Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/1997CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 6,1997 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.. Members Present: Diane Nagler, Jce McNamara, Karen Edgeton, Mazcia Gowling, Lou Clark and Paul Oberg. Members Absent: Frank Blundetto Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Tom Lovelace, Kathy Bodmer, Keith Gordon, City Attorney Jim Sheldon and Charles Grawe, Assistant to the Administrator Others Present: See the sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Fdgeton asked Staff and the Commission members if they were any changes or additions to the proposed agenda. Community Development Director Rick Kelley stated that they might wish to add immediately preceding the other business introduction of the newest Planning Commissioner Lou Clark, who was recently appointed by the City Council. There being no other changes, Chair Edgeton called for approval ofthe agenda. MOTION: Cowling moved, seconded by Nagler, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carved 6 - 0. Chair Edgeton then introduced Lou Clark as the most recent addition to the Apple Valley Pktuuiug Commission. The other planning commissioners welcomed Mr. Clark to the group. 3. APPROVAL OF JULY 16,1997 MINUTES Chair Edgeton asked Staff and the Commissioners if they had any changes to the draft minutes submitted in the packet. There being none, she called for their approval. MOTION: McNamara moved, seconded by Nagler, to approve the minutes. The motion carried 5-0 with 1 abstention (Cowling). 4. CONSENT ITEMS Chair Fdgeton stated these aze considered routine ornon-controversial items that would be forwarded to the City Council without discussion. The only item on the wnsent agenda is a proposed amendment to the city's zoning regulations concerning accessory buildings. Commissioner Clark stated that as the newest member of the group, he was not present at the last meeting and asked if there had been a debate or public comment. Chair Fdgeton stated there had not. MOTION: Clark moved, seconded by McNamara, to recommend approval of items listed. on the consent agenda. The motion carried 6 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes August 6,1997 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Carrollton Commercial and Wal-Mart Chair Edgeton opened and closed the public hearing without any action, as the petitioner had requested a postponement. She asked if staff had any further information on this item. Corrmmuity Development Director Rick Kelley stated because the hearing had been postponed at Wal-Mart's request, at the time they are ready to proceed a new public hearing notice would have to be published, mailed, and signs posted. this would also start the 60-day review period all over again. B. Conditional Use Permit for Big Apple Bagel Bakery Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer stated the proposal is for a Class II restaurant conditional use pemmit with a variance to the normal 1000 foot separation from institutional or residential uses. The proposed site is the Autostop building located on the northwest comer of Cedar Avenue and 145th Street. The site is currently guided on the comprehensive plan for retail business use and is also caned for retail business. Bodmer then fumed the presentation over to the petitioner. Jim Dimond of Cazdinal Development Corportion stated that he is representing the franchise holders of the Big Apple Bagel Bakery Larry and Trish Bell. He stated they currently have a store in Eagan, making this their second store. He said their focus is mainly on being a bagel bakery. About 50% of their product sales aze bakery items, and the other 50% associated food items such as cream cheese, coffee, and the like. He said they will occupy about 2000 s.f. on the east side of the building facing Cedar Avenue. He said the majority of the traffic patronizing the store will come off Cedar onto 145th Street. He said the type of traffic they would expect at their store is not much differem than that at a standazd bakery or other convenience grocery operation, but perhaps there might be a little more traffic over the noon hour. They have about 20 varieties of bagels for sale, and sam they will be offering muffins and cookies as well. They also provide specialty coffee drinks: he said they have no drive-thm provided on the building or exterior service of any kind. He said an individual would place an order at the courrter and pay for the item, but it would be delivered to him table side. He said the townhomes on Glenda Drive on the northwest side ofthe property are separated from their use by the balance of the building. All of their entry doors and windows aze on the south and east side of the building along Cedar Avenue. For the uses on the opposite side of Cedar Avenue, which is in fact a six-lane roadway, there are bemms and landscape materials separating the Greenleaf Townhomes on the east side of Cedar Avenue. He said they also intend to add a corer door to the building and more windows to this space to provide more light. He said he wished to address the issue of the entry canopy raised in the staff report. He said he believes the canopy being proposed is consistent and compatible with the rest of the building. The existing signage on the building is mostly red, and the canopy would be red as well. He said currently the gas pump canopy dominates the property, and he believes that an entry canopy at the comer of the building would counteract this and add more of a retail flavor to the building. He cited other examples of canopies on retail buildings in Apple Valley, including Broadway Pizza and Kennedy Transmission. Commissioner Clark asked if this is a local operation or a clmaur as part of a larger franchise. Dimond stated this is a franchise organization, but that this store would be mn by local operators. They do not have a boilerplate floor plan. There are about seven or eight facilities in the Twin Cities. Clark asked ifthere is a typical color scheme associated with this franchise, and ixi particular whether the red canopy reflects a red Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1997 Page 3 corporate color. Dimond stated it is not a company franchise requirement that any type of canopy be constructed. He said their signs typically have some red in them surrounding the Big Apple logo. He said, however, they would not have any trouble using an alternate color if it was felt that would be more appropriate on this building. Commissioner McNarnata asked how deep the canopy would be. Dimond stated the canopy has not yet been designed, and they will work with staff on this, but it couldn't be more than between one and one and a half feet deep because they would not want to go beyond the existing edge ofthe sidewalk surrounding the building. Commissioner Oberg asked if they actually bake the goods on the site. Dimond said the product is baked completely on site, as opposed to other chains which deliver either a partially baked product to the store or sometimes even a fully baked product. Oberg asked what time the baking occurs. Dimond stated they bake throughout the day, but begin about 3:00 in the morning, opening their doors at 6:00 in the rooming. Oberg said at one time he lived near a bakery, and he carries a distinct memory of the odor of baking bismarcks in the early morning hours. Commissioner Edgeton asked staff if they had any commens concerning the proposal. Bodrner stated the petitioner has hit all the high points in her report. She stated the city has grappled with the issue of Class II restaurants near residential uses in the past. This particular type of restaurant appears to be more "neighborhood friendly" even though it meets the definition of the Class II restaurant in the city ordinance. Commissioner Nagler noted that the Bixby Bagels on Cedar Avenue and Whitney Drive is also closer than 1000 feet from any residential use. Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace noted that a blanket conditional use permit was approved when the planned development ordinance was last amended. He stated this planned development did not have a particular minim„m distance, and that it is across the street from existing institutional and residential uses. He stated he is not aware of any complaints on baking or cooking odors from this restamu-ant. Commissioner Dowling noted that most other bakeries have some type of seating and coffee sales and feels that perhaps the city's ordinance language might be outdated. Bodmer noted that when the Autostop had food sales and no seating was provided, the city attorney's office determined that it was. a delicatessen as opposed to a restaurant. It's actually the provision of the seating that makes it fall under the restaurant category. Oberg noted that other pemmitted uses in a Retail Business zone include Class I restaurants which could have wine and beer sales and outdoor seating. He stated this particular use does not seem to be any more offensive, nor cause any mole problems than the permitted Class I category he just described. Edgeton noted it simply isn't possible to came up with language to deal with every possible situation, which is one of the reasons the city holds public hearings for the commission to discuss these issues. Chair Fdgeton then opened the public hearing for comments from the audience. There being none, she then closed the hearing with the standard remarks, stating there would be no action taken this evening. C. 1998-2002 Capital Improvement Program Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Charles Crrawe introduced himself as the assistant to the city administrator. He stated the capital improvement program is a financial planning document. It is a five-year plan intended to be flexible, and is evaluated each year as part of the annual budgeting process. Gmwe displayed a series of overhead transparencies which broke down the Planning Commission Minutes August 6,1997 Page 4 expenditures by categories. He noted in particular the 1998 spending is much higher than the other years based on the recently voter-approved park and cemetery general obligation bond improvemems. Commissioner Clark as what the WAC and MSA categories were for funding sources. Grawe noted the first is the water availability charge, and the other is the municipal state aid motor fuel tax revenues. Grawe noted some of the expenditures and improvements in the capital improvement program occur on an annual basis, such as infiastr uuture necessary to serve new development, street overlays, and things of that nature. Many of the other improvements, however, are one of a kind and occur on a sporadic basis. Grawe noted one of the most importam reasons to do a capital improvement program is to evaluate the impact the expenditure for the improvements would have on the taxpayer relative to the necessary debt service to support such improvemerrts. He noted with the recent changes adopted by the state legislature, voter-approved levies are placed. on rnarket value of properties as opposed to tax capacity. Grawe also pointed out such financing mechanisms as equipment certificates, which are essentially short term loans to pay for lazge capital equipment, such as a half million dollar firetmck that might need to be purchased only sporadically, but would make sense to spread out over afive-year period in order to avoid peaks and valleys in annual spending. He stated it is the city's goal to try to keep the total debt levy as stable an amoum as possible. On the MSA schedule he noted the gas tax allocation is based on the mileage of qualif}ritig city roadways. The MSA funds can be expended only on streets designated in accordance with state criteria, and that this amoum-can be borrowed against with future MSA dollars used to repay the bonds. The vehicle replacement schedule is designed to maximize the useful life of each vehicle and then schedule their replacement. He noted even when the replacement schedule indicates a vehicle should be replaced, it is subject to a mechanical inspection prior to the actual decision to dispose of the vehicle and purchase a replacement. Commissioner McNamara stated he has heard some discussion about the construction of a new city hall, but did not see it listed in the capital improvement program. Grawe stated the capital improvement program is a living. document and is subject to review on an annual basis. If an additional improvement, such as a new city hall, were chosen to be included in a future year, it could be accommodated: McNamara asked if it was possible to have a breakdown between the tax levy burden between residential and commercial properties. Grawe stated it can be done, but this actually ends up being a moving target based on state legislative initiatives modifying the allocation of tax capacities between different types of properties. McNamara stated he believed this type of information would be useful as part of the local land planning effort relative to the allocation of residential and commercial land uses in the city. Grawe stated it is important to remember that if the legislature changes the relative allocation of property taxes between differing ]and uses, the resutts might be quite different from what was expected initially. Chair &Igeton then opened the public hearing to audience comment. There being none, she closed the hearing with the standazd remarks. Community Development Rick Kelley noted the city is currently in the middle of its annual budget process, and that it would be useful for the capital improvement program to be forwarded to the City Council to be included part of the process at this time. Commissioner Clazk asked what the ratio of debt service is to other operating expenditures. Grawe stated it is about 20% of the property tax levy, but this is somewhat misleading in that other operations of the city haue other revenues besides property taxes. MOTION: Nagler moved, seconded by Dowling, to recommend approval of the 1998-2002 capital improvement program. Motion carried 5-0, with one abstention (Clark). Clark stated that being new to the Commission, he did not feel he was familiar enough with the CIP process to participate in the vote. Planning Commission Minutes August 6,1997 Page 5 Chair Edgeton stepped down from the Commission at this time, stating she owned the property adjacent to the next item on the agenda. Commissioner Nagler took Edgeton's place as acting chair for this item. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Car-X Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Kathy Bodmer presented the item, located on the southwest comer of Glenda Drive and 147th Street. She stated the review of the site plan during the public hearing at the previous meeting had an outstanding issue concerning traffic circulation behind the facility, where the common parking azea with the adjacent properties is proposed to be changed by the constmction of a new curb line and landscape azea. The city's consulting traffic engineer stated he was uncomfortable u~alang any recommendation for changes on this site plan, since there is no existing easement of record that requires the common pazking area and drives to exist. Denis Halleron stated he is the Car-X franchise holder. He wants to keep the plan as drawn to avoid any liability with shared parking facilities. Commissioner Clazk asked Halleron if he had other similar Car-X facilities. Halleron stated he has a facility at the Eagan Town Centre, in Maplewood on Rice Street, in Spring Lake Pazk on Highway 10, in Coon Rapids on Coon Rapids Boulevard, and one in Brooklyn Pazk. Clark asked if staff had had conversations with these other cities to determine if there were any problems with those facilities. Bodmer stated generally staff does not contact communities where similaz facilities exist, but rather evaluate the proposal based on the zoning criteria. In this pazticulaz case, the proposal is not out ofthe ordinary. Clark asked. Mr. Halleron if he had any complaints on his existing operations: Halleron stated he has not had any incidexrts with the other city regulatory bodies. Commissioner McNamara asked about the 2 1/2% landscape requirement rehrtive to the construction ofthe project. Bodmer clarified that the 2 1/2% does not include any of the on-site improvements or any ofthe equipment to be located in the building, but relates strictly to the constmction cost of the building shell. She noted the laudscape materials aze reviewed by the forester, but that the cost still must comply with the city ordinance requirement. Commissioner Oberg asked for a confirmation concerning the conditional use permit that no outdoor storage would occur overnight. Halleron confirmed that any vehicles not picked up would be kept indoors. MOTION: Clark moved, seconded by McNamara, to recommend approval of the conditional use pemut in accordance with the conditions outlined by staff. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Clark moved, seconded by McNamara, to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization subject to the conditions outlined in the staff memo. Motion carved 5-0. Commissioner Edgeton rejoined the Commission at this time. It was noted this recommendation would go to the City Council on their meeting of August 21st. Plam~ing Commission Minutes August 6,1997 Page 6 B. Cedar Isle Village Homes Tom Lovelace stated the project entails a planned unit development zoning amendment that would change the existing provision of 74 townhome units constmcted in two-unit buildings to 74 detached townhome units, all in Planned Development No. 580. Also, a preliminary plat with revised lot lines to accommodate these units is part of the proposal. The property is located on the north side of 145th Street along Flom Way, as it is to be extended west of Freeport Trail in the overall Cedaz Lyle Estates project area. Scott Johnson of Arcon Development stated he is the developer of the overall Cedar Jsle Estates azea, and that the first phase of the townhome area consisted of 40 dwelling units being built by Country Home Builders. He said these townhome units were originally intended to be sold in the 140 to $180,000 range, but have inched upwazds to now sell between 190 and $240,000 a piece. He stated this has resulted in very slow sales of the townhome units. Johnson said the emerging development trend is moving toward detached townhomes in order to avoid the common wall construction and some of the noise associated with townhome living, retaining the homeowners' association and all the freedom and benefits that entails to the homeowner. He said the densities for the two projects are the same. He also said he believes this detached townhome unit achially represents a higher value housing product than the market will accept for the balance of the site. Johnson then displayed an architectural rendering to give an overall illustration of the appearance of the proposed housing products. He noted this is a differern elevation than that which was distributed in the Planning Commission packets. he said this rendering represents a more traditional style housing appearance, and it will be compatible with the existing townhomes. He expects they will sell in the range of 150 to $190,000 a piece. He said they have five different designs with an overall azchitecdrral theme. Johnson said they held a neighborhood meeting with adjacent residents, and they had expressed concern over the value of the units and potential impacts on their property values. He said it is a generally accepted industry standard that tovvnhomes adjacent to a detached single family azea have an optimum value of 70% of the single family home cost, and that this has been boin out in national market studies. He also noted in the previously approved townhome area, the builder is coming out with a new model that will sell for $189,000 in order to move the inventory of unsold lots. Concerning the aesthetics of the units, Johnson stated his belief that what they aze proposing here is a more attractive unit than what the market would actually bear if the project were required to be built out with twinhomes. He also stated one of the members of the residem group had suggested that they be allowed to participate in an architectural committee meeting to work out the details of the restrictive covenants and arclitectural standards. Johnson agreed to this. Commissioner Nagler asked about the azchitecdrre and design of the units and wanted some assurance that all of the detached units will not be the same. Johnson stated he would use the same process as in the Cedar Isle Estates single family area. He would not allow a row of the same housing products to be constructed down the street. Nagler asked about brick facing on the dwelling units. Johnson said they could certainly put brick facing on portions of the units, but wants it to be integrated in the overall design so that it does not have a "tasked on" look He said they probably would not put it where the porches would be constmcted on the front. Nagler than asked about the porches and other options on the building. Johnson stated the front porch will be standard on all units, but that three and four-season porches and decks on the side and reaz would be options. Planning Commission Minutes August 6,1997 Page 7 Nagler asked about restrictive covenants on the property. Johnson stated there would be restrictive covenants, and these would include site maintenance, azchitechual controls, operation of the irrigation system, and provision of no building additions without approval of the Architectural Committee. Commissioner Dowling stated she was not at the last meeting to hear the commerrts of the public hearing. She noted the single-story unit looked very plain. Johnson stated the drawing in the packet was submitted from a builder who is no longer under consideration. Chair Fdgeton asked ifthere was some way to vary the front setback, especially on the eastern loop road where all of the dwellings aze lined up. Johnson stated they could certainly shift the dwelling units five feet, either forward or backward, but that such shifts should be based on the specific building elevations of each unit in order to look the best. The homes are expected to be built by Rylan Homes. Commissioner McNaruara asked the petitioner if he thinks that what he has worked out here is a fair compromise. Johnson stated that perhaps it is too early to tell. He said many of the people believe this project as modified will work well in the area, and in fact had suggested their participation in an architectural committee. On the other hand, Johnson stated not all the residerrts were satisfied, and they may be here tonight to offer firrther comments. Johnson also stated they have a vested interest in the product having a positive impact in the azea as the 6th addition of the single fancily azea is directly north of this proposed project, and they need to market those lots as well. Clark noted to staffthat the public hearing indicated several comments on the relative value of the dwelling units, and that this was not addressed in the staff report. Lovelace stated he had initially included some information, but deleted it. He noted that by ordinance the city deals with the appearance and density of housing units, but does not regulate their price in any manner. Chair Edgeton also noted that the price or the status of units being owneroccupied or rented are not issues used in the city's decision on a housing developmern. Clark simply noted the issue of cost of the homes was raised, and this discussionnow has addressed the issue. Johnson noted that the neighborhood had asked for assurances concerning the sales price of the units, but he said there is really no way that can be done. He, even as a builder, can only address the exterior appeazances, building materials, and the like of a housing product, which is why the suggestion for an azchitectural committee is best. He said it is certainly possible to build a very ugly $300,000 house. hi the end, the market will decide what the homes will be sold for now and in the future in the resale market. Nagler asked staff if the planned unit development ordinance will have some design standards concerning the appearance of the dwellings. Staff responded that there will be some controls regazding building materials and setbacks, but the city cannot enforce private covenants. Chair Fdgeton asked the city attorney if the city had the right to require citizen participation in the drafting of the covenants since this is a planned unit development. City Attorney Jim Sheldon stated that regardless of the type of ordinance controlling the land uses, the city does not have the ability to require such participation. Commissioner Oberg asked about the reference to the scenic easement along 145th Street as contained within the staff report. Lovelace noted that scenic easement is there for the purposes of preserving the berm and landscape materials for screening along the road. He said a similar easement was required in the Phase I area. Planning Commission Minutes August 6,1997 Page 8 Chair Edgeton stated that although this is not a public hearing she would be willing to take additional resident comments ifthey contained new information. Reid Hvey of 14289 Fridley Way stated he was not at the public hearing, but did attend the neighborhood meeting. He noted he just moved into the azea the second week of June, and representations Lad been made as Late as May flat the development of the rest of the townhome area would continue as previously approved. He now understands that perhaps as much as 18 months ago some discussion had begun about revising the development plan. He said that while the developer has referred to regional and national studies amceming values of housing products in proxinuty to one another, he Las not seen them and would like those studies to be made available to him. He asked at what point notice would haue to be made concerning any revised plans. Rick Kelley stated until such tune as a revised plan is approved, which is wLat is being considered this evening, the formally approved plans are all that would be appropriate to show anybody. Judy Barna of 14327 Freeport Trail said she had asked the developer what could be done to prevent this project from occm-ring or to control the price of the housing units and did not receive a satisfactory answer. She asked what the city could do to control the price. Sheldon of the city attorney's office stated the city Las no authority regazding the control of pricing of housing units. He stated if the developer had made represenations to a purchaser or other builder conczming what would happen in this area, and what the housing units would be sold for, it would be a civil issue. The city has no statutory authority to intercede on this issue. Rick Nelson of 14310 Freeport Trail said wLat is being dealt with this evening is an aesthetic issue and the qualify of dwelling and life issue. He wanted to know what type of controls are available concerning this. Clair Edgeton asked staffto respond. Lovelace stated what the city is considering this evening is an amendment to the planned unit development zoning to change from an attached to a detached housing unit. Also, the revised preliminary plat conceming the property or lot lines between units would be revised. He said that both the previously approved layout and this layout are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan concerning land use policies and densities. Regarding the aesthetics of the issue, the planned unit development ordinance would simply stipulate that the design needs to be compatible with the adjacent townhomes and with the wnsistent landscape theme. Nelson asked wLat the density of units would be. Lovelace stated the comprehensive plan calls this out as a "low density" area, 3-6 dwelling units/acre. the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Nelson asked what the rest of the approval process would be. Chair Edgeton stated that the Pkuming Commission holds the public hearings and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which has the final say on the issue. The City Council meeting to consider this would be on August 21. Lovelace noted that the City Council would receive the Planning Commission recommendation presumably to approve the preliminary plat and then to direct staffto prepare an appropriate planned unit development ordinance amendment for consideration at a fixture meeting. Nelson asked what guaranrtee they could have conceming resident involvement in developmerrt of the architechu'al standards and covenants. Lovelace stated there is no way the city could guarantee the residers would be involved in the establishment of these private covenants and standazds. There is only the previously mentioned intention by the developer to allow the residents to participate. Nelson asked what other decisions would occur in the city approval process. it was noted the final decision would include the final plat and development agreemexrt, and adoption of the planned unit development ordinance amendment. Couardssioner Nagler asked the developer if the neighborhood would be involved in the drafting ofthe covenants and azchitecU.nal standards. Johnson stated he made that conmiitmer and would follow through on Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1997 Page 9 it. He would expect they would have two or three neighborhood representatives work with him and the builders to arrive at the standards because a larger group would be unwieldy. MOTION: McNamara. moved, seconded by Growling, to recommend approval of the planned unit development ordinance amendment to provide for detached townhomes. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: McNamara moved, seconded by Dowling, to reconmiend approval of the prelimiuary plat for the Cedar Isle Village Homes. Motion carried 6-0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None- 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None- 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dowling moved, seconded by Oberg to adjourn the meeting. Motion carved 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.