Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/2001Planning Commission Minutes 4-18-2001 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 18, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER - The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Karen Edgeton at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Kazen Edgeton, John Bergman, Jim Hadley, Jeannine Churchill, Tom Melander, Tim Burke Members Absent: None Staff Present: Consulting Engineer Keith Gordon, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Planner Margazet Milton, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the agenda. The motion carved 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF APRIL 4, 2001 MINUTES MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the minutes as submitted. The moton carried 5- 0 (1 abstention-Burke). 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Diamond Valley Estates Single Family Subdivision and Rezoning Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. with the standard remazks. Assistant Planner Margaret Milton introduced dae item. Edgeton asked about alternatives for road placement and whether the Bachs aze landlocked as far as development. She also stated the need to fmd out if easements for the road exist. Hadley asked if utility easements had been granted. Milton replied that those are usually given at the time of road construction. Neal Krzyzaniak of Bridgeland Development, the petitioner, stated it was his understanding that the road easements are private, not public . " Edgeton wanted to heaz more about the option of putting theroad on the Siewerts'"south property line. _ Churchill requested clarification of Bachs' access to city utilities. Milton explained that easements would be needed across someone else's property. Attorney Sharon Hills stated to her knowledge there has been no dedication to the city for road right-of--way. http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/200 1/04 1 8 0 1 M.html 3/17/2009 Planning Commission Minutes 4-18-2001 Page 2 of 5 There was some discussion of assessments relating to public roads. Bergman inquired whether rain gardens really control the rains. Engineer Keith Gordon answered that the developer agreed to use a rain gazden so there is no increase in runoff from the site. Gordon described how rain gardens work. There was also discussion about what measures can be taken to assure that a rain garden is maintained once constmcted. Peter Knaeble of Teria Engineering, the project designer,said they had a number of different concepts, one of which straddled the south property line. That alternative was not acceptable to the property owner to the south, so the current road alignment was pursued, based on staff recommendafions to minimize impacts to the surrounding propeRies. Knaeble stated the variance proposals by staff aze acceptable to the developer, the lot sizes exceed city standards, and there would be less runoff after development. He concluded by saying the developer will petition the city to design the storm water system and will work with the engineer's recommendations. There was further discussion regarding-the road alignment and assessments. Knaeble pointed out that the current alternative for the road is acceptable to three out of the four property owners. Only two out of the four are amenable to the southern property line location. Melander stated that he didn't think the City should arm-twist someone to develop. Ellen. DeVries of 13780 Duluth Drive stated her concern is traffic that flows through the area, that a long straight street invites higher speeds than a curved one. Dale Temte of 13797 Diamond Path, the adjacent property owner to the south, finds the plan acceptable. The idea of straightening the road could cost him money, Temte said. Michael Booth of 7404 137a' Street iterated two concerns: (1) drainage and (2) size of lots seems inappropriate. Craig Freeman of 4680 137` Street submitted a letter for the record. Freeman shared the concern about drainage, and stated he didn't want to be a guinea pig regazding rain gardens. There is a significant ehn on his property that he does not want damaged by constriction activities. Bergman said he would like to see a rain garden. Jo Colleran, Natural Resources Coordinator, stated there are no rain gardens in Apple Valley currently. The City of Maplewood has established front yard rain gardens as part of redevelopment. Colleran went on to say we have to do a better job of managing our storm water, that a rain garden is not a shallow pond, but promotes soil infiltration. Bob Ulhich of 4785 138u' Street is concerned is yard will become a low damp spot like the proposed lot behind him. Sue Ellen Gebert of 13848 Duluth submitted a petifion of neighbors asking that 138a` Street connection be made to Diamond Path as a through public street. She thought this would help alleviate traffic on Duluth. Bergman asked about the capacity of Duluth in comparison to the proposed street, as well as traffic counts. Tim Morse of 4746 137a' Street is concerned about drainage and utilizing a new concept (rain gardens) in a problem area. He also stated the lots that surround the subject property aze quite a bit bigger, and that lesser setbacks do damage to his property. http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_Commission/2001 /041801 M.html 3/17/2009 Planning Commission Minutes 4-18-2001 Page 3 of 5 Churchill requested setbacks of adjoining properties. Lisa Maumth of 4652 137u' Street said she echoes the comments of her neighbors. She is concerned about her property value and quality of life. She asked for consideration of preserving natural features of the property and lazger lots. Mike Philipp of 4884 138a' Street stated the traffic in front of his house would double unless the street is brought through. He has difficulty getting out of his driveway how. Marty Patringa (sp) of 4760 138a' Street said the road stops at his house asked that the city keep in mind restrictions for construction traffic and cleanup. Larry Jousten of 4864 138u' Street lives next to Mr. Philipp and shares his concern about traffic. He stated we need the road to go through so emergency vehicles can get around. Mary Bach of 13801 Diamond Path requested her comments be added to the public record. She gave a brief history of the azea, including a public road sketch from 1969: She claims there was a mistake in 1979 "coordinating alignment of Rosemount's 138x' Street Court across Diamond Path with Apple Valley's planned public road." She expressed her concern about becoming landlocked as far as potential development. Bach. also stated a "road through to Diamond Path would relieve traffic in adjacent neighborhoods and enhance circulation." Finally, she referenced the intent of certain easements to become a public road. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to continue the public hearing to the next meeting. Motion carried 6-0. .Chair Edgeton called a brief recess. She reconvened the meeting at.9:13 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Shed Setback Variance at 12746 Ethelton Way by Manuel Barbosa City Planner Tom Lovelace described the request. Edgetoh asked if the shed could be built without a variance. Lovelace showed an illustration of -where the shed could be built without a variance. The petitioner Manuel Barbosa showed photographs of his property. He stated the reason he desired the proposed location of the shed is because he felt the alternatives may impact drainage toward his home, be too close to their living space, and would require the removal of trees. Lovelace noted that the assistant city engineer looked at the site and did not see a problem with drainage if the shed were moved within the acceptable area (not requiring a variance). Churchill stated she has a problem with granting a variance onto an easement. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to recommend a variance of five feet from the rear yazd setback based upon the hazdship of the shape of the lot as a result of the curvature of the adjacent street. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend a variance of up to five feet from the side yazd setback based upon the hardship of the shape of the lot as a result of the curvature of the adjacent street. Motion tamed 6-0. http://www.oi.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001 /041801 M.htm1 3/17/2009 Planning Commission Minutes 4-18-2001 7.OTHER BUSINESS Page 4 of 5 A. Sketch Plan for Single-Family Development at the Northeast Comer of McAndrews Road and Everest Trail by Manley Brothers Milton described the current sketch plan proposal. She noted the site is not lazge enough for a Planned Development zoning, thus the recommendation of Residential Cluster zoning. Bergman asked if the proposed access spacing is okay with Dakota County. Burke and Bergman asked about the height of the proposed retaining wall and its composition: Edgeton said she is not opposed to single family ormulti-family on the site as long as it is done well. She referenced Prairie Crossing and stated the need to do something special to have smaller lots. Bergman stated he liked the design. ChurchIll said there were a lot of homes in a row. Ed Hasek of Westwood Professional Services asked for an acceptable number of units. He stated the topography makes clustering difficult. The current plan results in saving 80% of the mature oaks on the west side. He noted the distance between units is 15 feet, comparable to the R-3 zoning setback requirements. B. Sketch Plan for Dental Clinic on the Southeast corner of Cedar Avenue & 145u' Street by Dr. Stephen Dalseth Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the item. Tim Altus, project architect, described the intent of the unique design. Each side of the building takes on its own character and reflects what goes on inside of the building. The design is intended to reduce the sense of lazgeness, .to give the clinic a unique identity and to give an appearance of an enjoyable place to go. The screen "wall" could consist of cable with aluminum, creating the ability to plant vines. Edgeton stated a concern about trash catching in the bluestem prairie grass. Altus stated that is one of the reasons to provide the grass edge as proposed. The landscape architect for the project stated he perceives no problems, that trash should be no more of an issue than with any other planting. Colleran said she likes the little bluestem, that it's not too tall. It can be mowed in the spring and fall. The landscape azchitect explained how they promote quick establishment of the bluestem. Hadley asked if the proposed fence meets Code. Dr. Dalseth noted it's more of a trellis than a fence. Edgeton stated she has no problem with the building materials as long as there is no painting or maintenance needed. Bergman found the building and landscape design to be fabulous. The consensus of the Commissioners was that it is agood-looking building. Dr. Dalseth said he decided to focus on keeping as much green space rather than maximizing the parcel from a building and tax base perspective. B. ADJOURNMENT http://www. ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001 /041801 M.html 3/17/2009 Planning Commission Minutes 4-18-2001 Page 5 of 5 MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001/041801 M.html 3/17/2009