Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/2001rtannmg ~ommtssion rvunutes y-~-000l Yage 1 of 6 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Kazen Edgeton at 7:01 p.m. Members Present: John Bergman, Jeannine Churchill, David Schindler, Karen Edgeton, Tom Melander, Jim Hadley Members Absent: Tim Burke Staff Present: Consulting Engineer Keith Gordon, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Plaaner Kathy Bodmer, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Community Development Director Rick Kelley 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commission Bergman asked to add two items to the agenda: 7A,"R-3" Height Limits; 7B,Workshop with City Council. MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15, 2001 MINUTES MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS A. Rear Setback Variance for Screened Porch at 13440 Gunflint Court MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the consent agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Planned Development Amendment to Restaurant/Plaza Cluster PD #646 and Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization for Two Freestanding Restaurants and One Multi-Tenant Retail Building Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing a£7:04 p.m. with the standard remazks. City Planner Tom Lovelace described the project proposal. Included is an amendment to PD-646, Zone 2, to allow Neighborhood Restaurants. Also reviewed was the site plan for two freestanding restaurants and a retail building on Outlot D of Fischer Market Place. Paul Bilotta, representing the petitioner Birchland Development, noted that the City's ring route decorative fencing at the corner of Galaxie Avenue and C.R. #42 may give the appeazance that the plaza azea is not for public gathering. He expressed an interest in discussing this with City staff. He also said it is likely that the building permit authorization could come back with revisions in the future. The large freestanding restaurants may want unique elements integrated into their projects. Bergman asked what the plaza would look like, and whether signage would be lit. Bilotta commented that the signage would probably be uplit, but not backlit. As for the plaza, they are still refining it. Because it's a fairly large area, the developer wants to incorporate spatial interest, with the possibility of different height steps, angled placement of benches, or the like. Melander asked if the restaurants could be identified. Bilotta answered at this time only Noodles & Company could be confirmed. http://www.ci.apple-valley.ran.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001 /090501.htm1 3/17/2009 rtannmg t;ommtsston rvnnutes y-~-zuu 1 Yage Z of 6 There being no comments from the public, Edgeton closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to recommend approval of the amendment to Planned Development Ordinance No. 646 to allow for Neighborhood Restaumts (as defined in the Apple Valley City Code) within Zone 2, subject to the following restrictions: _ • No drive-through window service is provided • Restaurant does not exceed 3000 squaze feet in size • No more than four Neighborhood Restaurants shall be allowed in Zone 2 MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to recommend approval of the site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 4,999 sq. ft. freestanding restaurant, an 8,000 sq. ft. freestanding restaurant, and a 14,600 sq. ft. multi-tenant building that includes one 2,800 sq. ft. and one 1,800 sq. ft. neighborhood restaurant; 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space; and a 291 space parking lot on Outlot D, Fischer Market Place, subject to the following: • Replat of Outlot D into a lot or lots and the subsequent approval and recording of the replat • Revisions to include windows, gooseneck lighting, and/or awnings extended to the east and south elevafions of Building A • Submission of a detailed planting price list at the time of building permit application to verify the City's 2-1/2% landscaping requirement B. Majestic Ridge -Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for 7 Single Family Lots at the Southeast Corner of Cedar Avenue & 138u' Street by Diedrich Builders Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. with the standard remazks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer described the request of a rezoning from R-3 to R-CL and a preliminary plat approval. She noted that at the steepest point, the proposed retaining wall is projected to be between 16 and 18 feet tall. Bodmer deferred to Mr. Van Wormer for traffic analysis. Traffic Engineer Consultant Glen Van Wormeroffered his review of the proposed development as revised. A single unit truck can gain access ender the current plan. More reaction time is provided for traffic movements. There aze good site lines on the frontage road and proposed cul-de-sac. Bergman asked if the driveway lengths could accommodate SLJV's, and whether on-street parking would be allowed on both sides of the street. Van Wormer stated the width of the cul-de-sac would accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Bodmer verified that the proposed driveways are long enough for SiTV's. Churchill. wondered about parking for special events such as graduations. Van Wormer responded that the cul-de-sac could serve 20-27 parking spaces for a neighborhood party of that nature. Schindler asked if parking was restricted on the frontage road, to which City Engineer Keith Gordon replied parking is not restricted. The petitioner Bill Diedrich a variety of azchitectuml designs he feels would work on the proposed lots. Melander expressed concern with a 16-18 foot retaining wall on Lots 1 and 2, citing safety in general, as well as the potential failure of the wall in the future. Diedrich comments that the retaining wall would be engineered, and the homes would have to be customized to step it up the hill. One consideration might be to come off the existing cul-de-sac for a driveway to Lot 1. Bergman asked about road noise. Diedrich replied that will be present with any project along Cedar Avenue, but with good construction and windows, it can be eliminated inside the homes. Commissioners requested additional information for the next meeting: (1) a drawing depicting a narrower home and three boulder retaining walls to see the impact on tree loss; (2) examples of other locations where such tall retaining walls exist; (3) what problems associated with opening up the existing cul-de-sac. http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001 /090501.htm1 3/17/2009 Planning C:ommtsston Minutes y-S-LUU1 Page 3 of 6 Diedrich stated the neighborhood, in his talks with them, indicated their desire to keep the road as proposed rather than extending the existing cal-de-sac. Blake Crandall of 13825 Glazier Court expressed concem that houses in Lots 5-7 aze too close to reaz lot lines, feeling it is inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood. He also expressed concem with removal of trees that provide screening. Bodmer noted that the distance from back-of--home to back-of--home distance on Lots 5 and 6 is roughly 100 feet. Crandall added that the proposed homes could not be built in an R-3 zoning district, even though reaz setback requirements are met. Paul Kinney of 13845 Glazier Court said he would have two houses in his back yard looking down on him. He indicated one tree would be saved and a buffer would no longer exist. Bergman asked what would happen if Lots 5 and 6 were occupied by a duplex. Diedrich said he could do that; Bodmer stated it would not be allowed under current or proposed zoning. Richard Carroll of 13880 Cedar Avenue said that regazdless of the number of homes, they will still look down on the existing _ neighborhood (because of elevation changes). He went onto say that the land needs to be developed, and' asked the Commission to grant the request and to vote on it. Edgeton noted that all. outstanding issues need to be addressed before a vote is taken. Suzanne Hohn of 13779 Glazier Court stated that most of the trees in Lots 5-7 will be lost, and that knowing what trees will be saved will help us understand the impact. Carter Hayward of 13885 Glazier Court asked about headlight impacts, and whether there would eventually be three lanes of -traffic. Van Wormer answered with the additiona125 feet of County right of way, the headlights are not as much of a concern. Dakota County anticipates increased volumes of traffic on Cedar Avenue,. but adding a lane is not in their current plan. Mary Crandall of 13825 Glazier Court said she is concerned about privacy and noise, adding that when the leaves are on the trees, there is less noise. Bodmer stated that studies show that noise is deadened by stmctures. There being no additional comments from the public, Edgeton closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. C. Hillcrest Acres -- Planned Development Zoning, Preliminary Plat for Retail Development, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for 139,840 s.f. Home Depot Chair Edgeton opened the public heazing with the standard remarks. City Planner Tom Lovelace first addressed some housekeeping items: the public hearing nofice distributed should-have indicated a proposal for 7 lots insteadof 6 lots; correspondence from Traffic Engineer Glen Van Wormer, from City Engineer Keith Gordon, and from DNR Hydrologist Pat Lynch should have been included with the Planning Commissioner packets and were handed to the Commissioners. Lovelace proceeded to describe the project, stating a subzone maybe added to the existing Planned Development 679 rather than creating a new planned development. He reviewed the site plan for Home Depot, noting that revised elevation plans were received today. Edgeton expressed concern that the topic of discussion is a planned development, but that only the Home Depot site is being reviewed. Churchill echoed the concern of a planned development without an overall plan. Van Wormer outlined the concerns contained in his letter, including the recommendation that driveways to the.north and south of the frontage road be aligned with each other. He also preferred the frontage road include left-taming movement in addition to two driving lanes. Keith Gordon stated that the grade from the truck circle to the south needs to be flattened, and can easily be corrected. It may even have been an oversight. http://www.ci.apple-valley.ran.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001 /090501.htm1 3/17/2009 nannmg commtssron lvlmutes y-~-zUUt Page 4 of 6 -John Dietrich of RLK Kuusisto, the petitioner, stated they would respond to staffs concerns and are agreeable to lining up the driveways as Van Wormer recommended. Dietrich went on to say that this plan is consistent with the concept plan previously reviewed by the Commission. He noted that Home Depot is the anchor of the proposed development. With its approval the site would be mass graded and streets and utilities installed. The Home Depot site, which covers half of the developable azea, would set the stage of what is to come forwazd. Dietrich discussed the six access points proposed for the 30-acre site. He stated the Home depot building would be 300 feet from the reaz property line, and that natural plantings would surround the pond. He showed cross-section drawings demonstrating the relationship of the Home Depot building with Orchard Pointe Townhomes. It is important to the developer to have all access points as shown. Dietrich said there would be 7-10 delivery trucks a day to Home Depot, and that they don't feel there would be conflict with customers at the southeast corner: They want to provide customer convenience on both sides of the gazden store. He said they aze willing to clarify outdoor display azeas with staff and are willing to install four cart corrals. The preliminary plat will be revised as required to include easements, and they intend to work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on the water issues. Bergman asked why the request for outdoor display areas when this is one of the larger stores. Dietrich answered that it's a case of expanded visibility. Edgeton and Melander expressed opposition to the outdoor display area. Edgeton stated she didn't like the parking lot connection to an access point on the east side of the store Jennifer Maxw811 of Greenberg Farrow, architect for Home Depot, said Home Depot typically includes 7000 square feet of seasonal outdoor area, that they were told upfront that Apple Valley doesn't like to see outdoor storage, so the garden center was enlazged. Maxwell went on to say the store is not scheduled to operate 24 hours, but they typically request approval for that. She pointed out that the plan shown is the new prototype except for the larger gazden center, and that the elevations aze a work in progress. She compared the new elevations to the previous plan. The Commission said they liked the pilasters that had been eliminated. Maxwell stated that Home Depot wants to carry the orange element azoand the store. How thabmight be addressed, as well as signage, was discussed. Maxwell closed by saying it is important to Home Depot to have both access points on the east. Schindler asked if there would be signage on the back of the building. Maxwell said there is when there is a major road to the back. In this case no signage is called for on the reaz right now. Dietrich asked if the pilasters were put back in, if the Commission would be amenable to brick imprinting instead of brick. Melander said he didn't caze if it was brick as long as the horizontal expanse was broken up with a different color vertically. Cindy Moosbrugger of 15983 Flotilla Trail posed the question of whether there is a possibility people would do a U-turn from the exit to Flagstaff and go north. Pat Hughes of 15274 Florist Circle said it's' afree-for-all on Flagstaff right now, that the southeast could be a very dangerous intersection because of the hill and high-speed vehicles on Flagstaff. Debbie Biddick of 15334 Floret Way is afraid the southeast exit will encourage more traffic on Flagstaff. She stated lighting is a concern, as well as providing a sprinkler system to insure the vitality of beautiful landscaping. Biddick commented, "We can bleed orange if Home Depot works with the neighborhood." She said that a friend of hers who is a business owner had that experience of Home Depot working with their business neighbors. She closed by saying she appreciated the public hearing signs on site. Adam Johnson of 13340 Floret Way said he also has a problem with the southeast comer, that the bus picks up kids for school near there. Johnson stated that police officers can't keep up with ticketing speeding motorists on Flagstaff Avenue. Gene Pederson of New Century, the developer, said that lining up the driveways to the outlots is not a problem. Kafie Dinstage of 15273 Florist Circle said she shazed residents' concerns with the truck ramp. She asked what type of trees would be planted. Dietrich said that alternating conifer and deciduous trees would be planted south of the storm water pond. Stephanie Loveland of 15261 Florist Circle said we need to somehow slow traffic. Moosbmgger asked if the trail will cut across Flagstaff to hook up with one of the parks. http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_commission/2001/090501.htm1 3/17/2009 namm~g ~,ommrssron tvimutes y-~-~vvt rage J oY 6 Van Wormer commented that Flagstaff Avenue is a new road with limited development. As more development occurs, speeds diminish. He also noted that Apple Valley is one of the few cities with two police on exclusive traffic duty. Acknowledging that the City doesn't set the speed limits, Biddick wondered if cautionary signs could be placed to alert drivers to children in the azea. Bergman informed the audience that a Traffic Advisory Committee exists to receive resident comments on that subject. Lovelace clazified that pathways aze constructed on both sides of collector streets, generally as development occurs. In this case, however, they are already under contract on Flagstaff Avenue. Adam Johnson said the paths are very close to the road and asked if they could be put further back. There being no further comments from the public, Edgeton closed the public hearing at 10:37 p.m. She called for a recess at that time. The meeting was reconvened at 10:50 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Cobblestone Lake -Comprehensive Plan Amendment,-Planned Unit Development Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for Mixed Use Development at the Northeast Corner of Pilot Knob Road and C.R #46 City Planner Tom Lovelace described the proposal and reviewed the public hearing comments. Melander stated that neighborliness is good, but a 5-foot side gazd setback is too close. ~Edgeton noted that people won't buy a house under those conditions if they don't like it. Rob Wachholz of Tradition Development, the petitioner, said that houses will be closer together on narrower lots. Two-story homes would not be as close because more room is needed to build them. He's flushing out those types of details with the builders now. Wachholz went onto say that the requested greenspace behind Lots 7-10 is regarded as a tremendous overlook for the entire site. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval of the amendments to the 2020 Land Use Plan redesignating the north central 6.5 acres from "NS" (Neighborhood Service) to "P" (Park) and "MD" (Medium Density ResidentiaU6-12 units per acre) and the westerly 23 acres of the site from "MD" to "C" (Commercial). Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval of the prelihrinary plat for Cobblestone Lake, subject to the following conditions: (1) City staff and developer consider extension of Lot 7-1Q, Block 1 to the Diamond Path right-of--way and work together to reach a mutually beheflcial resolution; (2) Gutlots D and E shall be platted as lots; (3) The final plat shall indicate the dedication of the necessary right-of--way for Diamond Path, a county road; (4) The final plat shall indicate the dedication of the necessary right-of--way for turn lanes on Street B; (5) Installation of a pathway along 160a' Street West shall be required; (6) The final plat shall indicate the dedication of the necessary right-of--way for a right turn lane off Diamond Path. Motion carried 6-0. B. Revised Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for Fischer Market Place 6u Addi6on Lovelace introduced the item. Hadley asked about potential city liability related to a reduced easement width as requested. Keith Gordon stated the existing pipe is 6 feet from the property line and 12 feet from the building and only 7 feet deep. As a result, there should be no problem working within an 18-foot easement. MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Bergman, to recommend approval of the site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 49,581 squaze foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Fischer Mazket Place 6a' Addition, subject to the following conditions: (1) Vacation of existing 30 foot drainage and utility easement and establishment of a new 18 foot http://www.ci.apple-valley.inn.us/Minutes/planning_Commission/2001 /090501.htm1 3/17/2009 natuung ~ommtsston ivltnutes y-~-zuu 1 Page 6 of 6 drainage and utility easement along the west property line; (2) Execution of a license agreement between the City and subject property owner to allow for portions of four parking spaces to encroach onto Outlot J, Fischer Market Place. Motion carried 6-0. C. Setback Variance for Covered Porch at 956 Oriole Drive - Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer explained the request. Hadley asked if there had Been an entry before. Bodmer noted it was a rambler style home before the modifications. Edgeton commented that the porch would improve the appearance of the home. MOTION: Bergman moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of a five-foot variance to construct a S x 38' front porch at 856 Oriole Drive because it iS consistent with thepolicies of the comprehensive plan and will also make the scale of the home more compatible with the homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Motion carried 6-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. R-3 Height Limits Bergman led a discussion of proposing height limitations to bring consistency to a neighborhood when replacement homes aze built or modified, as in the case of the above 856 Oriole Drive. There were comments and concerns expressed by the Commission, including the difficulty of regulating heights on a varying basis without legal foundation, as well as what could be viewed as an intension on the rights of individual property owners. B. Workshop with City Council Bergman requested staff to schedule a joint workshop with the City Council to discuss past projects. To do so on a biannual basis was one of the goals previously established by the Commission. S. ADJOiTRNMENT MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m. http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Minutes/planning_Commission/2001 /090501.html 3/17/2009