Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2002CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to Order by Chair Kazen Edgeton at 7:03 p.m. Members Present:. Karen Edgeton, John Bergman, Tim Burke, Jeanne Churchill, James Hadley, and Tom Melander Members Absent: David Schindler Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, and Assistant City Engineer Jacob Fick 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. There being none, she call for its approval. MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda.. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2002 Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for their approval. MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the minutes. The motion carved 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. McDonalds Restaurant City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the request from McDonald's Corporation to demolish the existing McDonald's restaurant and replace it with a 6,476 sq. ft. restaurant on approximately 1.85 acres, located at the Northeast corner of County Road 42 frontage road and Granada Drive. Lovelace reported that in order to accommodate the new building, it will be necessary to create a lazger lot. The applicant is requesting the replatting of three lots within the Levine Subdivision (Lots 2, 3, and 5, Block 1) into two lots, eliminating lot 2; which is the location of the vacant Pizza Hut building, in order to acquire additional property for the construction of the new, larger restaurant. This would involve the acquisition of 110 feet of Lots 2 and 3. The Dakota County Plat Commission has indicated that such a replat would require the dedication of a minimum of an additiona120 feet right-of--way for County Road 42. Lovelace reported the applicant is proposing to demolish both the Pizza Hut and McDonald's as part of this project. Lovelace reported the City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and has not identified any significant grading issues. Since the land is relatively flat, minimal grading will be needed. Lovelace reported the site plan indicated 80 surface parking spaces.. The restaurant is expected to have 180 seats, which would meet the pazking requirements. However, there aze six (6) parking spaces located to the south of the restaurant that do not meet the minimum pazking setback and should be eliminated. Direct access to the site will be via the County Road 42 frontage road. Indirect access can be obtained via driveways located to the north in Lot 2 of the new subdivision. Indirect access will be from driveways to the north of the site along the 149`h Street alignment.. Lovelace stated that the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed and approved the traffic plans. However, members of the Commission had concerns about traffic, in particular travelling westbound on the frontage road trying to make a left turn on to County Road 42. Commissioner Edgeton feels this could be a major safety issue. Lovelace stated he would forward those concems over to the City's Traffic Engineer for fixrther review of the traffic concems. Lovelace reported the exterior finish of this single story restaurant will be a combination of EIFS and glazed brick, with neon piping as an accent material. The Commission is comfortable with the materials but reiterated its no painting of brick policy. Lovelace stated that the signage plan is not included with this site plan and building permit authorization request and that a separate application will be submitted for review and approval by the City. Members of the Commission expressed concerns that since the golden arches aze internally lit, they might be considered as signage, and if so, do they meet the City's sign ordinance requirements. Lovelace stated that his opinion of the arches are that they are part of the architectural features of the building and should not be considered as signage. The Commission requested staff to review the sign ordinance in relation to the intemally lit arches and make sure it is not part of the signage. Jerry Roper, representing McDonalds, introduced himself to the Commission. He indicated that if the arches were found to be part of the signage and do not meet the sign ordinance requirements, the project would have to be discontinued. Lovelace recommended approval of the project with the conditions outlined in his report to the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 6,476 sq. ft. single story building on Lot 1, Block 1, Levine Subdivision No. 2, subject to adhering to applicable city codes and to the following conditions: • No building permit shall be issued until the proposed Levine Subdivision No. 2 final plat has been approved by the City of Apple Valley and Dakota County. • The six (6) parking spaces located to the south of the building adjacent to the frontage road shall be eliminated. • Cross access parking easements shall be executed to allow for access to the McDonald's site via driveways from adjacent property to the north. • Demolition permits shall be obtained from the City's Building Department prior to any removal of the existing McDonald's and Pizza Hut restaurants. • No building permit shall be issued until submittal and approval of sign permits and a determination is made whether or not the illuminated arches aze pennissable under the sign regulations. • No painting of brick. • The City's Traffic Engineer shall review and determine the necessity of a driveway off of Granada Drive. The motion passed 6-0. B. Side Yard Setback Variance for Garage Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Mike Suihnann of 933 Oriole Drive, requesting a variance to construction a garage addition two feet (2') from the side property line. The setback requirement for the property is five feet (5'). Bodmer reported Suihnann wishes to constmct an approximately 1,200 sq. ft. addition onto his home that would include expanding the existing garage and adding a family room and laundry/mud room addition on to the back of his home. Because the home is situated at an angle rather than perpendiculaz to the side property line, the front of the garage is currently 8' from the side property line, while the back of the gazage is approximately 13' from it. Bodmer reported the proposed garage addition would add T to the side of the gazage and 24' to the back of it, effectively adding a 3`a stall onto the back of the garage. The existing garage is a 2- stall garage approximately 532 sq. ft. in size. With the proposed garage addition at 616 sq. ft., the total size of the garage area of the home would be 1,162 sq. ft. By setting the 7' addition back approximately 3' from the front plane of the garage, the addition would be located 2' from the property line, making the total area of the encroachment 36 sq. ft. Bodmer reported that in order for a variance to be granted, the City must determine that special conditions applying to the structures or land in question are particulaz to such property, or immediately adjoining property; the granting of the variance is not contrary to the intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan; and, the granting of the variance does not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hazdship or difficulty. The hardship stated by the owner is the placement of the home on the lot. Suilmann indicated that if the home were placed squazely on the lot, the addition would fit without variances. In addition, Suihnann states that the location of the neighbor's house is 13'6" from the side property line. The distance, plus the 2' requested setback result in a 15'6" space between each of the homes, which would be the minimum distance required if both of the homes were located at the minimum setback. Bodmer reported that the request to reduce the side yard setback to 2' if problematic. A ten foot easement is located along the reaz property line for overhead power lines, and in addition, cable, gas and similar small utilities maybe located there, making. it difficult for utility companies to access the easement. The State Building Codes also requires buildings that aze located 3' from the property line to be constmcted with aone-hour rated fire wall. Staffls position has been that no encroachment should be allowed closer than 3' from a side property line and that variances to encroach closer than 5' should be only in cases of a real hardship. Bodmer also stated that a two foot setback for the garage addition plus an 18" or 24" roof overhang would place the roofline nearly adjacent to the property line, thus having an impact on the neighboring property. Bodmer is recommending denial of the variance because it does not meet staff's strict interpretation of the zoning code and hardship test: However, if the Planning Commission grants the variance, it should state the reason for granting the variance. Bodmer also stated that if approval is recommended, the variance should be conditioned upon no roof overhang permitted and that a lot survey showing existing and proposed structures be provided to the City. Mike Suilmann, the applicant, introduced himself to the Commission and addressed some of the issues relating to his variance request. The Commission was very concerned about the encroachment into the setback area and the impact upon the neighbor's yard. The Commission offered Suihnann some alternative ways the addition could be done alleviating the need for a variance. Suihnann was not open to any of the ideas presented by the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Hadley, to approve the variance request as presented. The motion failed 0-5, effectively denying the variance. Chair Edgeton left the meeting at 8:21 p.m. and Commissioner Churchill chaired the duration of the meeting. C. Front Yard Setback Variance for Porch Addition Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Jeff and Kim Sims, of 12072 Gantry Lane, for a ten (10) foot variance to construct a wrap around porch twenty feet (20') from the front of the property line. The setback from the front property line is thirty feet (30'). Bodmer reported the lot is pie-shaped with the wide portion of the lot adjacent to Gantry Lane and the narrow triangle portion directly behind the home. The northeast corner of the house is located at the 30' setback line. As a result of the curvature of the lot, any extension onto the front and/or side of the home results in encroachment into the setback azea. Bodmer stated the Sims wish to replace the existing covered entry way with an expanded covered stoop measuring 6'4" which would encroach into the front setback azea approximately 3'. The roofline adjacent to the stoop would be extended approximately 5' to create a covered front porch azea. The porch would then wrap around to create atwo-part side porch consisting of an 18' x 14'8" open porch on the front side with a 13' x 16' screened-in porch behind it. Bodmer reported that in order to grant a variance, the City must determine that special conditions applying to the structures or land in question are particular to such property, or immediately adjoining property; the granting of the variance is not contrary to the intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan; and, the granting of the variance does not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The Sims stated that their home has had on-going water problems for the last ten years. Several corrections have been made to address the problem, but a vulnerable spot remains on the northwest corner of the house where an egress window is located. The Sims. state that creating a concrete patio and extending the roof overhand azound this comer will help to direct storm water run-off away from the house. Bodmer reported that the recently updated comprehensive plan states that one of the City's goals is to encourage improvements that "promote social interaction and neighborhood pride." Specifically,. the goal is to encourage innovafive design and architectural techniques that aze consistent with "new urbanist" design principals. One aspect of new urbanist design is to promote the construction of front porches to encourage social interaction and connection between the home and the street. Since most homes in Apple Valley are constructed at the 30' front yard setback line, the City has granted variances for front porches because they are consistent with this goal. The City's policy has been to allow only up to a 10' encroachment into the 30' front yard setback for construction of porches. The Sims variance request is consistent with previous variances granted for front porches. Bodmer reported that staff is recommending that the ten front yard variance to construct awrap-around porch be approved because the porch will help correct the home's water problems and is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. MOTION: Commissioner Bergman moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the ten foot front yard variance to construct awrap-around porch. The motion passed 5-0. D. Talcot Glen Site Plan/Buffding Permit Authorization for 4 Townhouse Units City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the request from Wensmann Homes, requesting site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of two 2-unit townhouse dwellings on a 5.46 acre site. Lovelace reported the site is located along the east side of Diamond Path approximately''/z mile north of 140a' Street West. Preliminary plans indicate that the proposed private street access location off Diamond Path does not meet the County's Access Spacing Guidelines and therefore a variance from those guidelines will be required. County staff has indicated that they will support the variance to consolidate the access with the existing Rosemount lift station. The site is part of the Evermoor addition, a 600 acre mixed use development located in both Apple Valley and Rosemount. Lovelace stated the project area was part of the preliminary plat for the Evennoor Addition but was never final platted. An application for final plat has been submitted to the City as part of this request and will be forwarded to the Apple Valley City Council for approval. Lovelace stated that no final building permit will be issued or building construction allowed prior to the recording of the final plat. The Talcot Glen final plat identifies five (5) lots and one (1) outlot. Lots 1-4 range in size from 7,409-8,073 sq. ft. and will be used for the construction of the two (2) twinhome residential buildings. Lot 5 will be used as common open space and will be the location of a 24-foot wide private street. The 3.4 acre Outlot A, which is located in the City of Rosemount, will remain as a natural open area. A large portion of the outlot is occupied by Birger Pond, a Department of Natural Resources protected water body. The necessary easements will be drafted that grant Rosemount access to the lib station. Plans have also been submitted to the Department of Natural Resources for their review and comments. Any approval should be subject to applicable revisions as per the DNR's comments. Revisions to the landscape plan should be made as per the comments from the Natural Resources Coordinator's comments. Lovelace reported he is recommending approval of this project with the conditions outlined in his report to the Commission. The applicant, Wensmann Homes, Inc., was not present at the meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Bergman, to recommend approval of the site plan building permit authorization for Talcot Glen, subject to adhering to applicable city codes and to the following conditions: • No building permit will be issued or building construction allowed prior to the recording of the final plat. • Outlot A shall be treated as a wetland buffer area and shall remain in a natural undisturbed state and signage shall be erected identifying the area as a wetland buffer. • The necessary easements shall be drafted that grant Rosemount access to the lift station located in L,ot 5 and no parking signs shall be erected along the lift station driveway. • On street parking shall be allowed on the east side (same side of the street as the units) and the developer shall. erect no parking signs on the west. side of the street. • "No Parking Emergency Vehicles Only" signs shall be erected in the emergency turnaround area. • Approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving a variance from the Dakota County Access Spacing Guidelines. • Approval shall be subject to applicable revisions as per the DNR's comments. The motion passed 5-0. 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Melander, to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m.