of trees along the very westernmost. boundary of the parcel on the west side of Pennock Avenue. Her mobile home backs up to this west boundary and she is concerned about the loss of this landscape buffer. In addition, there is an alleyway located along the back side of Lots 1 to 121ocated on this parcel, and if it is developed as proposed, they would lose their off-street parking. She believes that the townhome units would be very close to their mobile homes. Colleen Arndt approached the podium and stated that she is the property manager for the Eaton Mobile Home Park. She said the ownerslp of the park is in transition at this time, and that the existing 164 residents did not receive any notice of this proposed hearing. She stated that the public notice hearing signs on the west side of Pennock Avenue had been lyhig face down. She stated that they would like to see a traffic study done, and want to see afour-way stop placed at Pennock Avenue and McAndrews Road. She said there has been provision for a buffer to other property owners, but that the needs of the residents in Eaton Park have been ignored. She stated she does not understand why variances would be considered for this development when they have been denied setback variances for the placement of mobile homes. Commissioner Blundetto asked what the policy is for mailed notice of public hearings. A general discussion ensued concerning property ownership records and how address lists are put together. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 12 Douglas Lynch of Unit #24 in Eaton's Pazk stated that traffic on Pennock Avenue is already bad, and that the proposed density of this townhome development would make it worse. He noted that the southbound buses stop in the street to unload passengers, which creates a traffic congestion problem as it is. He is also concerned over the loss of the alleyway behind units 1-12. They aze necessary for parking. John Hessel stated that he is associated with the Christus Victor Church. He said that in general they do support the development of this area, but asked if units would be rental or owner occupied. It was noted that these units aze intended to be owner occupied. He stated that in his opinion, because of the ultimate construction of a north south runway at the International airport, there would be more airport noise over the Cedaz Avenue corridor, and that the City should consider requiring extra noise suppression in new housing units in buildings along that corridor, especially if they are rental, in order to avoid rapid turnover and a transit neighborhood environment. Valerie Thoennes of 283 Palomino Drive stated that there is already a traffic problem in this area, and referred to a pedestrian fatality at Pennock Avenue and Palomino Drive which occurred a few yeazs ago. She said that there are already people exceeding the 35 mile an hour speed limit on Palomino Drive, and she asked when Palomino Drive might be widened to improve in similar fashion to the road existing on the east side of Cedaz Avenue. Rick Kelley noted that in regards to southbound bus traffic stopping to unload traffic on Pennock Avenue, it had been originally intended to include a "bump out" on the west side of Pennock Avenue to allow an azea for buses to pull out of the lane of traffic and unload duectly onto the sidewalk. This "bump out" was deleted from the pazk and ride lot improvements due to a cutback in funding. It is hoped that funding will be available to constmct this "bump out" in 1997. Mr. Frederick stated that they would prefer that buses always head in a northbound direction so they could pull out into the existing unloading area on the east side of Pennock Avenue and unload their passengers at that point. There being no further audience comment, Chair Felkner closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. He noted that there would be no action taken on the item this evening, and that it would reappear on the agenda in two weeks. Chair Felkner then called a recess at 9:16 p.m. Chair Fellorer reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Setback Variance for AmericInn Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace noted that this request was for a setback variazice for an existing building to receive approval fora 16.7 foot setback from the Glazier Avenue right-of--way. A previous variance had been allowed for this project to allow construction within 20 feet of the right-of--way. However, after the as-built survey was completed, a 3.3 foot discrepancy from the actual building location to that originally authorized was noted. He then turned the presentation over to the petitioner. Planning Commission Minutes September 18,1996 Page 13 Mr. John Voss, owner of the Americhm, approached the Commission. He stated that he was at a loss to explain how this discrepancy occurred because there were surveyors on site both before and during the construction process. He stated that he thought that the only reason that this might have happened was that after the building was originally laid out, a different type of building wall system was used, which was thicker than the original wall system. He thinks that the cumulative effect of wider walls between the rooms is what resulted in this encroachment into the setback area. A general discussion ensued regazding this issue. At this point it seemed that there were no options left to correct the situation. MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Fdgeton, to recommend approval of the 3.3 foot setback variance as requested due to the original hardships imposed by the unusual parcel shape and the additional right-of--way required for the Cedar Avenue improvements. The motion carried 6 -0. The Commission asked Mr. Voss to try and find out additional information on exactly how this occurred, with this information to be placed in the City's records. 6B. Conditional Use Permit & Site Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tom Lovelace introduced this item, which consists of a conditional use permit for a nursery and greenhouse operation, as well as a site plan and building permit authorization, for property located on the northwest comer of County Road 42 and 147th Street. The public hearing for the conditional use permit occurred at the previous Planning Commission meeting for the site which is commonly referred to as the "armory site." This property is guided. on the Comprehensive Plan for Limited Business, and it is consistently zoned Limited Business. The proposal would establish a 12,160 squaze foot building, a 6,000 square foot greenhouse, and a 37,483 square foot outdoor display and sales azea which would be surrounded by a decorative fence. At the previous meeting legal counsel for the adjacent property owner (Bachmans) raised an issue concerning the definition of nurseries and greenhouses relative to their establishment in a Limited Business zone with the retail component which is being proposed by Lyndale Gardens. Mr. Lovelace then referred this question to the City Attorney. Jim Sheldon, the City Attorney, stated that the attorney's office has been investigating this issue, but has not completed its analysis to deternvne whether the issues raised by Bachman's legal counsel were justified. He stated that their investigation thus far has indicated that there are two components of this question. First, is it typical for a retail component to be associated with a greenhouse or a nursery operation. Their investigation into this part of the question results in a clear answer that a typical greenhouse and nursery operation does in fact have a significant retail component. The second part to the question, however, is the one upon which more work needs to be done, and that has to do with the extent to which the preamble of the City's Limited Business zoning ordinance would apply in that it stipulates that this zoning district is to be restricted to non-retail uses. Planning Commission Minutes September 18,1996 Page 14 Mr. Sheldon went on to say that if the Planning Commission concludes that the retail component to the Lyndale Garden Center was consistent with their expectation of a nursery or a greenhouse use, then they should go on to consider the issue of the conditional use permit to make a determination in their own mind if the conditional use permit meets the established criteria for such issuance. Commissioner Nagler noted that when the Planning Commission recommended approval of this site to a Limited Business designation, they had also recommended that extra setbacks be established by easement along the north and west sides of the property. She asked what the status of those easements were. Community Development Director Rick Kelley noted that the City Council, in rezoning the property to Limited Business, chose not to impose additional setbacks via easements. Cormuissioner Oberg stated that he felt each Commissioner must decide what they meant the property to be used for when they recommended approval of a Limited Business zoning on the site. Coxnrnissioner Edgeton stated that she thought that in rezoning the property, the list of permitted and conditional uses were clearly indicated as the likely uses of the site. Jim Sheldon noted that while those uses were clearly permissible or conditional, the ordinance goes on to state that either those or similar uses would be acceptable. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he thinks they are trying to examine this issue under a microscope and splitting hairs over language issues. He stated that a restaurant, for instance, is also a retail-type operation, and in fact many chain restaurants offer a variety of novelty items with their logo for sale over the counter. Chair Fellrner asked Tom Lovelace if any other issues had been identified by Staff which needed to be addressed by the Commission. Mr. Lovelace stated that they were all set forth in the report. Commissioner Nagler asked the City Attorney if it would be appropriate for them to act since their research was not complete regarding the second issue concerning the preamble of the ordinance. Jim Sheldon stated that while their research is not complete, the Planning Commission could appropriately make its own determination at this point. Commissioner Edgeton asked if the Planning Commission decision was a final say concerning this issue. Jim Sheldon stated that at this point, it was their decision. However, the next step would bring us to the City Council to consider similar issues, and if in fact the issue were contested further, then there would be some form of judicial review. Chair Felkner asked if the petitioner had anything to add. Gary Lalley of Hoyt Properties stated that they represent Lyndale Gardens, and that they believe that they are a greenhouse and nursery operation as defined by the ordinance. He said that the precedent had been set previously in the City with the Minnehaha Falls Garden Center and Nursery operation, also located in a Limited Business designation. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 15 He also pointed out that the Bachman s operation on the opposite side of 147th Street is a similar enterprise, and it does not seem reasonable that this type of use is okay on one side of the street, but not on the other. Chair Felluter noted that while the public hearing has been closed, he would accept other limited relevant comments concerning this proposal. Ernest Lindstrom approached the podium and stated that he was the legal counsel for Bachman's. He stated that while the City owns this property, it must still follow its own laws and regulations regarding its use and development in the same fashion as any other property owner would have to do in the City. He stated that they had reviewed the list of permitted and conditional uses in a Limited Business category when the property was rezoned in 1995. He said they were not concerned at that time because they did not believe that the use being proposed this evening by Lyndale Gardens was either a permitted or conditional use. Mr. Lindstrom went on to state that the traditional definition of nurseries and greenhouses involves the raising of plants, and not the sale therefore. He stated that the Bachman's operation on the other side of the street is in fact all retail, and that nothing at all is grown there for sale. Mr. Lindstrom then went on to state a number of other cases which he believed had some relationship to this situation. Mr. Lindstrom went on to read some of the permitted and conditional uses in a retail zone in the City's zoning code, which included a gazden center type operation. He stated that if this is what had been intended for use in a Limited Business zone, then it should have been listed in that fashion. He said that a property owner or citizen should be able to rely on the specifics in the zoning code for the district that has been established upon a parcel of property until such time as a formal public hearing and notice for rezoning is made. Mr. Lindstrom concluded by again emphasizing the fact that the City must follow its own procedures and laws in dealing with property that it owns. He stated that Bachman's in its history has never had to or chosen to commence aii action against a municipal government. City Attorney Jim Sheldon stated that he appreciated the work and research that Mr. Lindstrom had performed concerning this issue, and welcomed his comments and views on the law. He did not, however, appreciate an insinuation that the City is bending its roles simply because it desires to sell a parcel of property and make a profit on it. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he resented this insinuation as well, and stated it was not an appropriate accusation. Commissioner Edgeton stated that she too was offended by this insinuation. She stated that the members of the Planning Commission are all volunteers and doing what they believe is best for the community concerning land use issues. None of them are paid for this work or receive any direct benefit from it. Mr. Lindstrom apologized if members of the Commission were offended by his remarks. He stated that in the end it is a legal question. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 16 Jim Sheldon reiterated to the Commission that they must first determine in their own minds if the proposed use of the site for the Lyndale Gardens Center falls within the conditional use permit zoning category, and second, if the proposed use meets the criteria for a conditional use permit approval. Roger Boelter of 124 County Road 42 stated that he does not want the decision to boil down to a simple "is it legal or not." He asked what the setbacks on County Road 42 to the proposed fence line would be. Tom Lovelace noted that it was between 20 and 25 feet. It would bean 8 foot tall decorative fence. Mr. Boelter stated that when approaching the City's central business area from the west, a very attractive streetscape is presented to the motorist. He does not think that an establishment of an outdoor sales area as proposed here would create an attractive appeazance or enhancement to the City's downtown. He noted that the Lyndale Gazden site hi Burnsville has closed and he questioned just how much market demand there was for this type of operation. He had a question on the ownership of site and wondered what would happen to the property if the Lyndale Garden business fails. Scott Hoepner of 14826 Hauen Drive referred to the City's zoning workbook. In the workbook the listing of garden centers was limited to Retail Business and General Business zones. He asked if a traffic study would be appropriate prior to approval of this use. Rick Kelley noted that the traffic capacity of 147th Street in this area is close to 20,000 trips per day, and right now it is carrying slightly over 5,000 trips per day. Mr. Hoepner then asked if it would make sense to place the outdoor display area on the north side of the property backing up to the existhig single family homes. Chair Fellarer noted that the owner and operator of the Lyndale Garden Center felt that the pazking bays along the north side of the property would be those that would be used the least, and would be utilized only during the peak seasonal periods. He felt that the display azea is the actual high activity outdoor area, and that it would be best to place it as far away from the residences as possible. Mr. Boelter then questioned how the parking area might be used after hours when the business is closed, and how it might be policed. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he questions what real impact the site plan as proposed would have on the adjacent neighborhood. He noted that if the residents feel that the Bachman's operation is generally okay, and it has not created any problems, he does not believe that the proposed Lyndale Gardens would cause problems either. Commissioner Edgeton asked if the issue of the ownership of the property could be addressed. Tim Duos approached the podium. He stated that he is the purchaser and owner of the property. He is also the sole shareholder of the L}mdale Gazden operation. He stated that he intends to lease the property to the Lyndale Garden entity, owning the property either personally or placing it in a shell corporation. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 17 MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Lyndale Gardens Center in accordance with the conditions listed in the Staff report. Commissioner Nagler stated that she was uncomfortable with the definition of the nursery and greenhouse within a Limited Business district, although she does believe that the Lyndale Garden Center would be an asset to the community. Commissioner Oberg said that he could not support the proposal because he was not awaze that the Commission's recommendation for increased setbacks via an easement was not implemented by the City Council. He stated that he felt these increased setbacks were very important to make this property a transition area to the heavier retail uses to the east. Commissioner Gowling stated that she had some difficulty supporting this request given the legal issues raised and the fact that City ownership of the parcel should entitle them to be more selective. She also had some concern over the use of the parking requirements for the building area being computed based on retail use. Commissioner Edgeton stated that when the property was rezoned to Limited Business, it was done so upon a public hearing initiated by the City Council. At that time, the Limited Business designation had evidently been chosen as opposed to a Retail Business designation. She stated, however, that she would not have a problem with a retail business use on this property when designed properly, and she thinks that the Lyndale Garden Center is designed properly for the site. Commissioner Oberg stated that as he remembers it, when the Commission discussed the rezoning in 1995 about transition uses, they specifically stated they did not wazrt to duplicate a retail use on the site like Baclunazi's. Commissioner Blundetto stated that the purpose of the Commission's discussion among themselves is not trying to persuade them what they did or didn't. believe at the time of the rezoning. He stated that at the time of the rezoning, they did not know that a use such as Lyndale Garden might have come in, or if it had been suggested, whether they would have been opposed to it at that time. He certainly would not have been. The motion failed 3 - 3 (Oberg, Dowling, Nagler). Jim Sheldon stated that because the recommendation on the conditional use permit did not pass, the Commission should not consider a reconunendation on the site plan and building permit authorization. Commissioner Oberg stated that it might be appropriate to consider changing or revising the City's zoning code to either redefine or eliminate nurseries and greenhouses from a Limited Business category. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS -None - Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1996 Page 18 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None - 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Dowling, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried. 6 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.