Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/1997CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 2, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission inceting was called to order at 7:01 p.nt. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Flank Blruidetto, Diane Nagler, Paul Oberg, Marcia Cowling, Jcel McNamara and Karen Edgeton. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Tom Lovelace, Kathy Bodmer, Keith Gordon, and Mike Dougherty. Others Present: See the sign-in sheet. Prior to consideration of the agenda, Chair Felkner informed the audience that according to the draft agenda, Item #SA, the public hearing for the Prairio Crossing mixed residential planned unit development has been postponed: Community Development Director Rick Kelley said that the eazliest that this public hearing would be held would be the May 7th, 1997 meeting. Additional mailed notices would be sent out to all property owners. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Felkner asked Staff and the Commission members if they had airy changes to the proposed agenda. There being none, he called fur its approval. MOTION: Member Cowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion carried 7 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1997 MINUTES Chair Fellmer asked Staff and the Commission members if they had any changes or corrections to the draft minutes submitted in the packet. There being none, he called for their approval.. MOTION: Member Nagler moved, seconded by Member Cowling, to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried 7- 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None - Planning Comrxrission Minutes April 2,1997 Page 2 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Rear Setback Variance for New Duplex Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace explained that the proposal is for a one foot nine inch reaz setback variance at 13845-55 Granada Avenue. Lovelace then displayed a series of overhead transparencies, illustrating the location of the duplex and the variance involved. Commissioner Edgeton asked about the variance previously approved for the duplexes located on the lots to the north. She noted that those were approved for the purpose of saving trees, and asked if there were any similar significant trees located on these lots. Lovelace responded that there were no significant trees on this lot, and the purpose of the variance was not to save trees. Edgeton then asked if this unit had been constructed yet. Lovelace noted that die foundation for dze unit was constructed; it was at that time it was discovered the setback was not met. Terry Rothenbacher approached the podium. He stated that he works for Pioncer Engineering, the company that prepazed the survey and staked the lots for these towiilromes. He indicated that he is representing Twin CiTy Townhomes this evening. He stated that when they staked the location of the foundations, they located the front stoop at a poim 30-1/2 feet from the front yard line adjacent to Granada Avenue, and that in fact this was in error because the setback should have been measured to the from of the building rather than the front stoop. This error in essence pushed the building toward the reaz property 1n1e somewhat. He noted that the rear lot line of this duplex development cants off at an angle, and that the average setback along the reaz building foundation was greater than 30 feet. He believed that this would be acceptable to the City. It was noted that the building permit for this duplex was issued on February 18th of this year, and that on Febmary 28th the builder was notified during the foundation inspection that the rear setback was short of the 30 foot rnnimrmr required. Rothenbacher stated thax he was infonned that during the plan review by the City, the inspection department believed that there was additional common azea behind the duplex lot which was a similaz situation for the balance of the Cedarwick Townhome properties located within this plat. Rothenbacher went on to state that he admits that it was their error, but they did believe that d~ey were in compliance. He stated that they were comfortable with dze staff reconnuendation for soriie additional landscaping along the reaz properly line. Edgeton stated that an approval of a variance needs to be based on a hardship related to the land, and she questioned what the hardship was in this case. Rothenbacher stated that the variance for this property was simply that the construction has gotten as faz as it has with the foundation already being in. He stated again that there was no intent to mislead, and that they believed that a use of an average rear setback was acceptable. Edgeton asked iF an "average" setback requirement was typical. Lovelace stated that Apple Valley City ordinazice requires a setback be measured from the closest point of any building to the property line. Mr. Rothenbacher stated that he works in many communities, and that often an average setback is acceptable. Plamting Commission Minutes Apri12, 1997 Page 3 Commissioner Oberg asked if this lot was surveyed and staked at the same tune as the north four lots were surveyed and staked. He also asked if the subject lot this evening had the same depth as the northern lots. Lovelace noted that the southern duplex unit here (Lot 6) has a jog in the rear lot line that cants off to make a greater setback. The northern lots have the same rear depth. Rothenbacher stated that the lots were not surveyed all at the sazne time, that they were done only as the building and associated dwelling trait was sold to a buyer. Commissioner Nagler asked for a clarification. If the front of the building is only a half foot farther away, why is the intension one foot nine inches in the rear. Rothenbacher noted that the additional half foot setback in the front was measured to the edge of the front stoop, but that in fact all of the stoop would be permitted to intrude alto a front setback per the City code. The rest of the stoop is what makes up the difference to total the L 9 foot setback intrusion on the rear. Commissioner McNamara had a question on the previous reference to a common area. Rothenbacher stated that this was evidently a situation with some confusion in the City's Building Inspection Departinent because the townhomes on the other side of the strcet put up by the same builder do have a wmmon area beyond the lot lines. Edgeton asked if the Buildug Deparhnetrt could respond to this. Steve Hanson, the City's budding official, approached the podium. He displayed some ovenc~~d transparencies of typical townhome surveys that indicated the location of the building relative to the internal lot lines, and then noted that common area exists beyond that out to the perimeter of the development adjacent to either the struts or neighborhood bouudary. He said that in these cases the setbacks of a building to the lot line is usually quite minimal, typically much less than 30 feet, but that the common area beyond that separated the townhome uuits from the outer property perimeter. hi this case, however, the lot line for the individual dwelling units was in fact the same as the outer boundary of the development. This was discovered when the foundation inspection was made ii the field, and the building inspector noted that the building foundation was too close to the rear lot line (less than 30 feet). Blundetto noted that this was an nnforttmate error, and that both parties seem to be accepting their responsibility in it. Felkner noted that the setback intrusion appears to be quite minimal azid shouldn't cause a problem. Fdgeton still asked what the specific hardship was in this case. City Attorney Mike Dougherty noted that part of a determination of a hardship and variance approval was whether the specific proposal continues to meet the intent of the ordinance concerning adequate separation of buildings. Bltmdetto stated that ho felt with such a mumimal intension, additional landscaping was not necessary to provide az~y mitigation. Planning Commission Minutes April 2, 1997 Page 4 MOTION: Member Oberg moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to reconunend approval of the setback variance for Lot 5, Block 2, Cedarwick, eliminating the staff recommendation for additional landscaping. The motion cazried 7 - 0. This item will appeaz on the April 10, 1997, City Council meeting 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Fondrick Sketch Plan Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer said that this is a relatively small and simple development plan proposed for the east side of the City on the north side of 140th Street. The subject property is five acres in size and contains au existing single family home. The property is currently zoned for agricultural uses and is guided on the Comprehensive Plan for low deusity. HowEVer, the property siurounding this pazcel has all been developed for detached single family homes. A stub street has been placed on either side of flee parcel leading into these existing single family neighborhoods on the west and east side. Bodmer then displayed a series of overhead transparencies that illustrated the existing conditions and the proposed development. The proposed development would simply provide for a continuation of those stubbed in streets on the east and west, and a short cul~le-sac that would hang down to the south. She said that the only unresolved issue concerning this development would be the disposition of the existing driveway out to 140th Street. Ms. Bodmer stated that it is the Cit}~s policy to try to eliminate these individual driveways to conununity collector roads such as 140th at the time of development of the property, and to provide an alternate access to the new internal street system. Don Fondrick approached Ure podium, and stated that he is at the Commission meeting this evening with his wife Marlene and lis friend Bill Jorgenson, who is a real estate consultant Mr. Fondrick said Uiat the house was built in 1971, and that Uiey have occupied it since 1981. He displayed several overhead transpazencies of photographs that illustrated the front of the house with the existing garage and driveway, and the rear of the house. He stated that wlile it might physically be possible to provide driveway access from the rear of the house, it would be a very steep grade given the proposed elevation of the cul-de-sac and Uie existing topographic contours. Commissioner Nagler asked Mr. Fondrick if he currently has difficulty in accessing 140th Street due to the level of traffic on it. Mr. Fondrick said that is not the case slice the house is set back quite some distance from the road, as 140th Street has a 100 foot wide right-of--way. 1n addition, there is a turnaround azea on the driveway so that motor vehicles do not have to actually back out into a lane of traffic. Felkner said Uiat the issue of driveway access seems to be the biggest issue on this development proposal. He said that in looking aY the topographic comours, he believed that a continued access for one home to 140th Street is Uie best solution. Mr. Blunde[to stated that he agreed with that assessment. Commissioner Edgeton said that she had an additional question about 140th Street, and asked if Dakota County had jurisdiction over it. 12ick Kelley and City Engineer Keith Gordon stated that 140th Street at one time was a county road, but that it curremly is a city street ~dth the City of Apple Valley having jurisdiction over it They both stated that it is the City's pohcy to try to close these types of driveways, but that the policy has flexibility to allow drive4vays to remain if the City determines Unat Uzey will not cause a problem. Planning Commission Minutes Apri12, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Fondrick noted that it is a half mile to the east to the intersection of 140th Street and Diamond Path, another community collector, or a half mile to the west with its intersection to Pilot Knob Road, a minor arterial. Commissioner Gowling asked if the proposed road lined up with the existing roads to the east and west. Mr. Fondrick stated that it did. Bodmer noted that the city engineer has stated utilities to serve the property are already in place at the road stub locations. 7B. Minnehaha Falls Nursery Sketch Plan Kathy Bodmer noted the property is located on the northeast comer of Cedar Avenue and 147th Street. It is curreirtly guided on the Comprehensive Plan for Limited Business use and is also zoned Limited Business. It is the site of the old Minnehaha Falls Nursery operation which has since been removed, Leaving a vacant parcel of land. Ms. Bodmer stated that the sketch plan proposes the constmction of two 25,000 square foot retail uses on the east side of the property overlooking a large common pazking area. Two smaller freestanding uses would then be constructed on the northwest and southwest corners of the property adjacent to Cedar Avenue, one wntaining a coffee and bagel shop, and the other a sandwich shop. John Johannson with Welsh Companies approached the podium. He stated that they have been trying to put together a development plan of this site for almost one yeaz. Tt is approximately 6-1/3 acies in size after the required riglrtof--way dedications foi Cedar Avenue aze taken. He said that basically the shape of the site is essentially Long and thin with a relatively short dimension along Cedar Avenue. He stated that with him tltis evening were Chris Simmons, a coworker with Welsh Conq~anies, and Brian Alton, who is the attorney representing the existing property owner. Mr. Johannson stated that he was aware that the current designation on the property by the City is for prhnarily office and professional uses with onily the patential for a small amount of ancillary retail service uses. He said that while he understands the City's plan, he believes that they can design the proposed uses shown on the sketch plan to be compatible with the adjacent office uses to the south, and the multi-family uses to the north and east. He said that he believes that through design, they can continue to achieve the City's downtown development goals of establishing a "quality destination oriented downtown commercial center." Johazuison went on to say that they would be able to achieve this by developing the site to less than its maximum capacity of a typical retail use. There would be extra grcenspace provided along the north to provide bufferiig to the residential area. He said that the sketch plan calls this out as a proof for parking area, but he wished to emphasize that the existing number of pazking stalls shown on the plan ah-eady meets the City's parking requiremenrts. Johannson also said that he was aware of Dakota County's conditions on the establishment of a right in and right out driveway access to Cedar Avenue in the very northwest comer of the site. Tlils condition included some form of continuous driveway access from Cedar Avenue on the west to Glazier Avenue on the east. Johannson then displayed an alternate site plan that separated the two major retail uses with a drive isle between them. He said that if such a drive isle route continued to be a requirement of the county, he would want to keep it as circuitous as possible, but is willing to work with the City in order to achieve development Planning Commission Minutes Apri12, 1997 Page 6 approval. Johannson then described the proposed uses on the site. He said that the users of the two large retail spaces on the east side of the property would be an office products company (Staples) and an automobile accessories, sales and installation facility (Pep Boys). He said that the service bays for the auto accessory installation would be a single overhead bay door that would allow access of a velncle into the building and to a circulation aisle within the structure, leading to the looped bays. All of the driving of the vehicles within the budding would be done by employees, not customers. He said they are not proposing any ovennght car storage outdoors. Johannson also noted that this property is located with a Tax Increment Financing District, but that he was unclear to what extent the city's assistance policies provided for retail uses such as this. He said he also understood that some type of modification was necessary to 147th Street on the south boundary of the site. Kelley noted that a right turn lane with associated movement of the existing sidewalk and decorative street lightuig is programmed to be done this year. Brian Alton approached the podium and gave a brief description of the ownership history of the property. He said there has never been a firm interest in someone acquiring the property for a linnted business use, which is what the existung zoning would allow. He fl~inks that the uses being proposed this evennng would be an asset to the city. Commissioner Bhmdetto said he was under the impression that this was a prime location for limited business uses, particularly for full-service restaurants. He asked Mr. Johannson to explain why the market doesn't seem m support this. Johannson said he has been working with Ray Coimelly Realty, and that the last potential restaurant to be located here was Famous Dave's. He said that this restaurant was discussed at a meeting of the Apple Valley Economic Growth Partnership Committce. He stated that with the restaurant groups he has discussed this site with, he's been. told that Apple Valley is viewed as a homogeneous commtunty havhig a linnted lunch crowd (low daytime work population) and only a limited number of evening "table turnovers." He said that those restaurant operators who have facilities in Burnsville are not interested in locating a facility in Apple Valley due to their fear of caruubalizing those customers currently driving to their Buinsville location. Blundetto said he does not buy this argument. He continues to believe it is one of the best sites in Apple Valley for restatrants, and he sees them going up all the time nr neighborhood communities. In his opinion the sketch proposal before the Commissiontonight is asmall/big box user combination and would be a terrible waste of an hnportant asset in the cormnunity. he said he was disheartened by the proposal. Commission Nagler said that the sketch plan had way too much asphalt for parking, and that it was not a good transitional use to the residential units on the north and east. She said that even though the developer s proposal talked about a gathering space, there really wasrit any. Commission Cowling said that the proposed green area for a buffer to the north was probably okay, but that the back of the commercial buildings were facing Glazier Avenue, and that the multi-family units on the other side of Glazier would have to look at them. She went on to say that she believed that the retail scale being proposed here was far too big for this part of the conumm~ty. Commission Edgeton stated that there are plenty of vacant and available retail sites elsewhere in the city. She said tins quadrant was never intended for retail uses, and the development proposal snnply doesn't Planning Commission Minutes Apri12,1997 Page 7 belong here. She said that these types of big retail users should be in the southern part of the commercial azea neaz Tazget Greatland where there aze other lazge retail uses. She went on to say the proposed retail users would certainly be good for the city, but not at this location. Chair Felkner noted that particularly with the future open'"g of the Fisher Market Place retail complex, there is a lot of available vacant retail land in the city without having to rewne this property. Gowling said again that she believes this use simply doesn't fit here. She understands the need of the property owner needing to develop and sell the property, but she believes that opening this property for retail uses would allow many other possible uses beyond what is being proposed here if in fact these uses aze not successful, and the buildings become available for rent by new tenants. Commission McNamara said that he understands the landowner has the right to develop their property, but that a change in the zoning is always a tough sell, particulazly on this location. Blundetto emphasized again that this site is a treasure to the cpmmnnity, is highly visible, and is an importarrt resource. Fdgeton said that this is one of the last vacant parcels on Cedaz Avenue, and it needs to be developed properly. Fellmer told the developer that these comments are probably not what he wanted to hear, but that they reflect, in his opinion, the city's sentimetrt on how the property should be used or not used. 8. OTHER BUSINESS -None - 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Blundetto moved, seconded by Gowling, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.