HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/1997CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION NIINiJTES
December 17,1997
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Edgeton
at 7:00 p.m..
Members Present: Kazen Edgeton, Marcia Gowling, Lou Clark ,Diane Nagler, Jce
McNamara, Frank Blundetto, Paul Oberg.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Tom Lovelace, Nelda Werkmeister, City Aitomey Mike
Dougherty, Engineering Consultant Keith Gordon.
Others Present: See sign-in sheet.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Edgeton asked Staff and the Commission members if they were any changes or additions
to the proposed agenda. Community Development Director Rick Kelley asked that an item 7A be added,
"Discussion of Work Session on City's Comprehensive Plan' ;Nagler asked that an item 7B be added,
"Transmittal of Planning Commission Meeting Information to City Council Members".
MOTION: Cowling moved, seconded by Oberg, to approve the agenda as amended. The
motion carried 7 - 0.
3. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 3, 1997 MINUTES
Chair Edgeton asked Staff and the Commissioners if they had any changes to the draft minutes
submitted in the packet.
Nagler asked for the following additions to the minutes: (1) on page 4, 4th paragraph, following
"fast food", add service and specialty retail. (2) Add to the CUP/Variance discussion on page 6, Nagler
pointed out: a) A variance request to e the use of a particular property should be treated as
rezoning. bl Economic conditions alone should not constitute an undue hardship where reasonable use of
the prooerty exists under terms of the ordinance. c) Because certain action in one situation is taken on a
variance does not set a precedent that binds the Board on another.
MOTION: Oberg moved, seconded by Clark, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion
carved 6-0 (1 abstention-Cowling).
4. CONSENT ITEMS -None -
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Luella Fischer Subdivision of Land (Metes and Bounds) Around Farmstead
Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17,1997
Page 2
Rick Kelley introduced the item. The subdivision of land is being requested fur purposes of
estate planning. For this reason action on the item is requested this evening (before year-end). Because
the proposed pazcel exceerLs 2 t/2 acres, platting is not required, thus the metes and bounds description.
Don Fluegel, attorney for the Fischer Family, stated that the building bisected by the proposed
property division will be demolished so no cross easeme~rts will be necessary.
Edgeton closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Nagler asked about a rninircmm 5 acres for
agricultural subdivisions. Kelley responded that staff has no issue with that because there is an existing
well. The requirement exists primarily to assure the infrastrncture is adequate.
MOTION: Oberg moved, Clark seconded, to approve the subdivision of land for a transfer of
property on a metes and bounds basis subject to the demolition of the building which would be bisected
by the subdivision in a reasonable period of time to be determined by staff. The motion carried 7-0.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Permitted and Conditional Uses Relative to
Outdoor Display and Sales Criteria
Kathy Bodmer introduced the item, pointing out there currently aze no existing standazds for
outdoor displays. She showed an overhead of typical outdoor storage requirements.
Blundetto stated a work session may be needed, using the example of a refi-igemtor as large as
the building as a potential danger when we start trying to measure particulars.
Oberg asked for clarification that only auto-related products are allowed for outdoor display.
Bodmer stated that is true, and only for motor fuel sales. Oberg said he felt that was unfair to exclude
others, and that he liked Eden Prairie's approach.
Dowling expressed concern that if we open it up, there will be displays everywhere.
Nagler said she was not comfortable opening it up to any store. Using a 2% figure of display
space allowed (as in Eden Prairie), 2% of Wa1-Mart or Target would be significant. She preferred the
middle-of--the-road approach outlined by Bodmer dealing with fuel stations, and to limit that.
Blundetto stated middle-of--the-road is good; Eden Prairie's "temporary" display is appealing.
McNamara. asked if this would be retroactive, or if properties would be grandfathered.
Dougherty said conditional use permits would not be affected; the City would not be precluded from
enforcing regulations in the future, even if they have not done so in the past. McNamara also expressed
concern with the general busyness of stores and narrow sidewalks at older stations. His preference
would be to allow nothing greater than what we have now.
Edgeton said she would not like to see us increase the amount of outdoor display because of
aesthetic and safety issues, but that it was unrealistic to say there can't be anything out there.
Discussion wntinued about current displays in the city and how to proceed, including ideas to
involve the code enforcement officer in a survey of stores. Nagler asked if another public hearing would
Planuing Commission Minutes
December 17,1997
Page 3
be held. Kelley replied that a second public hearing would be appropriate in light of more reseazch and
policy questions fallowing a work session. Dougherty noted that because this was aCity-initiated issue,
the 60day rule does not apply.
The public hearing was closed at 732 p.m.
6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS
A. Conditional Use Pernut for Outdoor Propane Tank and Display & Sales
Tom Lovelace summarized the request and public hearing commerns. He also outlined the
conditions reconmiended for approval.
MOTION: Clazk moved, Gowling seconded, to approve the conditional use permit to allow
for propane fuel sales at Site # 1 and outdoor display and sales subject to the conditions outlined by staff.
The motion carried 7-0.
B. HRA Family Housing -Site Plan/Budding Permit Authorization for Attached
Rental Townhome Complex
Kathy Bodmer introduced the item, then deferred to the petitioner. Kazi Gill, representing
Dakota County HRA, stated the proposed complex is designed for families with moderate incomes ($16-
30,000 annual incomes). The HRA acts as a general partner with investors as limited partners. Rents
are anticipated to run between $435 and $485. The locale to the future transit hub is a real plus, Gill
stated. Paul Madsen, the project architect described the two site plans, stating their preference for the
27-unit plan because it provides more open space, organizes the site a little better, and allows for a play
area. The petitioner is asking for approval of both site plans because constmction is a year away, the
preferred site plan is a little more expensive, and fimding has not been secured yet.
Kelley confirmed that alternate building materials of vinyl or steel siding aze permitted within
this Planned Development.
Gowling asked for explanation of the play areas on the two site plans. Madsen stated the
alternate plan has a play area on the south where a hazd-surfaced play area is on the preferred. The
preferred plan also has a green central play azea. Discussion continued azound greenspace and urban
density.
Bodmei s greenspace calculation is 51%, including the central play area. Kelley responded that
the intent of urban density here was to create relatively dense uses where a transit could thrive. Also, the
Livable Communities Act tells communities they need to be increasing densities. Greenspace is not
addressed within the Planned Development (PD) on this particulaz location, but overall it would exceed
the grcenspace expectation if the proposed gathering spot at the transit hub is added. The PD greenspace
was consolidated so it would be usable by a large number of people instead of distributed in small azeas
scattered throughout.
Nagler stated concern about grcenspace, and said the townhomes to the southeast appeaz much
less dense. Bodmer noted that Cedar Pointe to the southeast is about 9 units per acre, so they aze very
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 1997
Page 4
close to the same density. Also, the Cedar Pointe drawing is conceptual and does not include all of the
impervious surface (driveways).
Blundetto stated that we aze asked to look at this designing for density, and that we have to be
awaze that this design might not meet a rigid greenspace standard we aze used to, but we should not let
that stop us from achieving what we really warn.
Dowling left at approximately 8:00 p.m.
McNamara posed several concerns: ADA requirements, any issue with single car garages,
width of entrances, adequate buffer between the townhome developments with that south angle border
(pazking and lights directed irno Cedar Poirne), as well as noise and elevation. He stated enhanced
landscaping would help the buffer issues (lights, noise, etc J.
Clark suggested flip-flopping pazking places close to the play area.
Nagler agreed with Clark's idea, and stated spruce trees tend to get large. She also asked if
there were any engineering issues.
Madsen stated that townhouses aze normally exempt from ADA, but I IRA projects provide for
a percentage of handicap units. Kelley said there is no issue with single car garages. The drives meet the
24-foot width requirement. Madsen expanded on the landscaping proposed. He said they could look at
flip-flopping the pazking. As far as elevation, the site is relatively flat so a change may not make a
dramatic difference. In response to the pariang spaces close to the play azea, Madsen stated one way to
look at that is that the cars act as a buffer to the driving lane.
As to engineering issues, Keith Gordon said he would like a crown in the road so drainage
slopes to both sides. Curb is shown on the plan all the way to the garage, but would be required on the
driveway only. He said a surmountable curb that rrurs through the individual driveways is primarily for
water control.
Oberg asked Madsen to review the differences between the ahemate and preferred plans, and
asked what was driving the need for two plans. Madsen said economics was the reason for two plans.
Discussion on whether to approve iwo site plans ensued. Blundetto stated that economics was not to be
a consideration of the Planning Commission. Oberg said he was afraid to be setting some type of
precedent in approving two plans. McNamara said he would like some sort of assurance that lighting
and noise would be mitigated.
Bodmer suggested that a third condition (that the landscape plan be amended to mitigate light to
the adjoining properties) be added to the approval. Kelley clarified that a sidewalk will be installed on
155th Street as part of the platting.
MOTION: Blundetto moved, Clark seconded, to recommend approval of the preferred site
plan, subject to the three conditions stated by staff. The motion carried 6-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 1997
Page 5
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Work Session on City's Comprehensive Plan
Kelley suggested setting a date for a work session to go over an outline on how to move forward
on the comprehensive plan update -what needs to be done and how we aze going to implement it.
Included would be a discussion of housing and higher densities to assure our perfomiauce standards aze
not rrialdng it difficult to provide affordable housing.
A work session was set for 5:30 p.m. on January 7th precerliug the regulaz Planning
Commission meeting.
B. Transmittal of Planning Commission Meeting Information to City Council
Nagler noted that Lovelace gave a smrmiary of issues by the public in addressing the City
Council on the Wa1-Mart issue, and asked if staff could include Planning Commission comments in that
format. Kelley responded that the recommendation to the Council included all the votes of the Planning
Commission azid their comments.
Council.
Dougherty stated the Planning Commission can recommend a fomrat change to the City
Clark said he wasn't sure what would be accornplished by such a motion. He continued saying
that the Planning Commission is an advisory body and the City Council is accountable to the citizens,
and he thinks the system works.
MOTION: Nagler moved, Oberg seconded, to recommend a fomrat change to the City
Council which would include concerns brought forward by the Planning Commission. The motion failed
3-3 (Blandetto, Edgeton, Clark).
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Blundetto moved, seconded by Clark, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
6-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.