Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2001a auuauub vvauaua~~avu aviuau«.~ i-au-cvva rAsc 1 Vr J CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Plaaning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Karen Edgeton at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: John Bergman, Jim Hadley, Jeannine Churchill, David Schindler, Kazen Edgeton Members Absent: Tim Burke, Tom Melander Staff Present: Consulting Engineer Keith Gordon, City Attorney Mike Dougherty, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner Mazgaret Milton, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Community'Development Director Rick Kelley 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the agenda. The motion tamed 5-0: 3. APPROVAL OF JUNE 20, 2001. MINUTES MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to-approve the minutes as presented. The motion tamed 5-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Seasons on the Park -Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MD to LD), Rezoning (M-SA to R-3), Preliminary Plat for ZS Single Family Lots, and Variances ~~ Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. with the standard remarks. Assistant. Planner Margaret Milton introduced the item. Bergman asked for the Natural Resource Coordinator's assessment of the plan. Natural Resource Coordinator Jo Colleran commented on the plan. She stated that erosion control on the site is. critical, and that grading in phases would be preferred. There are several oak trees on the western edge of the property. By dropping Lots 1 and 2 and allowing frontyard setback variances on Lots 5 and 6, 56% of the trees could be saved. Edgeton queried about the history of the zoning and comprehensive plan designation for the site, and what is currently allowed. Milton responded. Edgeton stated that her recollection was that single-famIly on the site was not considered previously because it was assumed that the entire site would need to be graded in that instance. Community Development Duector Rick Kelley concurred with Edgeton's recall. Edgeton also said that she does not see gmding the entire site as an option. Churchill remembered that one of the problems had been the number of street openings available for the project. Milton stated that the proposed opening is okay with Dakota County, and that The entire property could have only one opening to County Road #38 (McAndrews Road). http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_Commission/2001 /071801 M.html 3/17/2009 r lbllllttts liV11ll111SJ1V111V1ll1LLLGJ /-10-LVV1 raKcLUt~ There was a brief discussion of cluster housing ("R-CL", Residential-Cluster) and reduced lot widths. Milton noted that a rezoning and comprehensive plan redesignation would be needed in that case. The densities of the R-CL proposal versus the current R-3 proposal are 25 versus 2 units/acre. Ed Hawk of Westwood Professional Services, representing the petitioner, said that his firm and the Planning Commission have seen several gyrations of the plan for this pazcel, including apartments, townhomes and single family. He noted there would be extensive grading in any case, and that the project to the west also took extensive grading and resulted in a lazge loss of trees. Hasek noted that their previous plan for 31 dwelling units saved more trees, but that he understood it to be too "intense" according to the Planning Commission. They number of dwelling units has been decreased to 25; there is an option to mitigate the tree loss. Kurt Manley, the developer, stated that reducing the number of lots to 23 would not work economically. Bergman referenced the three retaining walls which basically divides the property. He asked if there was any way to provide a better flow on the parcel. Manley stated that boulder retaining walls would be used. Collemn noted that the impact of a retaining wall on trees would depend on the proximity of the wall to the root zone. Edgeton opened the. floor to comments from the public. Robert Styles of 12745 Ethelton Way stated he was told when he purchased his property that the subject parcel was not for sale. He expressed concern that 16-foot retaining walls would cause flooding of properties to the west, and also stated concerns with vehicular traffic. Traffic Consultant Glen Van Wormer said the proposed development would generate about 250 trips per day, most of which would be oriented to McAndrews Road going west. He concluded by saying there would be no visible increase in traffic. Milton reviewed the capacities of the affected roadways. Churchill asked for a written traffic report. Styles asked what the traffic numbers would be if apartments were built. He expressed concern for property values in the area. John Jarviski (sp) of 12565 Evetst Trail said he would like to see what is proposed for erosion control and asked how the city monitors developers' progress in that regard. Colleran explained that there is one full-time inspector for erosion control, wetland and tree mitigation issues. The City requires an erosion control plan before any grading can begin. A preconstmction meeting also takes place before anything is done. During the course of development, staff inspects the site. Colleran noted that the current Natural Resources Management ordinance has been in effect since 1997. Mike Stinson of 12819 Dover Court stated there was very little pazkland in Apple Valley. He challenged the Commission to provide leadership to buy the land and turn it into a park. Edgeton asked staff to relate pazk policy for the next meeting. Nancy Kangas of 12572 Everest Court East explained that because of their proximity to the project, grading is a huge issue. She wanted to know how far from the lot line houses would be built: She also stated concern with potential impacts on the root zones of oak trees in their yard. Tom Bublitz of 5155 127a` Street asked if the trees planted by the Boy Scouts would remain, as well as the process to monitor those storm water ponds. Referencing his involvement in redevelopment in a north-side suburb, Bublitz encouraged the Commission to look a how the green space will be protected. http://www.ci.apple-valley.ran.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2 00 1/07 1 80 1 M.html 3/17/2009 r iaauuus ~vuiuua~ivu iviutu~c~ i-io-~vvr r agc ~ ur s Steve Kelly of 12586 Everest Trail asked about the rights of surveyors to enter private property, noting that some of his trees were marked without his knowledge. Attorney Mike Dougherty stated that surveyors do have a right to be on property. They generally apply the common courtesy of knocking on doors before entering to notify property owners. Hasek of Westwood described the process followed during the tree inventory, stating that no survey or staking occurred prior to that, so landmazks were used to gauge property lines. Kelly concluded that grading and preservation of trees is a concem. He would like protection of his trees and the grove for the City as a whole, working with the environment. Jeff Burns of 12562 Everest Court stated he appreciated the concem about preserving trees. He questioned the entrance location of the new cut-de-sac onto Everest Trail so close to its intersection with McAndrews Road. Shelley ONeill of 12521 Everest said her first choice for the property is park, her second choice is single family homes. Tom Smith of 12725 Edinborough Path stated amulti-family development would add more traffic. He also said the proposed homes would be upper bracket so property values would actually increase. John Jarviski asked who is responsible for maintaining drainage ponds, property owners or the City. Keith Gordon responded-that after a project has been completed, the adjacent homeowners are responsible for the aesthetics of the pond (i.e. mowing and weed control). The City is responsible for the function of the pond (i.e. dredging). Tom Smith said he thought the traffic impact would be minimal, comparing it to his location on Diamond Path. Robert Styles inquired about how to get driveway access onto McAndrews Road. Dougherty explained that an access restriction easement has been dedicated to Dakota County. Hadley asked about the location of the retaining all on Lot 1. Hasek said it would be ten feet off the property line. Edgeton stated she would like to see the site preserved as much as possible. She liked Colleran's suggestion to eliminate Lots 1 and 2. Terry Kangas said the proposed lot adjacent to his property is 100 feet uphill from his yazd. Hasek described one of the benefits of the proposed plan is that the runoff would be contained largely on site, and would not be allowed to increase from its current state. He demonstrated how and where that would occur. Churchill pointed out that there is a volunteer Parks Committee in the city, and that their meetings are also open to the public. ~ _ There being no further public comments, Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION TTEMS A. Amendment to PD #144, Zone 5, to Add Veterinary Clinics to Permitted Neighborhood Commercial Uses; Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for an 11,000 s.f. Multi-tenant Commercial Building Bergman noted that the proposed building plans went from a single story to a two-story and asked whether a new public hearing was required. Assistant Planner Bodmer stated that site plan/building permit authorization does not require a public hearing, so there are no procedural changes needed. Bodmer reviewed the permitted and conditional uses in PD-144 Zone 5. She noted the reduced footprint achieved with the modification to a two-story building. Bodmer also recapped the public hearing comments. http://www.ci.apple-valley.ran.us/Minutes/planning_Commission/2001/071801 M.html 3/17/2009 ,..,.~...s ~,~ .....~~.., ~ ....~,.~.,° ,-..,-~.,.,. Transportation Consultant Glen Van Wormer said the maximum traffic generation from the site would be 250 trips per day, 40 during each peak. Most would be oriented to Palomino Drive, and there would not be much of a noticeable impact, according to Van Wormer. He did suggest widening the entrance and removing two parking spaces so cars could more easily travel azound the site. Keith Gordon verified that a signal at the intersection of Palomino Drive and County Road 11 is planned to be operational in November of this yeaz. Discussed were visual impacts on adjacent properties, measures taken to eliminate noise impacts, and grades on the site, particulazly the pazking area. Kathy noted that an 8% grade for parking is not expressly prohibited, but concerns were raised about its use during icy weather particulazly. The Planning Commission requested a written report from Van Wormer MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to table the item until August 1. Motion carved 5-0 B. Carport Variance at 14329 Ebony Lane Milton described the rather unique request. She confirmed that the petitioner is not prohibited from parking his boat in that location without the proposed stmcture. The petitioner Phil Roehrich stated he selected the proposed structure because he thought it would be the least invasive as faz as the neighbors would be concerned. He went on to say he has always parked a boat alongside his garage, but wrapped the boat. Edgeton said she has a concern with the exposed four posts and would rather see a wall constructed. Bergman concurred, and the petitioner has no objections to doing that. MOTION: Bergman moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval of a variance to reduce the side yazd setback from the required 5 feet to 4 feet for a boat shelter addition, with the condition that the west side be enclosed with siding because the request is in keeping with the spirit of the zoning ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. C. Front Porch Setback Variance at 6781 129th Street Milton described the variance request as detailed in the staff report.. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Schindler, to recommend approval of a variance reducing the. front setback from the required 30 feet to 26 feet to replace an existing entryway structure because the request is in keeping with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried 5-0. 7. OTAER BUSINESS A. Sketch Plan for Planned Development Amendment to RestauranUPlaza Cluster in Fischer Market Place, Located on the Northeast Corner of C.R. #42 and Galaxie Avenue City Planner Tom Lovelace described the revised sketch plan and identified the following issues: (1) property must be final platted; (2) zoning amendment would be needed for certain restaurant uses; (3) two entrances off Florence Trail; (4) required berming; (5) internal pedestrian coanecfions; (6) parking deficit of five stalls. Edgeton said she liked this version even better than the original plan. She asked if there was a way to get a little patio area for the two smaller restaurants. Paul Bilotta, representing the petitioner Birchland Development, said that the original plan had two entrances onto Florence, but that they can revise that to one. That change would likely resolve the pazking deficit also. Bilotta indicated patio areas could be included for the two smaller restaurants. http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001/071801 M.htm1 3/17/2009 ........, s .,.,...... ~~..,~...a..,.~.,~ ,-.~-~~~~ rage ~ of ~ It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that an amendment to the PD regarding restaurant uses was appropriate. B. Revised Sketch Plan for commercial Complex on Southeast Corner of C.R. #42 & Flagstaff Avenue by Home Depot Lovelace presented the revised sketch plan. He reviewed the issues, including elevations and building materials. The Planning Commission indicated the plan was much improved from previous versions. Hadley asked about the height of the retaining wall, which would be 4 to 6 feet. Bergman wondered about the back view. Jennifer Maxwell, representing the applicant, stated landscaping would screen the rear of the building. She reviewed the cross sections with the Commission.. Edgeton commented that the rear elevation needs to be broken up or enhanced. Overall she didn't have any problems with the site plan. Chet Harrison with RLK Kuusisto specified that the forthcoming formal application wIll only include site plan building permit authorization for the Home Depot. S. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Churchill moved, secondedby Hadley, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m: _ http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001 /071801 M.html 3/17/2009