Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2002CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 17, 2002 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: Karen Edgeton, Tom Melander, Jeannine Churchill, John Bergman, David Schindler, and Jim Hadley Members Absent: Tim Burke Staff Present: City Engineer Jacob Fick, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRII. 3, 2002 Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Schindler moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS -None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Antenna -Conditional Use Permit for Additional Height City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the request for a conditional use permit for an antenna located in Hagemeister Park, as outlined in the staff report. The permit will allow for installation of a 60' high communications tower in the park. The zoning code requires that a conditional use permit be approved for any structure exceeding 40' in "P" institutional zoning. The applicant, Voice Stream Wireless, is proposing to remove the existing light pole currently used to illuminate the outdoor hockey rink, and replace it with a 60' monopole that will contain the rink lights and wireless phone antenna, in a 20 ft. x 20 ft. azea. It will be enclosed with an 8' high chain link fence, topped with barbed wire. Lovelace reported that Voice Stream has not indicated the color of the pole or the support base of the equipment. However, he did indicate that he would prefer the base to be concrete or bituminous. He also indicated that the City has some concerns about the barbed wire. Commissioner Churchill asked if this was normal use for a pazk. Rick Kelley, Community Development Director, responded yes and indicated other facilities that aze doing this. Commissioner Hadley asked if there would be a separate building for this structure. Lovelace indicated there would not be a separate building, just equipment enclosed by a fence. Steve Cazlson, real estate broker acting as agent for Voice Stream, presented an overview of Voice Stream's intenfions for use of the light pole. In regazd to some of the concerns mentioned above, he indicated that they will use. a chain link fence instead of barbed wire and the pavement will be bituminous. He also indicated that the platform would be built of steel, about 1-1/2 feet off the ground to prevent water damage, and urility cabinets on top of the platform. The antenna itself will be a stealth/streamline design. There was some discussion over the height of the exisfing light pole. Chair Edgeton requested that the exact height be available for the next meeting. Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Dan Boornhauer, a nearby resident of Hagemeister Park, voiced his concerns over the installation of the cell tower. He stated there have been good developments and improvements in the Park over the yeazs and that the installation of the cell tower is contrary and anon-conforming use of the pazk. He also feels the City should not have private parfies using the park for profit. He is strongly opposed to this. Greg Micholic, another resident, voiced his comments and concerns. He feels that this is an eyesore to the Pazk, and why not have the cell tower located some where else other than the Park. He is concerned about safety issues, i.e., what about children climbing the fence and retrieving their balls. He also would like to know what is the City profiting from this deal. He is not in favor of this proposal and feels strongly that the City can find a better place. Commissioner Bergman also questioned the monetary value to the City and whether it goes back into the Park. William Hager, who resides across the street from the Pazk, is not in favor of the cell tower and opposes the development of it. Kathy Fuller, a nearby resident, is concerned about electromagnetic pollution, especially for children. She is also concerned that the tower might expand into more uses. Dan Christopher, who resides near the Park, stated that he has some of the same concerns as other people who have spoken. In addifion, he is also concerned about the City adding more height to the existing structure. He proposes that the City look at other options regarding the location of the tower, other than the Park. Edgeton would like to know if other parks in the metro azea aze doing this. Commissioner Melander would like to verify location of the tower in regards to the hockey azena and the baseball fields. He wants to know if there is a better locafion in the park farther away from these types of activities. City Planner Lovelace stated that this area in the Park was picked because of the existing light pole and the height of the pole. Edgeton referred to a memo from Randy Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation, stating that the Park Board unanimously approved this project. She requested that Johnson be present at the next meefing to further elaborate on it. Edgeton closed the hearing with the standard remarks B. The Legacy of Apple Valley -Comprehensive Plan Amendment (C to Mix), Rezoning (GB-1 and P to PD), Preliminary Plat (Nine Lots, One Outlot), and Site Plan Review/Building Permit Authorization for One 132 Unit Senior Apartment Building, One 299-Unit Apartment Building 100 Multiple- Family Residential Townhouse Units, and Neighborhood Commercial and Restaurant Buildings. (Continued Until EAW Action) 6. A. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS Setback Variance for Sport Court and Retaining Wall Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the variance request as outlined in the staff report. Vince and Debbie Terlizzi request variances for a basketball court and retaining wall that are located closer than five feet (5') from the rear property line. The basketball court is located 2.5 feet from the property line and the boulder retaining wall is on the property line of the Terlizzi's and the Bestuls. hi August 2000, the Terlizzi's obtained a permit to install a pool, and in conjunction with the pool installation, they had retaining walls constructed. Unfortunately, they were not aware that they needed a Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMP) due to the extensive grading required for boulder walls and terracing. hi Summer 2001, City staff became aware of this and informed the Terlizzi's that they needed an NRMP. Bodmer reported that the Planning staff are recommending the denial of the variance request for reduced rear Yazd setback for the basketball court because it does not meet the strict interpretation of the zoning code and does not meet the hardship test. However, staff are recommending approval of a variance for a reduced setback for the boulder retaining wall from the required five feet to zero feet based upon the hardship created by the steep slope of the rear year with certain conditions being met, as outlined in her project summary report. The Terlizzi's have previously cut the boulders to decrease their size, and they are also proposing installing another drain file to help with the water swell. Lots in the immediate area of the Terlizzi's drain into a Swale on the Bestul's property. Members of the Commission had several concerns. Commissioner Churchill wanted to know if water runoff was the biggest concern for the Bestuls and whether or not the additional drain the help with this problem. Commissioner Schindler stated that he is not opposed to pull the sport court back to five feet, and he does not feel that a hardship is met due to the location of the sport court and that it should meet the 5 feet requirement. He was not in agreement with the boulders being cut down due to the dangerous sharp edges and the appearance of the boulders to the Bestuls. Commissioner Melander stated that he actually visited the property and that it does negatively impact the neighbors. He also noted the fence is only a yeaz old and is already leaning. Commissioner Schindler asked why the boulders were cut. Kathy reported that they were cut so as to not encroach on the neighbor's property. She also stated there is some dispute as to exactly where the property line is. Chair Edgeton wanted to know why, after receiving two letters from the City, did the Terlizzi's not respond to the request for an NRMP. At this point, Ms. Terlizzi's attorney, Richard Thomas spoke. Thomas gave an overview of the history of the project and stated that the Terlizzi's acted in good faith while undertaking this project. They did not have any indication that an NRMP was needed and he actually advised them not to respond to the request for an NRMP from the City. He also stated there was consensus among the neighbors the entire fime the project was undertaken and now the neighbors are reneging on the deal (equitable estoppel). He feels that the slope and the drainage issue make the area a hardship and that cutting back the basketball court 2-1/2 feet would meet the setback requirement but would not give the Bestul's any additonal space. Ms. Terlizzi then spoke on behalf of the project. She indicated they would have done things differently if they had known better, they operated in good faith, and their intent was not to create a dispute between neighbors. Edgeton requested City Attorney Shazon Hills address some of the above issues. Hills reported the whole issue for the City is the variance in regards to if there a hazdship of the land and is there no other reasonable use of the land. All other issues remain a civil matter and can be pursued through civil court if the Terlizzis and/or Bestuls find it necessary to pursue. Edgeton asked to heaz from Rhonda and Doug Bestsul. The Bestuls explained the problems they are having with the property. One is the visual appearance of the boulders and the safety of the boulders after they were cut, resulting in sharp edges. Another is the fact that the setback requirement was not met resulting in the fence and boulders being on their property line. And a third issue is the drainage of the water. Members of the Commission listened to the Bestuls' concerns and after discussion of some possible options, they decided to delay any action and directed the Terlizzis and Bestuls sit down and work out some possible solufions they can bring before the Commission at their next meeting. MOTION: Churchill moved to defer on this agenda item for 2 weeks to see if the Terlizzis and Bestuls can work out an agreement. Bergman seconded. The motion passed 5-1. B. Site Plan/Building Pernut Authorization for Maintenance Building Assistant Planner Bodmer presented the site plan review/building permit authorization for Chateau Communities to remove an existing building that houses landscape and grounds maintenance vehicles and equipment, and build a new 46' X 40' maintenance building. The building meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with other buildings in development. MOTION: Hadley moved to recommend approval of the site plan and give building permit authorization to construct a 46' X 40' maintenance building at 12571 Garland Avenue conditioned upon the exterior of the office/storm shelter building. Bergman seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESSADJOURNMENT 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Schindler moved, seconded by Hadley, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0.