Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1996CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 16, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Frank Blnndetto, Diane Nagler, Paul Oberg, and Karen Edgeton. Members Absent: Marcia Gowling azid Joe McNamara. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, Keith Gordon, Mike Dougherty, and Consultant Glen Van Wormer. 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. Community Development Director Rick Kelley stated that there would be am addition to Number 8, Other Business, to receive information on an open house for the Metropolitan Growth Options. Frank Blnndetto asked that under Other Business, information concenung the Americhm setback variance be presented. There being no other changes, Giair Felkner asked for approval of the agenda as amended. MOTION: Member Blnndetto moved, seconded by Member Nagler, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 2, 1996 MINUTES Chair Fellcner asked Staff and the Commission members if Chey had any changes or revisions to the ptoposedmrinutes submitted in the packet. There being none, he called for flieit approval. MOTION: Member Blnndetto moi~ed, seconded by Member Nagler, to approve the minutes as subnvtted. The motion carried 3 - d. 4. CONSENT ITEMS - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Valley Pines Townhomes Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standaid remarks. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace identified the location of the project on the northeast comer of County Road 42 urd Embry Path. The parcel is approximately 2 acres in size, and is guided on the Comp. Plan for low density multifamily, and zoned consistently under a plam~ed unit development for 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 2 This property is currently occupied by a farmstead and is proposed to subdivide the property into 13 lots that would accommodate 12 to~nlhouse dwelling units with one lot to be owned in common by the towa~home association. Mr. Lovelace then displayed a series of overhead transparencies that illustrated the location of the property and the conditions of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed preliminary plat layout indicates a single private drive access onto Embry Path on the west side of the property and an emergency vehicle turnaround at the end of the private drive on the east side of the property. The buildnig elevations indicate brick on the first level on the front lido of the building, with brick at selected portions on the rear of the building along the first floor window ledge, and then at a vertical band in tha center of each building. While not illustrated on the plan, Mr. Lovelace stated that the builder would also put at least one porch on the rear of each building. Mr. Lovelace then turned the presentation over to the developer. Bill Brobacl< approached the podium. He stated that lie has been a builder in this area for the past 21 years and has been an Apple Valley resident for the past 2 years. His family has been building in the area for approximately 40 years. He stated flrat the total brick usage on the building would be 54%, which includes the sides of the building for which an overhead transparency was not available. He stated that the color of the building would be a neutraUtan shade with gray asphalt shingles on the roof The portions of the building not covered with brick would be surfaced with a vinyl lap siding. Commissioner Blundetto had a question concerning the plat and ,Lot 13. City Attorney Mike Dougherty indicated that Lot 13 is the cormnon lot which surrounds all of the individual townhome iuuts. Mr. Broback stated that the sales price of these units would be approximately $135,000 a piece. Chair Felkner asked about the existurg precover on the property. Mr. Broback noted that the City Forester has made a site inspection and has noted that the existing spruce trees originally planted as a wind break around the farmstead vary in their health. The trees in the center of the building are at the and of their usefirl life, while on the west there is a stand of evergreens in relatively good health. He stated that he has jockoyed the location of the buildings on the west side of the property to save as inany of these healthy trees as possible. Also, he would be addhig more landscape materials to the site to help malty up for those trees lost. The other stand of healthy trees are located nr the southeast corner of the site, most of which would be saved. Commissioner Edgeton asked if any setback variances were necessary or requested for this protect. Tom Lovelace stated that no variances were necessary, but they have not checked how the addition of porches on the back of the buildhrg might or might not comply with the required minimum setback. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Brobaek stated that he had previously been debating the use of a porch versus a patio on the rear, but stated that there is a minimum often feet between the rear of the primary structure to the edge of each townhouse lot. Mr. Kelley noted that there is an additional setback of 25 feet from the edge of the to~vhouse lot to the common property line on the north. As long as any porch is kept within the confines of the townlrome lots, all of the setbacks will be met. Chair Felkner stated that at the sketch plan review on this project, the Commissioners had commented on flee need to have some architectural relief on the rear of the building in order to present an attractive appearance to the adjoining neighborhood. He stated that the addition of porches on the rear of the buildings accomplishes this and be encourages their hrclusion. Chair Fellwer then asked Lovelace if he had any firrther comments to make concemuig the review of the project. Mr. Lovelace noted that the proposed project meets the density requirements azzd setback requirements, and that the Iaardscape plan has been reviewed by the Forester, Some chviges to the Landscape plan concerning plant species identification are suggested to be accomplished prior to issuance of building permits. He noted. That the bulk of the evergreens to be removed on the west side of the property are only at the opening of the private street access onto Embry. He stated that the plat has been reviewed by the ISakota County Plat Coirunission, and that they Have recommended its approval contingent upon the removal of the old farmstead driveway onto County Road 42. Also, some attention needed to be given to sound suppression via bernung and landscaping beASeen the private drive and County Road 42. Bill Brobaek noted that he is iu agreement with all of the recommendations, but also pointed out that he intends tb remove evergreens wherever townhouse foundation construction is likely to damage their root structure acid endanger their long-term health. Commissioner Nagler asked for an explanation of the landscape locations on the north side of the property. Mr. Brobaek stated that the location of the landscape clusters on the north were intended to provide the masinmm amount of screen and privacy to the entrances of the existing townhome neighborhood on the north. He stated that the 2-1/2% city landscape requirement on top of the existh~g evergreen trees results overatl in a very dense ta~rdscape plan. Chair Fellcner then opened dre public hearing for audience comment. Ho asked that people wishing to comment approach the podium and state their name and address. An unidentified resident asked from the audience what type of porches are being proposed. Mr. Brobaek stated that these would be 4-season porches. It was also clarified that these porches would be a minanum of 25 feet from the north property line. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 4 There being no other audience comments, Chair Felkner closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. He explained the process of review before the Plamvng Commission, and that the next time this item appears before the Commission in three weeks a reconunendation is expected. SB. Fischer Market Place Chair Felkner opened Che public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistairt Plaimer Tom Lovelace noted the location of the project on the northeast corner of County Road 42 acrd Galaxie Avenue for a site containing appto~mately 120 acres currently designated for a combination of General Business and Linvted Busuness at the corner, with the balance for Light Industrial. The entire site is currently zoned General Industrial. It is proposed to change the comprehensive plan to provide for a mixture of shopping center, retail business, limited business and general business uses, and to rezone the site from General Industrial to a commercial piaiined unit development. Also included in the request is approval of a preliminary plat contahiing approximately 10 lots and ~ outlots for fuhire development. Mr. Lovelace weitt on to state that Che prelhnhrary plat submitted to the Plaamiug Conunission in their packet has been revised in that all of the proposed lots oil the east side of Foliage Avenue have been consolidated into a single outlot (Outlot E), Chat two new outlots are proposed in the southeast comer of the plat at the Coruity Road 42 and Flagstaff hntersection, and 2 new buildable lots are proposed on the west side of Foliage Avenue extended to the north near 145th Street. Mr. Lovelace then turned the presentaiion over to the petitioner. Ron Kraok of KKE Architects approached the podimn and introduced himself. He noted that this is a very large project and has taken a long time to refine the layout through a series of iterations of site plans. He stated that he is part of a larger design team wl>ich uzcludes John Larson of Damon Farber Associates for landscaping, Russ McGinty of Griffin Companies for marketing, 7hn BOnshoof of Benshoof & Associates for traffic eggineering, Meg McMonigal of MFR for environmental review, Ralph Wagner of Probe Bngineerin„u, Jerry Duffy for legal counsel, aad John Voss for overall planning issues. He stated that this is an exceptional property for development purposes, and that all of the design team is excited about the opportwrities presented. He stated that their overall development goals are to provide a connnercial development having a real sense of place and that the City of Apple Valley can be proud of Portions of the site will serve to be gathering areas for residents, and it will be a fully integrated master development plan done at a pedestrian scale with sidewalk lirilcages. He stated that the &rst phase of the development would be the southwest portion of the site, and he amplified on the land uses expected in this area, as well as the larger commercial uses located adjacent to the large parking lots. He detailed the proposed temporary one-way entry to dre site from Galaxie Avenue, and the other access points along County Road 42. He stated that the large conunereial center worild actually be a series of connected buildings which are stepped back to create landscape areas at their corners, as well as visual interest. In addition, the height of each building would be different, again offering architectural interest. He noted that the Foliage Avenue intersection would be full access and would be signalized. Also the Flagstaff Avenue intersection would have a signal constructed at some point in the future. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 5 Storm water runoff would be directed to the large existing city-ownod pond in the northwest portion of the site. The most visible location at the corner of Galaxie Avenue and County Road 42 would be the central "gathering place" consisting of a landscaped plaza having several restaurants and other food services located either immediately adjacent or in close proximity. He stated there would be other convenience-type retail located along County Road 42. He stated that this planned development would provide for a conmron architectural theme carried on throughout the project. Commissioner Blundetto asked about the pedestrian design elements. Mr. Krank stated that John Larson would address this issue. John Larson approached the podium and stated that at the larger scale, they have not determined the specific and precise walkway locations, buY pointed out the most likely potential pedestrian corridors between the buildings and the various uses in the project. Mr. Larson also explained the landscape featuies associated with the different portions of the project. He noted that it is their irrtent to install the missing "rigg route" amenities along Galaxie Avenue, as well as the entrance gate directly at the corner of County Road 42 and Galaxie. He stated that the proposed landscape plan world screen the majority of the parking lots from direct view from County Road 42, and that they have taken the name of Foliage Avenue quite literally in creating a somewhat meandering driving surface with extensive tree plantings on either side. Conn~ussioner Nagler asked if interior sidewalks have been planned. design. Mr. Larson stated that they have only identified continuous plaza spaces at this point in their Ron Krank stated that the conceptual site pl<ui identifies only Typical building forms for different uses at this time, and that while they have talked to a variety of potential end users, there are no firm corrunitments at this time, and it's not possible for their to release the names of any of the conunercial enterprises that might be interested. Russ McGinty of Griffin Companies approached the podium. He stated that there was initially a very slow response to this proposed commercial project when [hey contacted potential users. As time has progressed, however, they are experiencing heightened interest and have Decently been fielding many utiquiries concerning the project. He noted that in the strip of land along County Road 42 between Galaxie Avenue and Foliage Avenue, there are many small users ready to iirake a co~runitment at this time (but no letters of commitment have been tendered), and that a grocery store anchor has also expressed interest. intent. Commissioner Edgeton asked how many signed leases the developer has at this time, or letters of Mr. McGinty stated that they have neither signed leases nor signed letters of intent at this point. He stated that before they could geCto that point, they would need to have approvals from the City, as well as final construction cost estimates. Conunissiooer Blundetto asked who the users would be in the plaza area. Mr. Krank stated that Yhere would be such users as ice cream stares, bagel vendors, and other types of food vendors. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 6 Mr. McGinty stated that the freestanding restaurant users that they have spoken to are not fast food operators, but are restaurants who are vying for a slightly more "upscale" customer with fiill sit- down service and entrees ruimulg from between five and Ywelve dollars apiece. Commissioner Edgeton asked if the City would be requiring that the large or "big box" user be constructed first. Mr. Kelley stated that that issue has not been approached at this phase in the development, but that the City could require that in the planned unit development. He stated that in the past the City had taken the position of wanting to prevent tlie perimeter development from occurring prior to the large users being established. Commissioner Edgeton asked about the temporary one-way access onto Galaxie Avenue. Ron Krank stated that this access would be in existence for the first phase of the development only. At the time phase tvvo is constructed, it would be necessary to make the 147th Street Linkage from the center out to Galaie Avenue. That atigimrent however, has not been selected at this point. The design of phase one allows several options for d>is aligtment. Commissioner Edgeton asked if there would be a time limit established to close the temporary access and build 147th Street. Ron Krank stated there would be no specific time line; but it is his expectation that market demand for complete development of the site and phase two construction would certainly result in a relatively short time frame. Commissioner Blundetto asked if the expected traffic could indeed be accoxmnodated with a temporary access to Galaxie Avenue as proposed. Glen Van Wormer, the City's traffic consultant, noted that accesses to this site would be provided from Galaxie Avenue at 145t1i Street, 146th Street, and the temporary access. He explained how traffic movements would work and what the likely distribution would be. A general discussion concerning traffic ensued. Conunissioner Edgeton asked if in fact that temporary access had the capacity to handle the traffic. Mr. Van Wormer described the various iterations of development plans that have been through their office for review, and noted that most of these changes had been based on the need for the plan to accommodate the traffic capacity of the current system and the phased hnprovements to that system. He stated that the current plan and access points world accommodate the phase one traffic as long as some Iargc additional project does not develop in immediate proximity to the area, such as on the south side of County Road 42 if that occurs, it would be necessary to have the complete roadway hnprovements, along with 147th Street to handle the traffic appropriately. Conunissioner Edgeton stated that she believes that the temporary access is appropriate for the phase one development on the short term, but wanted to know how the City could assure that 147th Street is installed to accommodate ultimate development. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 199b Page 7 Mr. Kelley noted that construction in the phase five area would be tied to the completion of the necessary roadway improvements. This ci~ould include 147th Street. Commissioner Oberg asked what was preventing the project from being done right all at once by having all of the roadway improvements uistalled irmnediately. Jerry Duffy, legal counsel for the developer, approached the podium. He stated that in his opinion this was a city issue. He said that they have made all of the appropriate road cormections necessary to hurdle the traffic in accordance with the engineer's recommendations. He stated that the ultimate improvements really must await a financing mechanism, such as available tax increment financing, that would not be generated until at least phase one has been constructed. Convnissioner Nagler asked if sidewalk improvements would be constructed along the interior loop road. Ron Krank said that he will be prepared to address specific. sidewalk locations and pedestrian Linkages at the nest meeting. Commissioner Blundetto stated that in his opinion the distaixes between the dowrrtown commercial uses really preclude complete central commercial district access on foot. In his opinion, as long as a design is used which is bicycle friendly, the developer will have succeeded. He would like to see bike racks and bike routes identified. Ron Krank stated that it is their-intern to have pedestrian friendly design within their specific commercial complex. Chair Fellrner then opened the public hearing for audience comments. Larry Wertheim of Kemiedy and Graven approached the podimn. He stated that their law firm represents Williams Pipeline Company. He said that there is currently an east-west pipeline located along the 146th Street alignment, and a series of north-south pipelines located along the east border of the site. This system of pipelines lies within private easements dedicated to Williuns Brothers. He stated that there are health and safety concerns regarding these pipelines that need to be addressed prior to development on the site. Mr. Wertheim noted that the proposed reconfigured pond owned by the city and proposed for expansion would mrcover a pipeline in its very northeasterly corner adjacent to 146th Street. This is not acceptable. He also noted that while not illustrated on the preliminary plat or site development plan, there is an indication that Flagstaff Avenue along the east side of the property world actually be constructed on top of their pipelines at impossible grades. Walt Ksliy approached the podium and stated that he is representing Williams Brothers. He is a specialist in pipeline safety, and said that development around pipelines has become a national issue. He said that it is done safe if done appropriately, but ui niuiy cases this is not the case. He said that the development plan should modify the grades around the pond to leave the pipeline covered at an appropriate depth. Also, at the intersection of 146th Street and Foliage Avenue there should be an appropriate ground cover or casing for the pipeline where the street crossing occurs. These are relatively minor modifications uid in his opinion eau be accomplished quite easily at very little expense. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 8 The issue along the east boundary_ presents a nmch more difficult situation. His reading of the proposed grading plan leads him to believe that these grades would actually leave the pipelines completely exposed and literally hanging iu the air, Bomiie Wilkins of Kennedy and Graven approached the podium. She stated that Wi4iams Brothers has been in litigation with the property owner to restore grades along the eastern pipeline easement in order to provide proper support and cover of the existuzg pipelines. She stated that the grading plan presorted this evening does not illustrate the restoration that has been required. She stated that the aligmneut of Flagstaff must be changed. The existing 60 foot wide easement along the east boundary of this property runs in favor of Williams, and they must consent to any improvements affecting this easement area. Jerry Duffy approached the podium and stated that he wished to apologize for his dispute being brought before the Planning Conmtission. He stated that a court date has been set for tomorrow to resolve the outstanding issues between Williams Brothers and his client Mr. Fischer. He stated that the plan being referred to represented the steep topographic contours of the preexistii~u conditions, and that in fact this area has been and is being filled in. Ralph Wagner of Frobe Engineering approached the podium. He stated that they ate currently providing fill in that area to meet the needs of W dlia~ns Pipeline. Mr. Duffy stated that most of this restoration will be done by the and of the year. He stated that the placement of fill in this area had been delayed due to city deliberations on the need for a larger stone water pond within this proposed commercial development. Commissioner Nagler asked that a final grading plan be included in next meeting's packet that shows the proposed grades without the existing grades in order for the plan to be less busy and more legible. Thera being no further comment, Chair Felkner closed the Bearing with the standard remarks. No action will be taken this evei~g, and it wi(L be taken up again at the meeting in three weeks. Chair Fellaier called a recess at 8:50 p,m and reconvened the meeting at 9:04 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Height Variance for a Detached Garage Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer explained the request for a detached garage at 14350 Ebony Lane. The City inning ordinance has a maximum area of 750 square feet, and a maximum height of 16 feet for detached garages aaid accessory buildings in residential districts. This standard acconunodates a 3-stall garage with a normal pitched roof. The property owner at this site desires to erect a bam style garage with a gambrel roof which would be 18-1/2 feet high, necessitating a 2-112 foot variance. LeRoy Carson approached the podium and passed oat photos of his property and explained that he could not add an existing stall onto his garage due to the minimum sideyard setback. He stated that he has a walkout lot and that the proposed garage location is approximately ] 0 feet below the grade of the Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 9 house and street level He said that if a variance for an additional 2-1/2 feet of height is approved, he would still present a very low profile when vicvaed from the street around the side of the existing house. Mr. Carson referred to an overhead transparency of the construction plans and noted that the internal height on the second floor area from flooring to roof rafter is only 5 feet 10 inches so that this space is not really much different from a typical attic crawl and storage space. He stated that he is not providing electricity to this detached structure, and that the windows located on the upper level will allow Iiglrt to come into the building and filter down to the main level. Only about half of the upper level will have flooring so that it wdl be open from roof truss to grade. A general discussion ensued concerning requirements for a demonstrated hardship. There was a general consensus that this style garage would not look correct with a lower roof. MOTION: Meri~ber Edgeton moved, seconded by Member O'berg, to recommend approval of a 2-I/2 foot height variance in order to provide for an appropriate appearance of the ganlbrel style roof. The motion carried 5 - 0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER 13US1NESS A. Metro Growth Options Conununity Development Director Rick Kelley explained that the Metropolitan Comicil is. in the process of selecting a growth option for the next 2~ years of development in the Twin Cities Area. He distributed copies oftlre schedule to consider these amendments, and noted that an open house would be held Tuesday evening, October 22nd, at the Burnsville Council Chambers. Mr. Kelley encouraged Planning Corrunissioners who had that evening free to attend this open house to receive additional irifonnation concenung the growth options, and to ask questions concerning the proposed selected growth options. B. Americlnn Variance Commissioner Bhmdetto stated that when the last setback variance for the Americhm was approved, they had requested the developer John Voss to research how the building came to be located three feet closer to the street right-of -ay line than had been approved. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace st<tited that they have been in discussion with Mr. Voss, but that Mr. Voss has not completed his investigation. However, he stated that the City's review of the facts seem to indicate that an extension of the staina~eh and storage area on the north side of the building is what caused the additional three foot intrusion into the minimrmr setback. Commissioner Blundetto stated that this seems to be a plausible explanation, but that he still wished Mr. Voss to complete his own investigation and report back to the Conuzussion. Staff will follow up with Mr. Voss concerning this and try to have the urfomiation back within two meetings. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1996 Page 10 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 9:33 Pin.