Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1999CTI'Y OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 1,1999 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Edgeton at 7:00 PM. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Frank Blundetto, Tom Melander, John Bergman, and Jim Hadley, Jeannine Churchill, Tim Burke. Members Absent: None. Staff Present Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner Mazgazet Milton, Consulting Engineer Pat Wrase, and City Attorney Sharon 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: Bwke moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried 7-0. 3. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 17,1999 MINUTES Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes as submitted. There being none, she called for their approval. MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Churchill abstained). 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Aallwaod Highlands Townhomes -Public hearing for aSubdivision/Preliminary Plat to create 15 townhome lots, Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization with setback variances. Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Margaret Milton introduced herself and the proposed project. She noted the applicant's request for a preliminary plat, site plan building permit, and five variances. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 2 Rollie Crawford, an attorney from Levander, Gillen, and Miller of South St. Paul and a representative of the RCBJ Company, spoke about the issues before the City and the history of the site. He also discussed the policy implications. Mr. Crawford noted that the question before the City is not whether there will be 15 townhomes but how they will be sited vis-a-vis requested variances. The site is zoned for three to six developments per acre, which is consistent with Comp Plan. The site is approximately five acres, therefore, up to 30 units may be built. He noted that it was documented that RCBJ allocated this site based on 30 units. Mr. Crawford commented that they considered several unit densities for the site, including three 8-plexes and one 6-plex, which did meet all setbacks. He stated that this design was not very visually appealing. Mr. Crawford noted other configurations of larger structures and taller structures, which yielded 25 to 30 developments and met the setbacks, but he stated that the Halls didn't feel these were best for neighborhood. Mr. Crawford noted that 15 or more townhomes can be built on this site with no variances, but there would be an increase tree loss. They felt the project would fit best if the variances were approved and the trees were saved. He commented that when platted, he believed that the Cedar setback was 50 ft. for zoning at that time, and if this were true today, then he would require these vaziances. The City's policy for vaziances for setbacks is a determination of hardship. Mr. Crawford noted that in his opinion, the topography and physical configurations aze severe limitations on site compazed to others. He commented that this site allows for up to 30 townhomes, and they aze only proposing 15 townhomes. He stated that the Halls are financially sacrificing this site because they believe this layout is the most compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that the Halls have held this land for some time, and they believe that now is the time for development. Mr. Crawford noted that the Natural Resources Coordinator had no outstanding issues with the site or the landscaping plan. Mr. Crawford stated that they believe the current plan is in best interest of everyone, including developers, city, and neighbors. Bill Diedrich stated that the townhomes are similar to Valley Oaks interior at $160,000 to $225,000, but the 6-unit configuration does not do justice to the exterior detail. He noted that their customer base is the empty-nester who wants a rambler style townhome. Mr. Diedrich noted that the front of the buildings will be brick and the sides and reaz will be maintenance free siding. He stated that they would probably be earth colors and approximately $180,000 to $260,000. He explained the grade limits, the number of trees saved, and site location choices on the plan. He noted that the lower hillside remains intact. Commissioner Bergman questioned planning staff about the vacant land to the north. Ms. Milton stated that it was zoned residential for single family (R-3). Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 3 At this point, Chair Edgeton asked audience to refrain until public comments are requested. Commissioner Melander questioned Mr. Diedrich if he is edging north to preserve the trees. He also questioned if the trees were not an issue, and he shifted to the south, then would the variances go away. Bill responded yes. Chair Edgeton inquired about other plan(s) without any variances, and if there was a copy available. Mr. Diedrich responded yes and showed the overhead, which noted that due to the steep slopes, shifting to the south pushes gradmg limits substantially down hill since building pads must be built up. Ms. Milton noted that Mr. Diedrich's calculafions accounted for 49% of trees removed, while the Natural Resource Coordinator noted 34% tree removal. Commissioner Blundetto noted that the Natural Resource Coordinator was pleased with the plans. Commissioner Burke inquired about rentals. Mr. Diedrich stated that there will not be any rental units, and they will all be sold as owner-occupied. He noted that at this sales price range there was no investment sense to rent. He commented that the only time that someone may rent is when someone has moved. Commissioner Hadley commented on 50% brick, and Mr. Diedrich responded that he would fix it. Commissioner Hadley also inquired about the berm being destroyed on Cedar Avenue. Mr. Diedrich responded that the berm would not be destroyed and the ridge would remain. Commissioner Bergman questioned staff on why the site was changed from R-1 to M-3B in 1984. Ms. Milton responded that the site had been rezoned R-1 to R-1C (now R-3) and M-1 (now M-3B). She noted that the revised zoning ordinances changed monikers and increased the setbacks. Chair Edgeton asked the staff whether they reviewed the alternate plan. Ms. Milton commented that they received the plan today, and they would like the engineers and Natural Resources Coordinator to review the plan. Chair Edgeton noted that is seemed a shame to lose the trees and lose the buffers even though no variances would be required. She agreed that they needed to weigh the impacts of granting the variances or not. She requested that staff please review the plan in detail for next meeting. She also requested, if possible, a side-by-side pro/con comparison. Commissioner Churchill asked staff to point out which parcels are occupied, and Mr. Diedrich pointed them out on the plan. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 4 Mark Henneman, of 13319 Greenwich Court, asked to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. He commented that they knew it was zoned for townhouses, so they aze not opposed to having them in the neighborhood. Mr. Henneman had four main issues to present. First, they were opposed to the variances, and they didn't see any hardships in their opinion. He noted that the developers are requesting up to 60% reduction in setbacks, while the developers offer no unique features. He also commented that they believed that the setbacks were developed to protect the existing residences, therefore, they are opposed to this variance. Second, they had reviewed this specific plan and other Diedrich townhome projects. They were concerned that the townhomes were not consistent with the current neighborhood. For example, the current single family homes are cedar and stucco, while Diedrich would like to use maintenance free siding. Mr. Henneman also noted that there were no azchitectural features on these townhomes. The neighborhood would like to see brick on the back of the buildings also. Third, they were concerned with the number of townhomes because of the traffic that would be generated. Mr. Henneman noted that the bottleneck was only 133'a St., but now there was the Glenhaven link, too. He also commented that they were concerned with the construcfion traffic in the neighborhood. Fourth, the natural earth berm that protects the houses from Cedar Avenue would be removed. Mr. Henneman commented that even though the. developer indicated that the berm remains, they were concerned that there will continue to be an adverse impact from the noise and sightlines of Cedar Avenue. Mr. Henneman finally noted that there were 42 signatures. on the petition. Chair Edgeton requested that staff prepaze traffic information on this site that includes capacities and counts for the next meeting. She also requested information on required building materials. Shari Thomas, of 13320 Greenwich Court, inquired about the M-1 zoning and what was permitted. She stated that single family zoning was preferable for this land. Dan Moran, of 7609 133'a Street W. and owner of the empty lots to the north of this land, noted that he did not receive any variances on his land. He stated that he had to dedicate and construct a road in order for him to purchase the land. He was concerned that the purchasers of his land would be crowded if the variances were granted. He commented that the setbacks and zoning should protect the neighbors. land. Commissioner Blandetto asked what variances were requested by Mr. Moran for this Mr. Moran responded that he had not asked for any variances, but he was required to construct the road. He commented that he just wanted to buy the land. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 5 John Zelinski, of 13310 Greenwich Court, inquired whether or not the second plan was an exact plan, and if there was a private drive. Chair Edgeton noted the purpose of a public hearing and stated that there needed to be a full staff analysis in order to answer these questions. Mr. Zelinski was also concerned about the number of parking spaces necessary and how much of the hill would be removed. Chair Edgeton commented that the staff would review the requirements of overflow guest parking and respond to these questions at the next meeting. David Erickson, of 7699 133` St. W., stated that he had moved from another part of the state last year, and he was wondering if it was an oversight that this parcel was not rezoned for multiple-family. Mr. Erickson also noted that any excavation near oaks will kill them, and he suggested that a forester needed to review these plans. Mr. Erickson was concerned about the potential number of cars that would exist. He noted that the only way out from the south was on 133`a St. and Pennock Avenue, therefore, there would be approximately 50 homes channeled to only one outlet. Chao- Edgeton stated that the staff would review these questions for the next meeting. She also requested information on the Comprehensive Plan as to why this site did not come up as a red flag. Commissioner Burke also requested. future plans for the Gossamer extension to 138`" Street Dan Mulder, of 13149 Glenhaven Ave., stated that he would be impacted by the noise if the trees were removed. He was also concerned. with the impact of property value. He noted that the developer's statement seems out of character for a townhome next to Cedar Avenue. He was worried that if the value of the townhomes was not maintained, then the townhomes may be converted to rental units with a negative impact on the neighbors. He questioned what types of studies the builder has completed to support the sales price. Shelly Ward, of 7800 133' St., commented that she has a home near Cedar Ave., and she was concerned with the noise level if the teees were removed. She noted that she had moved from Texas, and the trees appealed to her and her family. She stated that it would be detrimental if the trees were removed. Bob Miazaga, of 13350 Granada Ave., stated that he agreed with David and the others that the builder did not present a hardship. He noted that in order to receive a variance, the applicant must present a hardship. He stated that there was no reason to pack the townhomes in the area just because 30 were allowed. He noted that the Halls were aware of the setbacks at the time of platting, and the applicant's do not qualify for a hardship if created by the owner. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 6 Chair Edgeton requested that staff produce greenspace calculations for the next meeting. Don Moran, of 7609 133~d St., stated that he doesn't believe Russ Hall is making any sacrifice in this sale. Chair Edgeton noted that the Planning Commission does not use economic hardship for a vaziance. Mazk Henneman, of 13319 Greenwich Ct, inquired about the maximum length of a cul- de-sac by law. He would also like to lmow what the policy is regazding townhomes located off of a major road. He stated that he would like other examples ofMultiple-family cul-de-sacs that go into residential areas. Mr. Henneman also noted that there was no due regard for slopes and vegetation as noted in the staff report. He also commented that the staff report seemed negative. Chair Edgeton noted that the staff report was not negative, but the staff was referring to the variances. Dan Mulder, of 13149 Glenhaven Ave., inquired about any covenants on existing projects by this builder. He requested a copy of these covenants. Mr. Kelley noted that they aze required with a subdivision approval, but they are specific to the project. An unidentified resident, questioned who decides the appearance of the building. Chair Edgeton responded that the builder must submit the plan for review by the City, but the neighborhood does not have a vote. Commissioner Blundetto stated that the plans are reviewed based on the design regulations. The Commission then approves the plan or requires modifications. The unidentified resident stated that he doesn't believe that the building plan matches the neighborhood, regazdless of the amount of brick. Commissioner Blundetto noted that this is resident input on design now. Chair Edgeton stated that the Commission is not concerned with the economics but the best use of the land. stucco. Commissioner Bergman asked Mr. Diedrich if he had considered other material, such as Commissioner Blundetto requested that the petifioner be prepazed at the next meeting to discuss the materials and design of the building. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 7 Chair Edgeton stated that the reaz of the buildings were plain and did need work. She requested information on the number ofthree-season porches, and whether these are optional or required. She also noted that the brick on the back is not necessarily the best, but brick should be considered in appropriate locations. Mr. Diedrich used Hyland Pointe Court, along Gazden View and 160'x, as an example of his experience with porches, decks; and bay windows. Commissioner Blundetto noted that Mr. Diedrich is doing well right now, and he will continue to do well as long as he follows directions. Commissioner Churchill stated that she would like readable grading plan maps that show the elevations, and she would like footprints of the neighboring houses. Commissioner Hadley inquired about the impact in the number of variances if the northern 3-unit was changed to a 2-unit. Ms. Milton noted that this would only reduce the number of vaziances by one. Kathy Brummond„ of 7665 Gibraltar Terrace, noted that she would be affected by the amount of traffic, and she requested that the Planning Commission inspect the site to determine the best use of the land and reduce the number of units if necessary. Chair Edgeton responded that the members do go to the sites. Chair Edgeton closed the hearing with the standazd remarks, and she called for a recess at 8:14 PM. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 PM. B. Cenex Outdoor Storage Tank --Public hearing for a Condifional Use Permit for a kerosene tank. Chair Edgeton opened the public heazing with standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced herself and the proposed project. She noted the applicant's request for a conditional use permit for a kerosene tank. She stated the location and dimensions of the proposed kerosene tank, and she noted that the propane tank had been approved in December 1997. The Fire Marshal had approved an above ground kerosene tank at this time, but it was contingent upon a conditional use permit. Chair Fdgeton inquired about the locafion and whether or not this was the best location. Ms. Bodmer stated that the original plan had the tank on the east side of the building, but the Fire Marshal had suggested the current site. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 8 Commissioner Hadley inquired about the number of pazking spaces that would be lost or effected by this site. Ms: Bodmer noted that the number of parking spaces is still okay, but they need details on the curbline relocation. Kevin Sexton, of the Farmers' Union Co-op, introduced himself and noted that the other Farmers' Union Co-op sites provide kerosene. He noted that the City ordinance requires a CUP for motor fuel sales. Initially, the tank was proposed to be inside, but the Fire Mazshal did not want it in the building. Therefore, the CUP is for the outdoor storage and sale of kerosene. Commissioner Bergman inquired about the curbline relocation, and Mr. Sexton pointed these out on the plan. Commissioner Hadley questioned the staff about the landscape requirements. Ms. Bodmer stated that the requirements were met but the Fire Marshal required a concrete pad. Chair Edgeton requested that the staff work with the Fire Marshal on planting materials and location. Mr. Cazl Eland, of 148 Shasta Ct., suggested that the tank be turned ninety degrees to create more space. Mr. Sexton responded that he would do this if the Fire Marshal approved of the rotation. Chair Edgeton closed the hearing with the standazd remarks. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Palomino East Apartments -- Consideration of rezoning from M-7C to M-2C. City Planner Tom Lovelace introduced himself and the proposed project. He stated that the City is requesting a rezoning to bring this property into compliance with the revised Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lovelace explained the unbuildable land calculation as follows: (5.64-1)/.9=5.15 Mr. Lovelace noted that the actual unbuildable land is less than ten percent of site, so these calculations are not necessary. Commissioner Bergman inquired why R-2 or R-3 had not chosen. Mr. Lovelace explained the rationale, as the site is adjacent to Cedaz Avenue and a collector road. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 9 Chair Edgeton noted that this property was intensely reviewed during the Comprehensive Plan Update. MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of rezoning to M-2C for Palomino East Apartments. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Eland asked a question about the calculafion of the unbuildable area. Mr. Lovelace explained that the unbuildable area is less than ten percent, so the density is based on the fu115.64 acres. Chair Edgeton noted that there is not a development plan at this time,-and any plan would be reviewed in detail if and when a plan approval was requested. B. Eaton/Watrud Site -- Consideration of rezoning from M-7C and LB-1 to M-7C/M-8C. City Planner Tom Lovelace introduced himself and the proposed project. He explained that the City is requesting a rezoning to bring this property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Update. He noted that there is no documented City restriction for buildings that are two-stories. Commissioner Bergman inquired about Pennock Place. Mr. Lovelace responded that this was athree-story building, but he did not have the actual height in feet. Pat Gillis, of 7591 142"d St., noted that the zoning was originally consistent with the Comp Plan and inquired about the history of the Comp Plan. Mr. Lovelace responded. that the question was understood as the history of the zoning not the history of the Comp Plan. He noted that the old zoning was consistent with the Comp Plan, but the new Comp Plan showed changes in rezoning to make consistent. Dale Anklam, of 7621 142nd St., inquired about the ADT projections relative to adjacent streets. Mr. Lovelace responded that trip assignments were done by traffic engineers and is only relative to speaker's development proposal with specific driveway access points identified. He explained that City staff used standard 24-hour ADT. He noted that TCCH would access Pennock, which will balance Granite with connection to 140d` and 142°d. Chair Edgeton asked if this would put any roads over capacity. Mr. Lovelace responded that to the best of their knowledge, there wouldn't be any roads over capacity. Mr. Anklam questioned whether right tum in and out only was taken into account. Mr. Lovelace stated that this would have some effect, although there may be an additional connection to Pennock from Granite. Mr. Lovelace noted that there does not appeaz to be any significant change in traffic from the old zoning to the new zoning. Planning Commission Minutes December 1,1999 Page 10 MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval for rezoning to M-8C for Eaton/Watrud property. Motion carried 7-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Consistency of "McNamara" Project TIF Plan with Comp Plan Community Development Director, Rick Kelley, reviewed his memo on this issue. Staff would like the Planning Commission to adopt the draft resolution finding that the amendment to the "Master Development District" and "Master Development Program" for the McNamaza Project "TIF Plan" is consistent with the Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Hadley, to adopt the draft resolution for the McNamara Froject "TIF Plan". Motion carried 7-0. B. Consider 2000 Meeting Calendar MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Bergman, to adopt the 2000 meeting calendar. Motion carried 7-0. C. Lamperts Windows The contractors are handling this issue, and the windows have been ordered. 8. ADJOilRNMENT MOTION: Blundetto moved, seconded by Burke, to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 PM. 10