Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1998CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 5,1998 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Coirunission meeting was called to order by Chair Edgeton at 7:01 p.m. Members Present: Diane Nagler, Karen Fdgeton, Jce McNarara, Tim Burke (amved 7:03 p.m.), Lou Clark, Tom Melander. Members Absent: Frank Blundetto. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Kathy Bodmer, Tom Lovelace, Consulting Engineer Keith Gordon, City Attorney Sharon Hills. Others Present: See sign-in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Rick Kelley noted items 6B and 6C, iwo variazices, had been withdrawn by request of the petitioners. MOTION: Clark moved, seconded by Nagler, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF JULY 15, 1998 MINUTES MOTION: Nagler moved, seconded by McNamara, to approve the minutes. The motion carried 5-0-1 abstention (Clark). 4. CONSENT ITEMS A. Variance at 15634 Harmony Way MOTION: Clark moved, seconded by Melander, to approve the variance request in accordance with the staff report. Motion carried 6-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Highstone Limited Partnership Planned Development Car Wash Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remadcs. Community Development Director Rick Kelley presented the item, located on the southeast comer of Galaxie Avenue and 145th Street. Architect Dauid Darrell provided additional information concerning the design of the site and the building. Nagler asked about the colors of the buHdu~g. Mr. Darrell brought out a colored rendering on which he indicated the colors. McNamam asked about the direction of the traffic duougb the drive-through's. The architect illustrated on the drawing how the traffic would move on the site. McNamara also asked about any proposed lightiig on the site. The arcltect indicated they would probably erect light poles azound the Planning Commission Minutes August 5,1998 Page 2 perimeter of the site and indicated staff had told them no wallpacks could be used. Kelley noted that wallpacks shine off of the property onto adjacent pazcels. This is particulazly objectionable when the adjacent pazcels aze residential; therefore, the city prohibits their use. Nagler asked which bays would contain the automatic car washes. Darrell indicated the center bays would be automatic, with the outer iwo tandem self-wash bays. McNamara. asked if the automatic car wash bays had doors that automatically closed. Darrel indicated that the doors did close automatically. Clazk asked for clarification regazding indentations on the roof ]hie. Dazrell pointed out that they would only be on the Galaxie Avenue side. Chair Edgeton then opened the hearing to public comments. Ross Fefercom of Country Home Builders indicated that his company is constmcting the Cedar Isle Countryhome townlrome development on the north side of 145th Street. He requested a 7 to 8-foot high berm and fencnig around the site. He stated he was concerned about noise from cars, the car radios, and opemtion of vacuum cleaners, as well as potential littering problem. He said as the project was currently proposed, it would make it more difficult for him to sell townhomes. Kelley noted that one phone call had been received from a resident on the opposite side of Ga(axie Avenue concerned about hours of operation. Jim Anderson, representhig the petitioner, stated he preferred to have a 24-hour operation. Clark noted the city required a very ingh berm to screen the Wahnart on Pennock and 147th Street, and asked if a similar berm would create a problem along 145th Street. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted it would have to be set back some distance from the entrances so it would not hrterfere with the site lines from cars entering and exiting the site. Clark stated he would like to see at least a low bean along this street. A general discussion ensued concerning. hours of operation. Kelley noted that the only other self- service car wash in the city currently was open 24 hours. Clark asked Mr. Fefercom if there was already a 6-foot high berm and fence on the north side of 145th Street screening the Cedaz Isle Countryhomes development, why a second fence and benn would be needed on the south side. Fefercom noted it was primarily due to the aesthetics of the site, as people eirtering his project would use 145th Street to get to his project and would drive by this one. Edgeton noted that the commercial zonuig on the property predates the townhome development. Mr. Fefercom stated be is certainly aware of that. He just wants the best possible design to be placed on the site. Nagler asked if the petitioner was comfortable with the idea of putting up a low bemt on 145th Street. The architect stated that because of the existing berm a<id fence on the north side of 145th Street, this project could not be seen by the townhomes. Edgeton stated she believes it is the issue of the aesthetics presented to any passerby traffic on 145th Street, not just from the townhomes. Planning Commission Minutes August S, 1998 Page 3 Fefercom noted that currently no units exist backing up to 145th Street in the immediate vicinity of the proposed car wash. Darrell stated it would not be possible to put a high berm in the 12-foot setback area. Fefercom asked if the car wash could be tamed 90 degrees to have the bays face Galaxie Avenue. Edgeton noted that at the sketch plan the Planniug Commission had directed that the building face 145th Street rather than Galaxie Avenue to minixmuze the appearance of the bay doors to the lazge volumes of traffic on Galaxie Avenue. Karen Spencer of 12621 Eveleth Path asked if the auto service bays would be 24-hour operations as well. Mr. Anderson said they would be a different vendor, but they certainly would not operate under a 24-hour scenario. There being no comments from the public, the hearing was closed with the standazd remarks. Edgeton noted it is the policy of the Comnssion not to act on an item the same night as the hearing, but the petitioner has requested action this evening. McNamara stated he was ready to vote this evening. Nagler stated she wanted some more clarification of the hours of operntion. Melander said he was willing to vote this evening. Clazk said he was willing to vote if the requirement for the addition of a berm would be uicluded. Edgeton clarified that the public hearing was also to consider the addition of a car wash to the list of permitted uses in the planned unit development caning. Edgeton then determined it would not be appropriate to vote on this item this evening until. the outstanding issues have been clvified. It will appear on the next Planning Commission agenda in two weeks. B. Pinecrest 3rd Addition Chair Edgeton opened the. public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the project located on the north side of County Road 38 along Eveleth Path extended. The proposal is to rezone the property to a planned umut development and subdivide the property to create four single-family lots. These lots would be under the same perfommance standards as the adjacent Pinecrest developmenrt, utilizing expansion of the Planned Development No. 315 zoning district. As part ofthis project Eveleth Path would be extended to urtersect with County Road 38. The existing pond would remain unaltered in conformance with the Wetland Conservdtion Act. Bodmer noted that the wetland has been delineated. hi addition to the wetland, the city would require the creation of a 15-foot buffer easement azound the wetland to allow natural vegetation to exist, and to provide additional water filtering. Edgetou asked if the westemmnost lot adjacent to the wetland would be buildable. Bodmer stated that some minor revisions to the plat aze necessary, but that the building pad could be shifted to the south somewhat closer to the rear of the lot. She also noted the extension of Eveleth Path to intersect with County Road 38 had been reviewed by the county, and had been given prelimn~ary approval. The street must intersect at a 1/8 mile spacing and only a right tam in and out would be pemuttcd; the median along County Road 38 would not be opened. Bodmer also noted that the construction of Eveleth Path would be done in a manner such that as it was extended away from the existing neighborhood, it would be a one-way single lane out with an intersection allowing both inward and outward movements at County Road 38 with a driveway connection nrto the Shepherd ofthe Valley Church parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes August 5,1998 Page 4 Gordon noted currerly Eveleth Path has adead-end without any cul~le-sac or turnaround area. When the road is extended the city will also have to build aright-turn entrance lane on County Road 38 into Eveledi Path. McNamara asked how Planned Development 315 would be integrated into the property. Bodmer explained that PD315 designation would simply be expanded to incorporate this additional pazcel of land. The petitioner Bill Dolan, representhig Gold Key Development, said he was involved with the original Pinecrest developmerrt, and that the proposed layout at that time was impacted by future County Road 38, which had not been constmcted yet. He stated that the underlying properly owner chose not to sell the property to them until after the County Road 38 condemnation process was complete. He went onto say the wetland was delhieated three years ago, and has been done again this yeaz. He stated they have now prepazed a house plan that would allow a 15-foot buffer to be constmcted at the wetland edge. Nagler asked who would own the property underneath the wetland. Mr. Dokvi stated that after the easement was dedicated, it essentially becomes public. Bodmer stated that while the easement provides some public access rights, the underlying property would remain in private ownership. It is presumed that the Shepherd of the Valley Church, which currently owns all of this property, would continue to be the underlynig property owner. Edgeton asked about the minimum lot size. Bodmer stated Planned Development 315 allows lots with a minirtimn 70 foot width and a minimum azea of 8400 square feet. Edgeton then opened the hearing to comments from the general public. Jim Reynolds of 12721 Eveleth Path stated his house is directly across from the wetland, and in the last storm the wetland overIlowed onto the street. He said there are about 25 children living on this street, and they really don't want any more through traffic or a roadway extension. He said the city should only allow the church access onto County Road 38 without a road extension. John Pfeifer of 12620 Fairgreen Avenue asked if, as the church continues to grow, they will have enough property to expand their pazking. He thn~ks there will be street parking throughout this neighborhood if the street is extended. Edgeton asked staffto provide information concerning the pazkuig requirements and the number of spaces required for the church; also, how much additional pazking would be required for anticipated growth of the chinch. Jolm Spencer of 12621 Eveleth Path said he is opposed to the road extension. He said the neighborhood does not want or need it. Edgeton asked staff to provide an overall map of the neighborhood, indicating the complete roadway network for the nett meeting. Clark stated he drove through this neighborhood just before the meetirrg this evernug. He wants to get a better understanding of the proposed lot next to the existing wetland, and what the elevation would be. It appears to him that it would be prone to flood. He asked if fill would be required. He also wanted to know what the slope or grade of the proposed roadway extension would be as it climbs the hill to connect to County Road 38. Planning Commission Minutes August 5,1998 Page 5 Gordon stated he will provide information on the grade percentage at the next meeting, and also compare it to other streets throughout the community. Nagler asked if the road extension would encroach into the wetland. Bodmer stated that because it was proposed to be constructed as only a single lane one-way roadway, the wetland would not be affected. It would actually be located somewhat within the unpaved boulevard rightof--way. Tony Callone of 12660 Eveleth Path stated he does not believe the road is needed at all, and asked if there had been a traffic study performed. He asked why a cul-de-sac could not be utilized instead. He also said the proposed lots seem smaller than ii the existing neighborhood. He wondered if a proposed road extension would be cost effective. He also thinks the fourth lot adjacent to the wetland will flood. Vince Whelan of 12745 Eveleth Path said he is the last existing house on the street. He asked what the distance required for street irrtersections would be. Bodmer and Gordon noted the county establishes a 1/8 mile spacing requirement. He wanted to know why the church could not simply have a driveway onto County Road 38 by itself without a street. Corrine Whelan of 12713 Eveleth Path asked what the value of the homes would be. Edgeton noted that the value of the proposed homes is not germane to the city's approval. The city only looks at the issue of density, lot area, and other performazice standards. Ms. Whelan stated she felt that only the church driveway should access County Road 38, not the street extension. Jeff Leidner of 12643 Eveleth Path asked if the developer wanted the road. Bill Dolan said he does not need to haue the road extended to create his four lots. I{aam Spencer of 12621 Eveleth Path asked if the proposed roadway extension would be gated. Staff responded that as a public street there would be no gate across it. Bill Dolan said in response to some questions about the pond flooding, there is currently no outlet to it. He said that with this development an outlet would be installed. He also said the house located closest to the pond would have an elevation four feet above the high water mark. Nagler stated she wanted more information about the pond, the overall drainage area, and the elevations of the homes and lots. McNamara. stated he would also like to see a drawing of the type of roadway design being proposed here, particularly the portirnr of the road that would be a single lane one way. Gordon said he would prepare a schematic for the next meeting. There being no fisther comments, Edgeton closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Nordic Woods Parking Variance Assistant Plazuier Tom Lovelace introduced the item for the proposed elimination of six parking stalls in the Nordic Woods 17th townhome area located in the southeast comer of Galaxie Avenue and County Road 38. Lovelace briefly outlined the history of the parking requirements for this subdivision, and noted the stalls were constmcted after the project was complete and the homeowners had been living in the development for some time. Planning Commission Minutes August 5,1998 Page 6 Edgeton noted she recalls a 14-stall requiremen for this development. Lovelace noted that the standazd requirement for one-half pazking stall per dwelling unit applied towazd the 28 units in the project would result in a total of 14 stalls of "overflow" parking. He stated the final approval by the city was to cons[nmct six off-street parking stalls, with a widening of the private street (Gable Lane) to allow some on-street parking on one side of the roadway. 1n addition, while overnight pazking is not allowed on public streets, the public street cul-de-sac located immediately adjacent to this development would allow some guest parking. Edgeton said she believes the City Com~cil has already provided a tradeoff regazding the number of off-street pazking required in this development. She asked how many other townhomes in the city have no overflow pazking stalls. Lovelace stated he would not be able to answer that this evening concerning every townhome project in the city, but the townhome projects in the other two quadrants in Galaxie and County Road 38 both have overflow parking at the one-half stall per dwelling unit ratio. Edgeton asked what the street width of the private roadway was, and what is typical. Lovelace noted that the current Gable Lane is constructed 32 feet wide face to face along a majority of its length; however, there is a narrower north-south section that no on-street pazking could be provided on. Nagler asked how the location of the six overflow parking stalls were determined. Lovelace stated they were identified on the plan approved in 1994. Clark asked wlio plows tlus street. Lovelace noted that because Gable Lane is a private roadway, it is plowed azid maintained by the association. Clark said he drove by these parking stalls, and it was a very sloppy job of nvstallation. Edgeton asked if the landscape plan showed any plantings around these six pazking spaces. Lovelace stated he was not aware of any. The landscape plan did not. actually show the location of the pazking stalls. Clark said he thn~ks parking is needed, but the installation was handled in a poor fashion. At a mumimnum, it would need some landscapnig. Lovelace stated the city could propose to the developer that additional landscaping be installed azound the pazking stalls, but he was not swe about the legal obligation of the developer to provide it. He did note that the original requirement for installation of the stalls also stipulated that a concrete curb around them be installed, and that has not been done. Fdgeton asked if there might possibly be a tradeoff of the concrete curb for installation of the landscaping. Lovelace said that could be investigated. Nagler asked if it was possible to find an altercate location for the pazking stalls instead of where they were acdrally placed. Lovelace stated that could be a possibility, and it could be pursued if the Commission and the Association warned to. Jolene Amsler of 13109 Gable Lane, president of the association, read from a prepared statement about how the homeowners had no notice of construction of these parking stalls. They believe the road is wide enough and provides enough on-street parking without the addition of these six eartra stalls. Craig Trepanier of 13109 Gable Lane stated he is also a boazd member of the association. He stated he is aware of the city's requirement for the parking stalls, but that the real issue the Commission should look at is whether this particulaz neighborhood needs these six spaces as opposed to simply Planning Commission Minutes August 5,1998 Page 7 meeting an ordinance requirement. He noted the petition provided to the Commission has signatures of 26 of the property owners. Of the two remaining property owners, one was opposed to the elimination of the stalls, and one has been unavailable for contact. He stated he and all other residents he has spoken to were never shown a development plan that indicated these pazking stalls when they purchased their homes. He went onto say they had no notice of installation of them when it occurred on July 8 of this year, almost iwo years after the project was complete. He stated the city itself was evidently not awaze ofthe deficiency of the parking until they received a complaint on parking, and then directed the installation of the six stalls. He said neither the developer nor the city notified the association of the pending installation of the stalls. He believes the property values have been adversely impacted, and that a realtor who looked at them said the dwelling units immediately adjacent to those six stalls may be experiencing up to a $5000 reduction in value. He said issues of emergency vehicular and Fire Department access have been raised concerning on-street parking. He said he has had a discussion with the fire mazshall about the width of the street, and where parking wuld occur. He thinks that one sided parking on the private street can still occur and allow for the passage of a fire truck. He also said a conversation that occurred with Captain Erickson leads him to believe that the conclusion of Captain Erickson s memo dated August 4, 1998, was also in error. Edgeton stated she can understand the homeowners' feelings about this situation, but believes the amount of parking has already been reduced to the six, representing a substaruial compromise. She thinks that any anger the homeowners feel toward the city is really misdirected, and it should be towazd the developer for not installing the pazking when it was required, or not duectly contacting the association when they were to be installed. She said the issue of the curb installation versus landscape enhancement could be explored firrther. Burke asked if the Association has erected signage hrdicating that parking is allowed on one side of the street. Trepanier stated it is not in existence currently, but it is possible they might install it. Burke stated he was in this neighborhood for a Cluistmas parry last yeaz, and that parking was occumng on both sides of the private roadway, making it very difficult for even a single automobile to work its way tluough. Nagler noted that most members were not on the Pkvmnig Commission at the time this project was originally approved, and wondered if there was another location on the site that the homeowners would prefer for the overflow parking. Amsler and Trepanier stated they didn4 want to make a commitment on this ~~ithout consulting the other homeowners. They did suggest that perhaps on the very east side of Gable Lane might work since it is the farthest away from any existing dwelling. Trepanier also suggested it might be possible to put some pazking stalls hmmediately adjacent to the 132nd Street cul- de-sac. Edgeton stated she simply can't see any reason to remove the parking stalls unless an alternate location could be identified. She does believe that overflow parking needs to be appropriately disbursed throughout the development, and not concentrated in one specific area of the development or they will not be utilized properly. Clark said he tlvnks parallel parking along the very east side of Gable Lane could work. A general discussion ensued concerning die investigation of alternate parking locations in the development, acrd possibly meeting with the developer. Julie Peterson said she was a resident of the development, and she does not think that these six parking stalls have really added total parking to the site since they have restricted the on-street pazking somewhat. Planning Commission Minutes August 5,1998 Page 8 Amsler asked if the city ends up not approving the variance if they would be foreclosed from reapproaching the city concerning an alternate location. She was informed that the request for an alternate location could be considered at any time irrespective of the outcome of the variance request. The Association then indicated they would prefer for the Commission to make a recommendation on the variance request this evening. Edgeton then called for a vote. Kelley noted that if the Commission feels this variance is not justified, it would still need to have a motion in the affirmative and then vote the motion down. MOTION: Clazk moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the variance. Edgeton asked staff if any additional comments on the motion were necessary. Kelley noted the general discussion ofthe Commission thus far contains an adequate record to indicate their reasons for denial of the variance. City Attorney Sharon Hills stated no other comment was necessary. Nagler stated she understood the plight the residents feel themselves in, but she cannot in good conscience recommend removal of these parking stalls. McNamara stated he understands dvs is an emotional issue and thinks there are alternatives, and yet he feels compelled to vote against the variance because it does not meet the city's criteria. Burke stated he thinks a relocation would be possible, but not removal. Melander stated he believes the history of this installation is now water under the bridge, and they just have to make the best of the situation they've got. Clazk said he had nothing fiuher to add. Edgeton said she felt very strongly about the 14 spaces and thinks the developer has put both the city and the homeowners in an awkward position this evening. She stated she has lived in townhomes before and has friends who currently live in townhmnes, and believes very strongly ii the need for overflow parking stalls. Motion faded 0-6. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Update Kelley introduced the issue and referred the Conunissioners to page 5 on the comprehensive plan issues handout. He stated that at the work session a substantial amount of these issues had been gone tluough, and we would begin this everring with the area concerning transportation. Planning Consultant Ann Perry lead the Commission through the remaiiung items. The Commission addressed transportation issues wnceming the capacity of County Road 42; the amount of traffic to be generated by future development, and any constraints that would need to be established; the need for emphasis on transit opportunities; the requirements for incorporation of transit, bike and pedestrian facilities in new commercial and residential proposals; the potential of considering travel demand management techniques; and the need to incorporate the needs of families and businesses in the transportation system design. Under implementation techniques a discussion ensued concenng the utilization of perfonnance- based measures to assure comprehensive plan policy establislunent. There was also general discussion concerning techniques to enhance the awareness of residents of the city comprehensive plan policies and the mamier in wl>ich caning is implemented to further the goals of the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 1998 Page 9 B. LCA Survey Report Kelley noted that copies from the Dakota County Cluster Program LCA Report were included in the Planning Commission packets. He stated there was no need to discuss tYtis, but it does provide an indication how Apple Valley and all of the other communities in Dakota County are working toward achieving goals concernn~g construction of new affordable housing units. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Clark moved, seconded by Melander, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 p.m.