Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1999CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 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, Tim Burke, Tom Melander, John Bergman, and Jim Hadley. Members Absent: Jeannine Churchill. Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner Margaret Milton, City Engineer Keith Gordon, and City Attorney Sharon Hills. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the proposed agenda. MOTION: Blundetto moved, seconded by Melander, to move 6C and 6D to Consent Items and add 7C for an update on Task Force. Chair Edgeton called for its approval as amended. MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 1, 1999 MINUTES Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes as submitted. It was requested that Jeannine Churchill and Tim Burke be added to the Members Present. Chair Edgeton called for its approval as amended. MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS A. Site Plan(Building Permit Authorization for Dakota County Parks Shower Facility. B. Rearyard setback variance for Heppelmann house addition. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1999 Page 2 MOTION: Blundetto moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for Dakota County Parks Shower Facility and the rearyard setback variance for the Heppelmann house addifion. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hidden Ponds Apartment Site -Public hearing for rezoning to M-7C. Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with standard remarks. Assistant Planner Margaret Milton introduced herself and the project. She noted the applicant's request is a rezoning from R-5 to M-7C in order to include the lot for ahigh-density apartment building. Ms. Milton also noted that this project would require a comprehensive plan amendment from "LD" to "HD". She requested that following the public hearing comments the hearing be continued until the neat meeting so that a separately advertised hearing could be held regarding the comprehensive plan. Mr. Blundetto inquired about the sketch plan for the apartment that was previously submitted. Ms. Milton presented the sketch plan. She noted that the developer had been asked to revise his plan to be in conformance with zoning regulations. Chair Edgeton inquired as to the reason for two public hearings for this project. Ms. Milton responded that no site plan/building permit application had been made for concurrent review. Mr. Bergman asked about the developer's coordinafion with the staff that resulted from the discussions with the Commission during the Comprehensive Plan Update when the site was under review. Frank Kleckner stated that he related the history of the site when he first acquired the land many years ago with former City staff and consultants. He noted the input from the Commission on the sketch layout that was submitted during the Comprehensive Plan update. He stated he had prepared a revised plan for formal approval, but the City would or could not process his request due to the development moratorium that was established as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1999 Page 3 There was a general discussion about how the Planning Commission cannot ask intelligent questions without a specific development plan to review. The public hearing will be continued at the January 5, 2000, meeting. B. Orchard Square Phase II -Public hearing to amend a CUP senior density bonus and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for additiona160 rental apartment dwellings for seniors. Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced herself and the request. She noted that the applicant's request was to amend a CUP for additional density for multiple residential buildings for the exclusive occupancy by elderly residents. She also noted that the HRA had secured funding fora 60 unit elderly project in Lakeville, but the project had been delayed due to the necessary site corrections. She commented that in order to utilize the funding from the H12A, the applicant's were requesting City approval to proceed with Phase II but to amend the existing CUP from its current maximum of 99 to 110 units. Mr. Bergman asked if the request to amend the CUP was for 11 additional units. Ms. Bodmer responded yes; the request is for 11 additional units. Kari Gill, of Dakota County H12A, briefly explained their Senior Housing Program and noted they are currently in Phase II throughout Dakota County for sites such as Orchard Square. She commented that their intention was to design buildings for additional units based on the tremendous demand. Ms. Gill also noted the rapid growth of the elderly population according to recent demographic projections. She also explained the process how rents ace structured to serve the elderly households of modest incomes. Jay Nelson, the architect for this project, presented a series of drawings and explained the materials and colors to be used and the appearance that would be presented to the surrounding properties. Chair Edgeton asked for public comments after the Commission declined any further questions. There was discussion on the procedures for approval. It was noted that since there were no questions or comments, they would consider action on this item. MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Bergman, to amend the CUP for density and allow an additional 11 units or 110 units total. The motion carried 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1999 Page 4 MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for this project. The motion carried 6-0. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Hallwood Highlands Townhomes -Consideration of Subdivision/Preliminary Plat to create 15 townhouse lots, Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization with Setback Variances. Assistant Planner Margaret Milton introduced the item. She noted that there was a public hearing regarding the Preliminary Plat to subdivide at the last Planning Commission meeting. She commented that revised plans had been submitted in an attempt to respond to the comments and concerns. Ms. Milton noted that 15 townhouse dwellings were proposed on a private drive that connects to 133~d Street. She commented that the City Engineer reviewed the utilities plan and no issues were discovered. She stated the Forester/Natural Resources Coordinator reviewed the tree preservation plan and landscape replacement plans and no concerns were noted. She also noted that the building elevations were reviewed and information regarding typical architectural relief added by townhouse purchases, for example, decks, four-season porches, and bay windows. She stated the "B" zoning category does require natural material siding, which does not include vinyl or aluminum. Ms. Milton responded to the public hearing comments. She reviewed the variance request and the zoning. history of the site, particularly how the most recent zoning code increased the setbacks from the existing setbacks at the time when the outlot was subdivided and created. She commented that this parcel was also reviewed when the Comprehensive Plan was updated. She noted the decision was to leave the land use and zoning unchanged. Ms. Milton explained the manner in which side-to-side and side-to-rear setbacks were measured and defined. Ms. Milton also reviewed the traffic capacity of the streets and the projected traffic from the proposed development. She noted the ultimate connection of Gossamer Way to the south to 138 Street. She also commented that the cul-de-sac length was within the guidelines per City code. Ms. Milton also identified several similar townhoue developments having access through single-family residential streets. Ms. Milton discussed the parking requirements and noted that the developer had provided adequate parking. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1999 Page 5 Ms. Milton displayed the existing single-family homes on the lots immediately adjacent to the townhouse proposal. Ms. Milton stated that the grading calculations were reviewed, and the engineer's calculations indicate approximately 1,400 cubic square yards of soil would be removed. Ms. Milton then went onto discuss the noise mitigation. Ms. Milton also discussed greenspace requirements and building material requirements. Mr. Bergman noted developer comparison to other projects and particularly maintenance free (synthetic) siding. Mr. Diedrich noted that he typically builds in zones allowing for maintenance free siding, except for the Rodeo Hills neighborhood does use some masonite. Ms. Milton noted that the planning staff and building inspection staff have identified masonite as a pressed wood product, and they do not recommend it be used. Chair Edgeton asked about the City's authority to require a certain percentage of units that back up to single-family homes to incorporate porches, decks, and bay windows, for example. Mr. Kelley noted that the City does have that authority. Mr. Hadley asked about the side-by-side compazison that was requested at the last meeting comparing this plan and the alternate plan that meets all of the setback requirements but requires more grading and the removal of more trees. Ms. Milton responded that the developer would not submit the plan for consideration because he believes it is too detrimental to the natural features of the site. The plan that did not require variances was only for illustrative purposes. Chair Edgeton requested the proposed plan be displayed and the internal setback variances identified. Ms. Milton displayed the plan and identified the variances. Mr. Bergman asked why additional planting materials could not be placed on the north side of units 1-3 and southwest of units 4-5. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1999 Page 6 Ms. Milton responded that the landscape requirements could only be met when the bid list was submitted verifying 2%2 % cost criteria. There was a discussion on required architectural elements. It was noted that two out of three options on the revised elevations are required for at least one unit in each building cluster. Mr. Bergman asked the developer if he could accommodate additional landscaping at units 1-3 and 4-5. Mr. Diedrich responded that he could accommodate the additional landscaping. Chair Edgeton stated that the lots were vacant near units 1-3 and that the future homebuilders could then take the existence of townhouses into account. The Planning Commission was in consensus. Mr. Hadley inquired about the tree replacement mitigation plus the 2'/2 % requirement, and how it was calculated. Mr. Kelley explained the calculations and requirements. Chair Edgeton noted that the public hearing had been closed, but she stated she would take additional comments if the information was related to the revised plan and involved new information. Don Moran noted he owns the vacant lots to the north, and the two largest trees shown on the grading and NRMO plan should not be taken into account. Mazk Henneman stated that he and his neighbors believe that the setback standards were there to protect the neighbors. He noted that if a plan was available that did not require any variances, then that plan should be used. He commented that the other lots in the neighborhood did not require vaziances. He also noted that saving 49% of the trees was not enough anyway, and he doesn't think this meets the unique features test. He also questioned the legality of approving any of these variances. Jim Hagen, of 13330 Greenwich Court, noted that the developer stated the townhome units were to be built 12 feet lower and that a 6-foot berm was to be constructed. He was concerned about the impact on existing single-family homes due to possible noise increase due to grading. Chair Edgeton inquired about the noise mitigation criteria. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1999 Page 7 Ms. Milton noted that there are two types of noise, line of sight and refractive. She stated that the townhouses themselves act as a noise barrier, as does the berm. She commented that the plan for the berm would be submitted on the Grading Plan. John Zelinski, of 13310 Greenwich Court, inquired about the curbs and gutters. He noted that he would prefer to save as many trees as possible. Ms. Milton explained that the curb and gutters would not make any street wider than drawn on the plans, but they may be installed at the outside edge. David Erickson, of 7699 133`d Street W., inquired about the traffic capacity of the street and analysis of the Gossamer connection. Mr. Kelley noted the process for local street construction and condemnation. Chair Edgeton noted the ITE standards for local street capacity and projections. She stated the projected ADT on 133`d Street and Pennock Avenue intersection was well within the acceptable standards. Mr. Erickson stated he believed the neighbors would still be happiest if a second outlet was created. MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the Subdivision/Preliminary Plat for 15 townhouse lots. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization with Setback Variances, subject to the listed conditions. The motion carried 6-0. B. Cenex Outdoor Storage Tank -Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Kerosene Tank. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced herself and the proposal. She noted that the public hearing for the CUP was held at the last Planning Commission meeting. She presented displays identifying the location of the site and the location of the tank within the site. She stated that she met with the petitioner and the Fire Marshal to review the site plan discrepancies and revisions, including the orientation of the kerosene tank and the suitability of additional landscaping. Mr. Melander inquired about curb or protection to catch any kerosene spills or ruptures to keep it out of the storm sewer. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,1999 Page 8 Ms. Bodmer noted that a double wall tank and a concrete pad would provide added protection. Mr. Kelley noted that a skimmer catch basin was installed with the initial motor fuel station construction. MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Melander; to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the kerosene tank. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to approved a Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for the kerosene tank. The motion carried 6-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Genstar - AUAR Review for mixed use development of Barton Sand & Gravel pit. Mr. Kelley introduced the site and explained the AUAR process. He explained that this was an alternative environmental review process compared to an Environmental Impact Statement, which is a longer process. Mike Guir introduced himself as the representafive of Genstar and noted that multiple consultants with vazious areas of expertise were involved. He noted that there were four development scenarios. were evaluated. He stated that the first was based on the old Comprehensive Plan land. uses, and the remaining three were for the mixed uses as Genstar was proposing for the site but at increasing levels of intensity and capacity. Mr. Guir noted that Genstar preferred and expected the level of development would most likely be between Scenario 2 and 3 (B and C). The fourth Scenario was very aggressive and not likely, but it needed to be included to be faithful to the AUAR process. A general discussion ensued about the Comprehensive Plan update, County Road #42, the Corridor Study, etc. Mr. Bergman commented that he was sorry that County staff was not present to comment on the roadway impacts. He also asked if this was the best use of the land and has Genstar done similar developments. Peter Gualtazi noted that Genstar had not done any similar developments, but the closest compazison was in Woodbury, Eagle Ridge, with only a small commercial component. He noted that other larger projects had been completed in the county. He commented that the best use of the land had been studied by a market study that was commissioned by Genstar. Planning Commission Minutes December 15,.1999 Page 9 Mr. Bergman asked about the expansion of commercial into this location vis-a-vis a "separation" of the City's downtown commercial district. Mr. Kelley responded that the mixed commercial and residential was a trend to balance the community. He stated that this would not detract or diminish the presence of the downtown commercial area. Mr. Guir noted that the County Highway staff had been consulted on this proposal, both prior to initial submittal to the City and prior to the preparation of the AUAR document. B. Meyer Property Sketch Plan Assistant Planner Margaret Milton introduced herself and the plan. Mr. Diedrich explained the layout of the sketch plan. Chair Edgeton stated she was concerned about the linear arrangement of the townhouse units. She also noted that concerns are always raised during the hearing process when townhouses back up to existing single-family homes. Mr. Melander noted the same Type of unit design as other products. He stated that single level townhouses seem to be in demand by aging residents. Mr. Diedrich stated that he recognized this trend many years ago. C. Task Force Mr. Bergman noted that the meeting was held last night, Tuesday; December 14, 1999. Mr. Kelley briefed the Commission on the discussion. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Blundetto moved, seconded by Melander, to adjourn. The motion carried 6- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 PM.