Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1999 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Edgeton at 7:OOp.m. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Frank Blundetto, Tom Melander, John Bergman, Tim Burke, Jim I-Iadley. Members Absent: Jeannine Churchill. Staff Present: City Planner Tom Lovelace, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner Margaret Milton, Community Development Director Rick Kelley, Consulting Engineer Pat Wrase, City Attorney Shaton Hills. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the proposed agenda. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Melander moved; seconded by Bergman, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 3, 1999 MINUTES Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes as submitted. There being none, she called for their approval. MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Palomino East Aparkments Site -Proposed Rezen~?~g from M-7C to M-2C by City of Apple Valley Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standazd remarks. City Planner Tom Lovekuz introduced himself and the proposed rezoning. This site consists of 5.64 acres located on the west side of Pennock Avenue iust north of Palomino Drive. The recently updated Comprehensive Plan now designates this property as "LD" for low density residential at 0-6 dwelling units per acre. In order to make the zoning on the property conform to the updated Comprehensive Pku~, it is proposed to rezone from the current M-7C (multiple residential at 12-20 units/acre) to M-2C (multiple residential at 3-5 units/acre). Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1999 Page 2 Mr. Lovelace briefly noted the fact that the Comprehensive Plan update process identified a number of properties to be redesignated. He also noted that a development moratorium was placed on many of these properties postpone their development until such time as the updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted and any necessary rezonings were accomplished. On this property, an application had been made for approval to construct a 72-unit apamtment building. City consideration of this proposed apartrnent was put on hold due to the moratorium until the Comprehensive Plan update and any associated rezonings were completed. Commissioner Mehmnder asked how permitted density would be calculated for properties such as this where and existing. pond is considered to bean `~mnbuildable azea". Mr. Lovelace responded by saying that the caning code provides for some density credit for `Smbuildahle azeas" but that it is not. a simple density transfer. It was. requested that detailed information be presented at the Heart. meeting on the manner in which this density credit is calculated. Ms. Ann Stone of 315 Cimarron Road asked for clarification information presented on the overhead transparency illustrating the Comprehensive Plan densities compared to the zoning densities. Mr. Lovelace responded by stating the Comprehensive Plan density presents a broader density range, which is then refined by a narrower zoning category which is selected based on the specific characteristics of a given parcel of property. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan designation of LI) (0-6 units/acre) would be narrowed by the proposed M-2C zoning district (3-5 units/acre). Mr: Carl Ireland of 148 Shasta Gourt asked if the density credit given for the "unbuildable azea" would cause the density on the remainder to go above 5 units/acre. Mr. Lovelace said that this calculation would be provided at the next meeting in accordance with the Commission's request. Mr. E said that. he thinks this zoning is an improveme~ over the previously proposed apartrnent building. Chair Edgeton asked if there were any other audience comments or questions. Mr. Lovelace said that a few "e-mail" inquiries were received this week; they will be included in the staff report to be prepazed for the next meeting. Commissioner Bergman stated that there appeazed to be a number of neighbors in the audience who have not commented on the proposed rezoning; he wondered how thew silence should be intempreted. Mr. Richazd Koommtz of 260 Cimarron Road said that in general, the neighbors think that the proposed rezoning to M-2C addresses the greatest conflicts without knowing the specifics of a development plan, which would fit the new zoning. Peter Coyle of Lazkin Hof&nan at 7900 Xerexes Avenue, Bloomington, stated that be is representing the property owner, Mr. Joel Watmd. He stated that the properly was purchased at a value consisted with the preseffi M-7C zoning and former MD Comprehensive Plan designation with the intent to develop the property in conformance to those regulations. He stated that the value of the property would be substantially diminished if the property were to be rezoned to M-2C and that he objects to such a change. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1999 Page 3 Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing with the standazd remarks. B. Eaton/Watrud 140°i/Cedar Avenue Site -Proposed Rezoning from M-7C, M-6B, & LB-1 to M-7C/M-8C Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standazd remarks. City Planner Tom Lovelace introduced himself and the proposed rezoning. This site consists of approximately 10 1/2 acres located on the south side of 140"' Street West between Cedaz and Pennock Avenues. The recently updated Comprehensive Plan now designates all of this property as "HD" for high density residential at 12+ dwelling units per acre. In order to make the wring on the property conform to the updated Comprehensive Plan, it is proposed to rezone from the current combination of M-7C (multiple residential at 12-20 units/acre), M-6C (multiple residential at 6-12 units/acre), and LB-1 (limited business) to either M-7C (multiple residential at 12-20 units/acre) or M-8C (multiple residential at 12-24 units/acre). Mr: Lovelace also noted the fact that the Comprehensive Plan update process identified a cumber of properties to be redesignated. This property was also subjectto the development moratorium which was placed on many properties to postpone their development until such time as the updated Comprehensive Plan was adopted. and. any necessary rezonings were accomplished. Mr. Lovelace noted that the City received a letter from. the property owner stating that his preference is to retain the LB-1 zoning.. The letter continues by stating that if a rewrung must occur, a change to all M-8C would. at least provide enough density for a fair return when additional right-of--way for Cedar Avenue and 140's Street is dedicated at no cost to the City and County in conjunction with the platting,and development ofthe property. Mr. Lovelace presented an overhead transparency illustrating the criteria used to determine the most proper multiple residential zoning classification for a piece of property given its particulaz locational and natural characteristics. In this. case, while the mature vegetation and topographic relief appear to suggest a lower density range, the Comprehensive Plan designation for high density is based primarily upon the locational attributes of the land. In particular, the property is located on the fringe of the downtown commercial azea and is immediately adjacent to ahigh-volume principal arterial roadway (Cedar Avenue) as well as two collector roadways (140` Street and Pennock Avenue). In addition, the largest property to the south is occupied by the Pennock Place condominium complex, which is similarly caned M-8C. Mr. Lovelace noted that a sketch plan fora 3-story, senior apartment building with 108 units. has been preserved to the City for the pazcels located directly at the intersection of 140"` Street West and Permock Avenue. The developer and operator, Twin City Christian Housing, aze proceeding with an application for financing assistance prior to submitting a formal application to the City for approval. Development of the vacant properly would necessitate the extension of Granite Avenue from the south to intersect with 140`s Street West as well as require the dedication of additional street right-0f--way for Cedar Avenue. The right-of--way dedication for both of these streets will reduce the net azea of the property for density calculations. Based on the current gross acreage, the estimated density for 3-story buildings would be 125-250 total dwelling units. Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1999 Page 4 Chair Edgeton asked whether there will be access to the properly from Cedar Avenue or 140x` Street West. Mr. Lovelace responded by stating that no access of any kind would be permitted to Cedar Avenue. Access to 140x' Street would be limited a new intersection for the extension of Granite Avenue, which might. be restricted to right-turns only; no private driveways would be allowed. Chair Edgeton asked if Granite Avenue had been intended to be extended. Mr. Lovelace will research this question in order to provide an answer at the next meeting. Commissioner Hadley asked what the caning was on the vacant "notched" parcel to the southwest. Mr. Lovelace said that this parcel was already caned M-8C. Commissioner Bergman asked what the zoning was on parcels to the west across Pennock Avenue. Mr. Lovelace said that the Wildwood Pond townhomes, located duectly on the. southwest corner of Pennock and 140"', were zoned M-4C. Adjacent to the south of these townhomes the property is caned is M-8C and is occupied by two separate apartment bufldings. Mr. Richazd Koontz;. of 260 Cimarron Road asked if a rezoning to a higher density might affect the cost to acquire right-of--way for Cedaz and. Granite Avenues. Mr. Dallas. Karl of 13985 Granada Court. stated: that it was his recollection that the current M-6A on the middle portion of the property was established to limit the height of a building to 2 stories and to protect the neighboring property owners. Mr. Larry Graham of 8312 140`s Street Court asked what the maximum number of residents would be if the properly were developed at the M-8C density. He also asked if the intersection of Cedar Avenue and 140x` Street wasn't considered to have one of the 10 highest accident rates in Minnesota and suggested that access to 140's Street be limited to reduce accidents. He finally asked. whether or not all of the property would be caned the same. Mr. Lovekus stated that it is the property owner who is requesting that all of the properly be caned the same as M-8C. Chair F,dgeton asked that at the next. meeting aside-by-side comparison be prepared which illustrates the impacts of both the currem and proposed caning. Mr. Mike Gragert of 14125 Granite Avenue, who also owns the unit at 14115 Granite Avenue, said that when he purchased his property this land on the north was caned for single family use. He said that he believes he lost money when the land was rezoned previously and that he would lose more if rezoned as now proposed. He said that rather than access to the nortu being provided by an extension of Granite Avenue, it would have been better if a frontage road along Cedar connecting to 142°d Street had been built on the lot that an office building is now being constructed upon. When he bought his house, the builder showed him a plan that illustrated a cul- de-sac but that Granite Avenue was constructed as adead-end instead. He said that with the speeding traffic akeady on 142nd Street, it is dangerous to pull out. He said that whatever is built to the north should not be allowed to change the grades so that the trees can be saved. Pat Gillis of 7591 142°d Street asked if a traffic study could be done. Chair Edgeton asked that information. concerning the current traffic, street capacity, and projections be provided for the next meeting. 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1999 Page 5 Mr. Karl requested that Mr. Kelley, who was with the City when those previous decisions were made, provide the zoning history on the properly. Mr. Lyle Conan of 7631 142nd Street asked who decides under what criteria the amount of trees that can be removed and how much grading can occur with development. He suggested that if Granite Avenue is extended to intersect with 140"` Street, that the street be designated as one-way onto 140d'. He noted that children curreirtly play on the paved surface of Granite Avenue. Chair Edgeton noted that parents should not let their children play in the street since streets are intended for cars to use,. not to be playgrounds. There being no further comments, Chan Edgeton closed the hearing with the standard remarks. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS B. Safe. `N Sound Storage -Site Plan Building Permit Authorization Assistant Plamrer Margaret Milton. introduced herself and the proposed project. This development consists 22,50% squaze feet ofself-storage space of in three buildings, to be located on the southwest comer of Everest Avenue. and 14%`h Street West. It represents the second phase of the existing. self-storage operation on the adjacent lot at 5900 148th Street West. Ms. Mihon noted that the new buildings would be constructed of pigmented rock-faced block and the area will surrounded by a steel picket fence. A low bean and landscaping will be installed. She pointed out the parking area located at the main entry and office. Tony Vauvolis of 3245 Hiawatha Avenue South, Minneapolis, representing the owner, said that this lot was always. intended to be phase II of the storage facility and the lots have been in common ownership since the time of initial. construction. He offered to answer any questions about the. project. MOTION: Mekuuler moved, seconded by Bergman, to recommend approval of site plan/building permit authoriration for phase II of the Safe `N Sound self storage facility: Motion carried 6-0. C. .ioAnn itc. Sign Variance Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer inrroduced herself and the requested sign variance. JoAnn Etc. is occupying a much lazger space in the Apple Valley Squaze Shopping Center than the former JoAan Fabrics. With a rental space of 45,384 squaze feet they aze entitled to one building sign with a maximum size of 500 square feet. A building sign of 185 %z square feet has been placed above the entrance to the store. The variance request is to allow 6 additional signs identifying the various product lines available inside, to be placed upon the building fascia with 3 signs flanking each side of the entrance. Ms. Bodmer explained how the sign regulations define a sign and its area; a single rectangle is drawn azound all of the sign copy and the azea of this rectangle is measured and is defined as "the sign". Planning Commission. Minutes November 17,1999 Page 6 Commissioner Hadley noted that the new Menards facility had requested multiple signs to identify differem product lines available inside, but that the City did not allow them to be installed. Ms. Bodmer noted that the sign regulations contain distinct criteria which must be met in order for a variance to be approved, and that approval of such variances aze very uncommon in Apple Valley. Lisa Tepok, of Jones Sign, explained why she felt that additional signage was justified for the larger JoAan Etc. store. She noted what she felt were exceptions to the Apple Valley sign regulations where multiple signage was being used. Ms. Bodmer noted that separate signage is allowed for a separate business operating in a distinct space within a larger store. Examples of this are Twin City Federal Bank leasing a space in Cub Foods or Taco Bell operating within. Tazget Greatland. Commissioner Hadley asked for a clazification to be made about what constitutes a single tenant vs. multi: tenant building, particulazly what constitutes a single entity entitled to its own signage. Commissioner Burke: asked if some of the cases cited by Ms. Tepolt were not in fact situations where the additional verbage or symbols aze. actually located within the maximum size permitted. rectangle. and ace therefore. pernutted as "the sign". He also compazed this request to that of Menards and was not in favor of approving it. Commissioner Hadley asked if the proposed and existing signage could be compressed in order to fit it within a defined rectangle of 500 square feet. Ms. Bodmer said that she did not: believe that the additional signage requested could be reconfigured to fit within. a rectangle as defined in the regulations. Thete does appear to be room on the fascia over the entrance containing the existing sign copy to add verbage calling out some of the product lines: It was noted that the requested variance did not meet the established criteria for approval of a sign variance. MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Bergman, to recommend approval of the sign variance requested for JoAnn Etc. Motion failed G-6. Commissioner Blundetto asked that staff report back about the other examples (Midas Muffier, Rainbow Foods) cited by Ms. Tepolt to make sure that all of the signs are in conformance with the regulations. He particularly asked about the small business signs at Wal-Mart. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Manufactured Housing -Park Closing Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes November 17,1999 Page 7 Community Developme~ Director Rick Kelley briefly reviewed his memo on this issue. Staff would like one or more of the Commissioners to serve on a short-lived task force to review a proposed ordinance dealing with financial assistance for the owners of manufactured housing units who aze faced with their relocation due to the closing of a manufachued housing park. The task force would include residents and owners/managers of the two pazks in the City. After some discussion, Commissioner Bergman volunteered to serve on the task force. B. Exterior Building Materials -Maintenance and Painting Community Development Duector Rick Kelley discussed the information contained in the memo from the City Attorney's Office contenting. regulations affecting the exterior building materials of commercial buildings and any restrictions on the painting of specific materials. This memo illustrates some of the parameters under which local aesthetic control of exterior building materials must operate and provides some guidance on how such regulations will need to be implemented and enforced: There will need. to be several meetings between the Attorney's Office and staff from the Planning and Building Inspection Departments prior to draft ordinance language being put together: C. Consider Amendment to NCC Zoning District Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer noted that during a sketch plan review for the reestablishment of auto service uses in a vacant building zoned NCC, the Commission had indicated its desire to allow those uses once again in NCC zones. Staff has reseazched the issue and believes that an amendmern to the list of conditional uses in NCC zones would be the best approach.. Commissioner Blundetto asked if staff had some suggested CUP criteria. Ms. Bodmer said that staff has some preliminary criteria put together which would limit the type of NCC property which would be entitled to establish auto services. Conuuissioner Blundetto asked that staff also check with the criteria used by neighboring cities for similaz situations. MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Burke, to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning regulations to provide for auto service uses as conditional uses in NCC zones and that a public hearing be set to consider such amendment at the soonest possible meeting. Motion carried 6_n. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Bergman, to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.