Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/2009CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6; 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Churchill at 7;00 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Ken Alwin, Keith Diekmann, David Schindler and Tim Burke Members Absent: Tom Melander and Frank Blundetto Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant City Engineer David Bennett and Depardnent Assistant Barbara Wolff 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There being none, she called for approval of the agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke; to approve the agenda. The motion carried 5-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2009 Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, to recommend approval of the minutes of the April 15, 2009; meeting. The motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Burke abstained. 4. CONSENT ITEM A. Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Cobblestone Lake South Shore -Consideration of site plan building permit authorizafion to allow for construction of two (2) single family dwellings on previously approved twinhome lots. The petitioner is requesting site plan building permit authorization approval to allow for construction of two (2) single family dwellings on lots previously approved for twinhomes. The lots aze generally located in the northeast corner of Cobblestone Lake Parkway and Eastbend Way and are part of a 20- lot twinhomedevelonment in the Cobblestone Lake South Shore develonment. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 ag®da & minutes\050609m.doc The dwelling units will have an exterior design and finish identical to the current twinhomes. No changes to the exterior, from the approved twinhome plans, other than creating single family as opposed to the two-family buildings. This is similar to a request that was brought forth last year, when the petitioner received approval to allow for construction of eight (8) single family dwellings on lots previously approved for twinhomes. These lots are located directly south ofthe lots. Chair Churchill asked for comments from the Commission. Hearing none she asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to recommend approval of the site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction of two (2) single family homes on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, COBBLESTONE LAKE SOUTH SHORE. The motion carried- 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update -Receive public comments. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist introduced Mr. Scheib. Brad Scheib with Hoisington Koegler Crroup, Inc. presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission with the following content on the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Overview • City is required by state law to update • Planning process started in August 2007 • Draft plan ready for review by affected local governments • Formal adoption process Spring 2009 • Complete draft plan on City website Key Changes • Builds on current (2020) plan • .Focus on key future issues: identity, development, transportation • Several new chapters • New format Comp Plan Chahers 1. Introduction 2. Vision for Apple Valley 3. Community Context 4. Land Use 5. Housing 6. Economic Development 7. Parks and Active Living 8. Transportation S:\planning\PI.ANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc 9. Utilities 10. Using the Plan Common Chanter Elements • A discussion of needs and issues • Goals and policies that respond • Strategies to achieve • Steps to implementation Vision for Apple Valley t~ Z • New section with 11 "keys" • Not part of 2020 Comprehensive Plan • Qualifies and characteristics desired for Apple Valley in 2030 • Comprehensive Plan is blueprint to achieve vision • Series of 11 "keys" 1. Sustainable 2. Livable 3. Business oriented 4. Employment focused 5. Safe 6. Play and preserve 7. Healthy and active 8. Accessible 9. Successful downtown 10. Learning 11. Service Community Context, Chapter 3 • Future built on existing foundation ^ We are a living history; contemporary pioneers • Variety of factors shape the fixture ^ We are the center of south of the river development • Important to understand these factors and implications for fixture planning • This is where you fmd our community data • Past trends; the development ofxesidential neighborhoods and a compact Downtown • Recent development; Fischer Marketplace, Central Village • Location; increasing importance • Physical characteristics; sculpting of the landscape through mining, improves what is built • Characteristics of the population • Family households are our backbone • Aging of the population will be significant Land Use, Chapter 4 • Foundation for Comprehensive Plan • Preserve and enhance existing development with new connectedness • Guides Apple Valley to full development by 2030 • Anticipates potential for redevelopment in future; supporting an evolution of change S:\plannmg\I'Ir1NCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc Land Use Policies • Land use objectives for Apple Valley • Overall development • Residential land use and neighborhoods • Neighborhood buffering • Commercial land uses and downtown • Employment areas • Institutional land uses • Land use-transportation relationship • Community design • Natural resources • Rehabilitation and redevelopment • Intergovernmental relations • Historic preservation • Energy and Technology Management Land Use Focus Areas • South Central Planning Area • Downtown • Transit Corridors • Neighborhood Service Centers • Existing Neighborhoods Land Use Categories • Define categories shown on map • No change for majority of city • Less "mixed use" from 2020 Plan • Some planned mixed use has been built • Shift to more specific uses in future development areas • Places to create jobs • Continued emphasis on live, work, shop opportunities • Mixed Business Campus • New land use category • Reflects desire to attract high quality and job producing employers • Interest in placing those business, office and manufacturing employees in a higher density configuration Housin¢, Chapter 5 • Public actions required to meet local housing needs • Chapter contents: • Background • Housing needs and issues • Goals and policies • Implementation S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609mdoc q Key Housing Issues • Maintenance of existing 30-40 year old homes • Growth and financial ability of homeowner's associations • Balanced housing supply and choice • Availability of affordable housing • Aging of the population • Foreclosure trends Economic Development, Chapter 6 • New chapter • Framework for City's role in facing economic development opportunities ^ "Everything is Economic Development" • More active role and involvement will be needed in future • What will be the City role? ^ Small amounts of financial resources ^ Leveraging large amounts of private investment • The positive aspects of competition • Economic Development Needs • Development Opportunities • Redevelopment Potential • An evolving transit oriented development concept • Image/Identity • Economic Sustainability • Goals and Policies • Economic Development Strategies Economic Development Kev Strategies 1. Attract large employers to the Mixed Business Campus Area 2. Unify and Redevelop in the Downtown -driven by the marketplace 3. Connect Apple Valley to the region; communication, technology and transit 4. Partner in development, redevelopment and support to existing business 5. Attract businesses focused on science, technology, engineering and math Parks and Active Livine Chapter 7 • New focus on active living • Use of parks, trails, open space and recreafion facilities to promote active and healthy living • With a focus on our housing, economic development, and quality education, it is our park and trail system that conveys quality of life and healthy living Parks and Active Living Contents • Inventory of Existing Systems • Discussion of Issues and Opportunities • Goals and Policies • 2030 Parks and Active Living Plan • Implementation Strategies 5:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609mdoc Keys by 2030 • Complete Quarry Point Park • Provide parks to support growth ^ Expansion of Regatta Park ^ New park east of Pilot Knob Road • Continue high standards of maintenance and reinvestment • Adapt to changing community needs • Complete key links in community and regional trails Transportation, Chapter 8 • Summary of Apple Valley Transportation Plan ^ Overall Transportation Plan updated in 2008 • Highlights issues, plans and policies for all types of movement Transportation Chapter Contents Introduction • Goals, Objectives and Policies • Roadway System Plan • 2030 Forecast Traffic Volumes • Transit System • Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities • Aviation • Freight and Commercial Vehicles • Implementation Keys to Transportation Planning • Primary corridors not under City jurisdiction • Collaboration and a shared vision is essential • Need to make City comdors function well {Gardenview, Pennock, Galaxie, etc.) • Balance roadway and land use needs • Business access is a priority • Avoid afreeway-like experience Maximize benefits of Cedar Avenue improvements and transit service ^ A transitway evolution over a long period of time Complete. street system with future growth • North and south; the completion of Flagstaff Avenue and Johnny Cake Ridge Road ^ East and west; the completion of 147th, 153rd, and 157th Streets Meet needs of vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles • The evolution ofmulti-modal options occurs during this period to 2030 Utilities, Chapter 9 • Summary of more extensive policy plans for municipal utility systems • Sanitary sewer • Water supply • Surface water management S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc Using the Plan and Actions to Consider, Chapter 10 • Actions and strategies for implementing the Plan • More than just adopting the Plan • Ongoing process of addressing issues and moving strategically towards vision • Each of the vision statements represents a facet of quality of life to be achieved and maintained Usinu the Plan Chapter Contents • Statutory framework/official controls • Coordination of actions • The City Council and Planning Commission working together • Community partnerships are numerous • Amendments and updates have a process • Key initiatives to 2030 • Business Campus Development Economic Development priorities Cedar Avenue Transitway evolution Sustaining neighborhoods and the Downtown Next Stens • May 14 - CC reviews final draft at informal meeting • May 20 - PC reviews final plan and makes recommendation to City Council • May 28 - CC considers final plan • .May 29 -submission of final plan to Metro Council • Final approval after Metropolitan Council review and acceptance Mr. Nordquist mentioned the key topics from the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan: active living, Downtown vitality, community connections, aging of the housing areas, affordable housing and the "Mixed Business Campus" as a new concept. The City is proposing a "Mixed Business Campus" designation for the 270 acres currently owned by Fischer Sand and Aggregate and referred to as the South Central Planning Area. The Fischer representatives prefer a "Mixed Use" designation. Both of the designations need further definition and both require zoning changes. Nordquist stated that the Fischer representatives requested that the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) from October 26, 2007, be submitted as part of the documentation from the public hearing. The AUAR suggests including low to medium housing as part of the South Central Planning Area. According to the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan, about 25% of the South Central Planning Area will be devoted to a "Mixed Business Campus" area. Nordquist reviewed the materials contained in the Planning Commission's packets. Mr. Scheib introduced a concept to enable the City to create different scenarios so that the City can understand the implications of various land use patterns. One scenario is the "Mixed Business Campus" and the notion behind that is the creation of jobs. He commented that the Fischer representatives want to zone the property "Mixed Use" which gives them the ultimate flexibility S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doF and enables them to have a process that doesn't require them to come back to the City in the future for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Scheib said if the land is kept as a "Mixed Use", the City would want to make sure there is enough land area to accommodate a certain amount of job growth. There are a number of variables related to that. One is the floor area ratio, which would indicate the amount of square feet needed to meet a certain amount of employee growth desired by the City. A one-story building would give a floor area ratio of about 25%. Instead, the building could be stacked two, three or four stories high thereby increasing the floor ratio, which creates more jobs and create a more intense development. To do create a denser development, there area factors to keep in mind: cost to build structured parking and the impact on infrastructure if it's all intensified in one location. Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. created a tool to break. out all of the uses, including residential. The tool allows the City to make assumptions about development, and divvy up the property into percentages of office, office showroom, commercial retail, medical campus, and residential, and estimate what the job growth potential could be. If the City knows they want to maintain the ability to grow jobs in the range of 6,000 to 9, 000 jobs, which will get the City to the desired 22,000 or more job in Apple Valley, then the City will make sure that the mixes of the uses will get the City to that target. The tool can allow the City to meet their objectives without designating specific areas of land at this time. It is a tool that can be used to meet the objectives of both the City as well as the applicants. Mr. Scheib asked for comment or questions from-the Planning Commission. Hearing no comments, Chair Churchill opened the discussion to public comment. Tony Gleekel, an attorney with Siegel Brill Greupner Duffy & Foster P.A. representing the Fischer entities and the property in question, stepped before the Planning Commission. Mr. Gleekel referred to his letter dated April 17, 2009, and its proposed language for the Comprehensive Guide Plan: He highlighted his points from that letter and stated that the land's designated use and land area do not support the use. Chair Churchill asked Mr. Gleekel what would need to be added to the "Mixed Business Campus" description proposed in the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan to give the Fischer entities the desired flexibility. Mr. Gleekel responded that it is complicated because of the process of the guide plan and it being a brand new designation. He is more concerned about the fact that this is a large parcel of land and the designation proposed doesn't allow any significant retail and doesn't allow any residential at all. He stated that he wants the City to give them the description, but also allow the flexibility to enfice a large user to come in. Chair Churchill stated that when the Planning Commission started looking at this piece of undeveloped land, they took into consideration the residential on the east side of Pilot Knob Road and considered the other uses in place around this piece of land, not just the land itself. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc Chair Churchill said she understood Mr. Gleekel. She went on to say that a number of the Planning Commissioners recently attended the American Planning Association's annual conference. One of the things she heard in a session that she attended is that integrating residential with business uses is going to make for a more sustainable area. She' also said that if the City can work with a formula like Mr. Scheib had presented, then she would be willing to consider that. The Chair continued to say that the City is very concerned about the large undeveloped parcel because the City is greatly in need of more employment. That was one of the guiding principles the Planning Commission considered while updating the Comp Plan. She said she would be willing to consider mixing some high density residential so that people are brought closer to a place of employment and mixing in supportive commercial with supportive retail on a small scale. But, there must be some guidelines so that the land does not immediately filled with residential or retail because that is where the market is at that time. The City needs to have employment here, and it should provide more than retail job employment. Mr. Gleekel stated be understands that. His concern is that when government enfities say to a property owner that they want to hold off a piece of property, and it's heavily regulated, at what point does the government take it? He understands the need for head of household jobs, but isn't sure that they can be generated from here. It may never generate head of household jobs because it is not the right area. Chair Churchill hearing no comments from the public or the Planning Commission asked Nordquist if there are any comments from the. surrounding communities. Nordquist stated that the comments are part of the record and have been submitted to the Planning Commission. The comments will be included as part of the presentation to the Planning Commission on May 20th. Chair Churchill stated that she is inclined to hold the public hearing open until the next meeting to allow the Fischer entities to come Back. Nordquist stated that staff had anticipated that as an option. He thanked Mr. Gleekel for his comments and-also the Fischer representatives in attendance this evening. Nordquist said that this is a very important issue to them and staff wanted to make sure that every position was aired and understood. Chair Churchill clarified her position that she has a concern with using just the "Mixed Use" designation because it is too broad:and too open. She asked staff to work with the "Mixed Business Campus" designation to include some additional uses to accommodate the needs of a potential developer and provide a little more comfort zone. The designation could include some high density residential that would be supporting the employment available in the area. She stated that the comments that Mr. Scheib made to make a compromise approach to this sounded attractive to her. Nordquist stated that staff has just started the discussion about the tool that Mr. Scheib suggested. It should be a good tool to move quickly with the limited time that is available. Chair Churchill asked for a motion to keep the public hearing open until the May 20th meeting. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to hold the public hearing open until the May 20a` meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion carried 5-0. B. White Castle -Consideration of a Class II restaurant with adrive-up window and site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 2,584 sq. ft. restaurant on an existing .79 acre lot. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a Class II restaurant with adrive-thru window and site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 2,584 sq. $. building on a .79-acre lot. The property is located at 15101 Cedar Avenue and is currently the site of an unoccupied 3,525 sq. ft. building. The site plan indicates a 15-foot wide landscaped yard between the Cedar Avenue right-of--way and parking lot curb line. The site plan should be modified to include the 20-foot landscaped area abutting Cedar Avenue. The site is serviced by a private sanitary sewer line that has had a history of sewer backups, which has required city crews to be dispatched to clear the backup. The Utilities Department is recommending that the petitioner provide the City with a letter of understanding between the private line users that would include a quarterly maintenance program and service agreement. The Assistant City Engineer has reviewed the grading and utility plans and has several issues, which are listed in the staff report. Revisions should be made to the grading and utility plans and information related to the "Stormtech" storm water infiltration system, which was identified in his memo, shall be submitted prior to City Council consideration. Staff has concerns with the lack of variety of species, foundation plantings, and the petitioner's ability to meet the City's minimum landscaping requirement. Staff will continue to work with the petitioner on developing a plan that meets or exceeds the minimum standards and requirements. The petitioner has identified the proposed signage for the site, which will include two building signs, a pylon sign and a menu board. It appears that the proposed signage meets the requirements set forth in the City's sign ordinance for the proposed type of use. Approval of the site plan building permit authorization request does not constitute sign approval. The City will require that the petitioner submit a separate sign application that will need. to be approved by staff prior to erecting any signs. Lovelace asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission. Chair Churchill hearing no comments or questions asked the applicant to approach the Commission. Craig Eilers, project manager for White Castle, stated that there is no direct access for the restaurant off of Cedar Avenue. All access is at the rear, circulation is one-way and the drive-through window is on the south side. White Castle has no problem installing the 20-foot landscape buffer along Cedar Avenue. He mentioned that they will remove the existing 4" sanitary line and replace it with a 6" line to the manhole. Also, White Castle has contacted the other parties that use the lateral and have preliminarily agreed to a maintenance program and service agreement to maintain that line. St\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609mdoc 10 Todd Harkins, consulting engineer with SM Consultant remarked on the grading and storm. He stated that they will use a Stormtech infiltration system that will be placed underground and also have a release for overflow from a high event storm that will tie into the main line, but the majority of the rain water will go into the ground. Chair Churchill asked if they had any comments in regards to the landscaping or putting some green plant material around the perimeter of the building. Mr. Eilers stated that they're going to work with staff to bring the landscaping plan into compliance by meeting or exceeding the requirements. Mr. Harkins stated they also started adding landscaping around the foundation on the site plan. They are going to utilize as many of the full-grown deciduous trees that are currently on the site as possible. Mr. Eilers said they are proposing signage on the north and east elevations, a ground pylon sign with reader board and a menu board. They will apply for separate permit for signage. Commissioner Alwin commented that he can see acut-in for the sidewalk off of Cedar Avenue. He asked.how they will landscape that to make the sidewalk evident so pedestrians do not cross on the grass. Lovelace said there is a hedge and/or shrubs to deter pedestrians from crossing on any place other than the sidewalk and make a connection to the front of the building. Mr. Eilers added that the sidewalk will be ADA accessible. Commissioner Schindler asked about the accessory building. Mr: Eilers said that is an enclosed shed with a roof used for storing landscape equipment. The materials for the accessory building will match the main building. Chair Churchill stated that the plan looks good and thanked the applicant. She opened the hearing to public comment, Hearing no further comments, she closed the public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on a public hearing item the night of the public hearing. C. Cobblestone Lake So` Addition -Consider proposed amendments to "PD-703" (Planned Development) and subdivision of land by plat that will replat eight (8) townhome lots for single family and townhome residential development. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of amendments to the setback requirements set forth in Planned Development ordinance No. 703 and subdivision by replat of eight existing townhome residential lots into four single family and four twinhome residential lots. The property is located along the south side of Duck Trail Lane, east of Duck Crossing. The petitioner is also proposing building setbacks that are in conflict with the current planned development ordinance. The petitioner is proposing planned development ordinance amendments that would reduce the minimum building setbacks and lot area requirements. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609mdoc 11 Because this is a single and two-family family development proposal, site plan building permit authorization review is not required. However, the petitioner has provided building elevations for the proposed dwelling units, which does indicate the exterior finish material for the dwellings. The planned development ordinance states that the use of vinyl, steel, aluminum, or similar material for the exterior finish is not allowed. The petitioner has indicated the use of a wide variety of plant species on their landscape plan. The plan has been reviewed by staff and they have no outstanding issues other than the wmment that the petitioner use disease resistant crabapples. Public utilities to serve the existing lots were installed as part of the public improvement project for the Cobblestone Lake 3'~ Addition. Because the replat will be adjusting the interior lot lines of the existing lots, as well as the type and location of the dwelling units on the lots, adjustment will need to be made to existing lateral services. Lovelace asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Diekmann asked if there is a hardship present for the 11.5 foot setback on the last building. Lovelace said it's not a hardship, but a minimum 20 foot driveway would be needed to allow for the parking of vehicles. If the building was pushed forward, the builder would not be able to meet that minimum. A different type of building could be built to meet the required setbacks. John Sonnek, with Charles Cudd Co., stated that this happens in other areas. within the Cobblestone development because of the curves of the road. Mr. Sonnek stated. that the exterior will match the current townhomes. The exterior will be a hardi- board exterior with the same color palette. The units would be part of the association and would be maintained as such. He stated that the sewer and water were installed based on the four units, but the adjustments can be made with minor cut-outs on the sidewalk without actually having to go into the street. He stated the reason he is making this request is because when he builds a four unit townhome; he needs one buyer and three spec houses and currently there aren't any banks willing to loan money for that. They want to continue to build homes and fill out the neighborhood. At this point, this is the best scenario, having one pre-sold and then only one spec home to sell. Their goal is to facilitate the process to start up the market again. Also, they've found that the market caps out at $395,000 right now. They've kept the price down by limiting the home to a one-story and adding garden level windows to the lower level. By scaling the home down to aone-story, they're able to save the money on the second level and finish the lower level with two bedrooms and a recreational room. In this manner, they're hoping to start the momentum of sales again. Chair Churchill opened the public hearing to comments. Bill Franke, 15579 Duck Trail Lane, commented that his home will be looking at the front of the proposed plan. He commends the Charles Cudd Co.-for this innovation to try and complete tl-,is area. He stated that his home is the only one completed out of 16 vacant lots. He is in support of this proposal. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc ] 2 Linda Swaggert, 15732 Cobblestone Lake Parkway, commented that her home is directly behind this plan. She asked Mr. Sonnek if the homes will be similar to anything else in the neighborhood. And also she would like to know if there will be a porch on the rear of the homes. Mr. Sonnek answered that the proposed plan is the two inside units of the original plan of four townhomes: The units will be the same although without the second floor. The floor plan of the main floor will be the same. There will be a deck and patio in the back. Ms. Swaggert gave her support for the proposal. Victoria Nelson, 15765 Cobblestone Lake Parkway, said that she serves on the board of directors for the homeowner's association. She stated that she generally supports the proposal. She really wants to see the lots and homes occupied. Lovelace proposed to take action this evening. Chair Churchill asked for any more questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Diekmann stated that his only concern is amending. the ordinance for the 11.5 foot setback when it doesn't necessarily appear to be a hardship. Although he understands from the petitioner that there might be other areas in the community that are that same way, he doesn't think that they were designed that way but they might be that way. Lovelace stated that he is now aware of that situation in the community. There maybe around the roundabouts, but those are averaging type of situations. He's not aware of any on the site plans. Approximately 50% of the building in question does meet the setback requirements. Chair Churchill said that she believes there is enough green space forbisibility between the private drive and Duck Trail Lane for vehicles exiting and entering. Hearing no further comments or discussion, Chair Churchill closed the public hearing. Although it is not the policy of the Planning Commission to act on an item the same night of its public hearing, there were receiving favorable comments from the public and she asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin to recommend approval: a) Blocks 1 and 2, Cobblestone Lake 5th Addition shall be allowed to have side yard building setback from 0 (zero) to 10 feet as long as the minimum building to building setback is 10 feet for single family dwellings and 20 feet for two-family dwelling units. b) In order to maintain the architectural congruity along the front facade and maximize the length of the driveway, the proposed single family dwelling unit on Lot 4, Block 2, Cobblestone Lake 5th Addifion shall be allowed to have a minimum front yard setback of 11.5 feet. c) The minimum lot areas within the Cobblestone Lake 5th Addition shall be 2,800 sq. ft. The motion carried 5-0. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609mdoc 13 MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin to recommend approval of subdivision by replat subject to vacation of the existing easements. The motion carved 5-0. D. Cobblestone Lake 6th Addition -Consider proposed amendments to "PD-703" (Planned Development) and subdivision of land by plat that will replat four (4) townhome lots for twinhome residential development. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of amendments to the setback requirements set forth in Planned Development ordinance No. 703 and subdivision by replat of four existing townhome residential lots into four twinhome residential lots. The property is located along the northeast corner of Eaglevvood Lane and Cobblestone Lake Parkway.. The petitioner is also proposing building setbacks that are in conflict with the current planned development ordinance. The petitioner is proposing planned development ordinance amendments that would reduce the minimum building setbacks and lot area requirements. Because this is atwo-family development proposal, site plan building permit authorization review is not required. However, the pefitioner has provided building elevations for the proposed dwelling units, which does indicate the exterior finish material for the dwellings. The planned development ordinance states that the use of vinyl, steel, aluminum, or similar material for the exterior finish is not allowed. The pefirioner has indicated the use of a wide variety of plant species on their landscape plan. The plan has been reviewed by staff and they have no outstanding issues other than the comment that the petitioner use disease. resistant crabapples. Public utilities to serve the existing lots were installed as part of the public improvement project for the Cobblestone Lake 3'~ Addition.. Because the replat will be adjusting the interior lot lines of the existing lots, as well as the type and location of the dwelling units on the lots, adjustment will need to be made to existing lateral services. Lovelace asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission Commissioner Diekmann asked if the City has an issue with building decks on property that is not part of the platted property. Lovelace said that the City does not have an overall issue with it. It doesn't happen often, but the City has more concerns with setback issues. As long as the property owners have permission of the homeowner's association, the City does not have a problem issuing a building permit. Mr. Sonnek corrected that it is a patio on the ground, not a deck. Hearing no further comments or discussion, Chair Churchill closed the public hearing. Although it is not the policy of the Planning Commission to act on an item the same night of its public hearing, there were favorable comments from the public. She asked for a motion. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m_doc 14 MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to recommend approval of the setback amendments to Planned Development ordinance No. 703: a) The lots shall be allowed to have a side yard building setback of four feet. b) That a minimum building to building setback of 20 feet for two-family dwelling units shall be allowed. c) The minimum lot areas within the Cobblestone Lake 6a' addition shall be 2,800 sq. ft. The motion carved 5-0. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to recommend approval of subdivision by replat subject to vacation of the easements. The motion carried 5-0. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS --NONE-- 7. OTHER BUSINESS A: El Toro Outdoor Patio -Consideration of outdoor dining area. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer is requesting the Planning Commission to review and provide comments on a proposed outdoor dining area at the El Toro restaurant located at 14638 Cedar Avenue in the Cedar Marketplace development. The patio area is proposed to be TO feet wide by , approximately 85 feet long and provide seating for 22 patrons at 7 tables. The patio would be located on the east side of the building:. No parking would be removed to accommodate the patio area. An outdoor patio area is a permitted accessory use in the zoning district (PD-290, Zone 4) provided the conditions for an outdoor dining area are met. The following issues should be considered: 1. Proximity to the Glazier Townhomes. The Cedar Marketplace building is located approximately 40 feet from a Glazier townhome building to the north. Although asix-foot privacy fence separates the two properties; there is a direct line of site from the patio area to the upper story of the adjacent townhomes. Staffis concerned that an outdoor dining area serving alcohol will have activity and noise that will negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. Caribou Coffee has an outdoor pato area; but because it isnot afall-service restaurant, its impact on adjacent properties is minimal. Given the potential for negatively impacting adjacent properties, the City generally does not allow outdoor dining areas that are less than 600 feet from residential properties. 2. Proximity to the garbage dumpster enclosure. A garbage dumpster enclosure is located approximately 20 feet from the proposed patio area. Although the zoning ordinance does not have a separation requirement between garbage enclosures and outdoor patio areas, the compatibility of the patio in relation to the dumpster is a concern in this location. S:\p]anning~PLANCOMM~2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc 15 3. Parking constraints on the overall Cedar Marketplace property. The availability of parking and circulation within the site are on-going issues for the Cedar Marketplace development. No parking spaces are proposed to be removed to acwmmodate the patio However, the additional seating will require additional parking. A parking calcula5on would need to be done for the enfire shopping center. 4. Precedent for other full-service restaurants with liquor licenses.. Other full-service,restaurants have expressed an interest in constructing outdoor dining areas. The location of the site in relation to the surrounding residential properties may make the entire development unsuitable for outdoor dining. Bodmei• asked for any comments or questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Alwin inquired about the 600-foot notification for a public hearing. Bodmer replied that it would mostly affect the townhouses to the north and the residential area to the northeast. Chair Churchill asked if it is a legal requirement to notify the commercial development areas. Bodmer replied that it is not. The wording is such to protect the residential properties. Chair Churchill asked if it would be permitted to have an awning that may absorb sound. Bodmer replied that is an alternative to be explored and verified with the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Schindler asked what the hours of operation of the outdoor dining would be. He also asked would the area need to be fenced in if the restaurant serves alcohol. Bodmer replied that a fence would be required with the serving of alcohol. The petitioner is proposing a 4' wrought iron type of fence. The petitioner will respond to the hours of operation. Commissioner Schindler commented that he was not comfortable with how close the townhomes are to the outdoor dining area, although he is willing to listen to what could be done to protect the homeowners. Commissioner Diekmann stated that there was a precedent set with the American Legion patio. Bodmer replied that in that case, the residential properties that were less than 600 feet were actually located across Pennock Avenue on the west side of the building and the patio was on the east side of the building. Commissioner Diekmann asked about the height of the fence. Bodmer replied that the Planning Commission's recommendation allowed for a six foot high privacy fence. However the City Council made some modifications so that there was a four foot wrought iron fence along Glenda Avenue and a six foot fence along the south, although she will need to double-check the plans for confirmation. S:\plaoning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc 16 Commissioner Diekmann commented that his only other concern is the proximity of the parking spaces directly east to the proposed patio. Commissioner Burke remembered that it may have been the Police or Fire Department that influenced the four foot fence vs. the six foot high fence at the American Legion. Bodmer replied yes, because of the visibility Commissioner Burke asked if the existing sidewalk at the rear of the building strictly services the restaurant or is it used by other tenants. The petitioner, Marcos Gomez, stated that all tenants use the sidewalk. Commissioner Burke stated that he generally favors outdoor seating. He said the summers are short enough and it is available at many other restaurants in Apple Valley that he would like to see this be able to happen. Mr. Gomez commented that El Toro's operating hours are 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., although the business starts to dwindle at about 8-9 p.m. The restaurant is a family type of restaurant and does not have a bar and doesn't try to attract bar business. The restaurant also does not provide any sort of entertainment. Chair Churchill commented that the Commission is generally encouraged with the idea and would be interested in seeing some actual plans that they could respond to. She recommends Mr. Gomez to continue to work with City staff. Commissioner Burke stated that he frequents the restaurant and can confirm that it is not a wild crowd. Mr. Gomez thanked the Commission for their time. Chair Churchill thanked the petitioner. Bodmer stated that when the request comes back for formal action, staff will have some of the background information requested. B. Review of the Upcoming Schedule and other Updates Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist presented Commissioner Schindler with an award to acknowledge his six years of service work on the Planning Commission. Chair Churchill suggested scheduling an informal meefing to review the concepts and ideas from staff and several members of the Planning Commission that recently attended the American Planning Association Conference. Nordquist said that would be a great idea. Staff will plan an informal meeting before the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2009. S:\plaoning\PLANCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc ]'] 8. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Churchill asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 p.m. The motion carried 5-0. S:\planning\PLAIVCOMM\2009 agenda & minutes\050609m.doc t g