Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2003CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5, 2003 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, David Schindler, James Hadley, Jeannine Churchill, Tom Melander, and Alan Duff Members Absent: Tim Burke Staff Present: City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner Maggie Milton Dykes, and Assistant City Engineer Jacob Fick. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2003 Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Corxunissioner Melander had the following amendments to the minutes: Item 7.A Dahle Oaks Sketch Plan for 20 Unit Townhouse Development Add: "Conunissioner Melander stated that he is very concerned that the City address density and that all larger lots need not be slated to be subdivided." 2. Strike the sentence "Ryan indicated he has received favorable responses from neighbors in the area." Change it to read "Neighbors felt that change might be inevitable but it was their preference that the lots remain as is." MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 6-0. After approval of the minutes, Chair Edgeton welcomed the newly appointed Planning Commission member, Alan Duff. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Dahle Oaks Townhomes -Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization for 17 Unit Townhouse Development Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Dahle Bros. for rezoning from R-1 (single family residential, minimum lot size 40,000 sq. ft.) to M-2 (multiple family residential, with 3-5 units/acre);a subdivision by preliminary plat; and site plan review building permit authorization for the construction of 17 townhome units. Bodmer reported the proposed development is located at 12810 Galaxie Ave., which is a 5.4 parcel east Galaxie Avenue and immediately south of the Minnesota Zoological Gardens property. The applicant wishes to subdivide the property for to constmct the 17-townhome units in groupings of two and three units per building. The buildings would access a public road that would be constructed as part of this development. Bodmer reported the setback for townhomes from local streets is 35' from the right of way line, but the developer is requesting a variance to reduce the building setback to 20' from the right of way line in order to save trees in the development. Bodmer reported that it is unclear if a low area in the northwest corner of the site is a wetland or a pond. The petitioner will need to submit a delineation report to confirm whether a wetland exists. Ken Arndt, a forester with Pioneer Engineering representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and indicated that a delineation report could not be done until spring. Arndt's general feeling is that the low area is a wetland rather than a pond. During discussions of the previous two sketch plans, the Commission expressed concern regarding the removal of more than 50% of the trees. The tree plan indicates that only 38% of the trees would be saved. Jeff Keher, the City's Natural Resources Coordinator, addressed the Commission's concerns regarding the trees. A memo from Kehrer was included in the packet to the Commission. Arndt also mentioned that a growth regulator product is available to pre-treat tree roots that might be damaged by construction activities. Bodmer reported the northeast corner of the property contains a portion of Pond. 213-P, a DNR-protected water body. As requested by the Commission, staff received comments and recommendations from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Dakota County SWCD regarding issues raised with the pond and wetland. Copies of both letters were included in the packet to the Commission. Chuck Ryan, representing Dahle Bros., reviewed his proposed plan with the Commission. Chair Edgeton asked if there were any comments from the public. Listed below is a summary of those comments and issues. Also listed after the discussions from the public are follow-up items for staff and the developer to address based on these comments and directions from the Commission: Loren Gruman, of 12775 Foliage Ave., read a letter from Robert and Barbara Vega, of 12785 Foliage Ave., expressing that they are 100% opposed to rezoning the Miller property from R-1 to M-2. A copy of the letter was distributed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gruman also had a letter from himself and his wife Lucie Gruman addressed to the Commission stating that they are also totally opposed to the project. A copy of the Gruman's letter was distributed to the Commission. Mark Wilson, of 4845 Dominica Way, spoke about the economic feasibility of the project. Mary Neitzel, of 12814 Galaxie Ave., stated she was saddened to see the area developed, but was also saddened to see Nordic Woods developed. She does not feel the Millers are obligated to maintain beautiful parkland for the neighbors. She feels that if the project is sensitive to environmental issues, it could be a nice addition. Deborah Berg, of 12866 Galaxie Ave., stated she is not opposed to the project. She stated that neighbors speaking in opposition of the project are not representing her. Berg wasn't thrilled when Nordic Woods was developed but feels that change happens. She feels that the Miller's should be able to do what they want with their property. Throughout the discussion, several surrounding neighbors brought up the fact that the natural forested view will be ruined with the proposed development. Ms. Berg felt that it is not up to her to provide a view for neighbors. Ross Taylor, of 12896 Galaxie Ave., said he is opposed to the proposal. He stated that he resides two houses to the south of the subject property and that he and his wife Carol were denied a variance to subdivide their property several years ago. He is concerned about traffic on Galaxie and would like to see the area remain R-1 or single family residential. Tom Ryan, of 12805 Foliage Ave., stated he is opposed to the project. He feels the Commission should be looking at "why" a project such as this should take place rather than "how" a project like this should take place. He believes that this project doesn't benefit anyone other than the property owner and the developer. He stated he will be putting his house up for sale within the next couple of weeks. He was informed by his realtor that he has to disclose information regarding the proposed development to potential buyers and feels this has a negative impact on his property value. Chair Edgeton informed Ryan that it is the Commission's responsibility to look into any and all requests proposed. Kay McDonough, of 12801 Foliage Ave., is opposed to rezoning the property. McDonough would like to see a plan for housing without changing the zoning. She is also concerned about the silt fencing if the development were to take place. She is a realtor and sees bulldozers knock down silt fencing all the time. She encouraged the Commission to walk around on her property to get a better feel of the environment. Mark Allen, of 12765 Foliage Ave., stated he resides on Pond 213-P and thought the property would always be zoned R-1. He recently made a large investment in remodeling his existing home due to uniqueness of the area and the natural beauty. Steve Manning, of 12790 Foliage Ave., voiced his concern that growth is not always synonymous with progress. He feels the tree loss and quality of the pond would not be beneficial to the City. He stated the Commission should look at the issue of who benefits and who loses. Keith Gruman, who presently resides in Lakeville, does not want to see - the same thing happen to Apple Valley that happened to Burnsville. He stated he now drives through Bumsville and doesn't recognize it from the way it used to be. Jeff Meyers, of 12791 Foliage Ave., Feels the subject area is special and unique and is opposed to change. Listed below are a summary of issues staff and the developer are requested to follow-up: 4 Developer Provide information on the retaining wall. Prepare layout with R-1 sized lots. Provide cross-section views from homes on Foliage Avenue to the east the Neitzel's home to the south. Natural Resources Coordinator How many trees would be saved if single family lots were proposed for development? Growth regulator product for protecting tree roots -What is it and how does it work? Planner How will residents cross Galaxie Avenue to get to the existing park? hnplications on overall traffic. Current traffic counts. Explain silt fencing. How the rezoning process works and what it means. How it fits into comp plan. What are the parameters? Turn Lanes -how are they funded if they are necessary? Could the street be re-designed in some way to save more trees? Public vs. private street? Engineering What effect would fertilizers have going back into Pond 213-P? What would be drained vs. what would go back into the Pond? What is the elevation of the wetland to the building? Water quantity pre- and post-construction? Is low area classified as a wetland or pond? Delineation report to determine. Will it be disturbed by development? Chair Edgeton asked if there were any additional comments or questions the Commission wanted staff or the developer to address. The Compassion had none. Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing with the standard remarks and directed staff and the petitioner address the issues mentioned above for their next meeting. B. Accessory Unit Dwellings -Amendment to Zoning Code to Allow Accessory Unit Dwellings in Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. 5 Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner, presented the Drag Accessory Unit Dwelling Ordinance. Bodmer reported that on February 5, 2003, the Planning Commission directed staff to set a public hearing to consider an Accessory Unit Dwelling (AUD) ordinance. Bodmer reviewed some of the important provisions of the ordinance as listed in her written report to the Commission. The Commission had concerns about the two-person limit that could occupy an AUD. Commissioner Churchill felt that it would also be hazd to enforce. The Commission agreed to revise it to three people that may occupy an AUD and a maximum of two bedrooms. There was also discussions about limiting the size to 40% of the primary residence's floor area or 800 feet. The Commission and staff agreed to leave this language in because the requests will be done as a conditional use permit and would allow the Commission and staff the discretion. A discussion ensued about the garages for an AUD not being separate from the garages for the primary residence. Bodmer stated that staff added this as a way to make sure the primary home continues to appear as asingle-family dwelling. The Commission agreed with this principle, particularly since there is no limit on the width of the garage. Chair Edgeton asked if anyone from the public has any comments in regards to the proposed ordinance and if so, they may address the Commission at this time. No comments were received from the public. Bodmer reported that it is the policy of the Planning Commission not to take action on an item on the night of its public hearing. However, because the Planning Commission reviewed a working draft of the ordinance at two previous meetings and no comments were received from the public, staff is requesting approval of the draft ordinance if the Commission is comfortable with it. MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the draft ordinance permitting an Accessory Unit Dwelling in asingle family detached home as a conditional use after meeting certain performance standards. The motion passed 6-0. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Tuscany Apartments -Site PlanBuilding Permit Authorization Revision to Reduce Number of Units from 312 to 244 Margaret Milton Dykes, Assistant Planner, presented the request from The Hartford Group, Inc., for site plan review/buildingperrnit authorization to construct an apartment building in the Legacy of Apple Valley. This proposed building is a revision of a previously approved building plan. Dykes reported the revised site plan shows afour-story, 244 unit apartment building. The previously approved Tuscany Apartment building had been 312 units. Total building coverage is nearly 40%; total hardscape coverage is approximately 70%. Revised plans show the footprint of two future buildings, though these buildings are not part of the site plan review application for the Tuscany Apartment. The future building located in the southeast corner of the site plan is the proposed location of a Dakota County Community Development Agency supportive housing apartment building, which would contain either 30 or 36 units, depending on the needs of the County, and will be four stories high. The building in the northeast corner of the site may be a future two-story office building. A future office building will require an amendment to the planned development ordinance. Dykes reported the City's traffic consultant has reviewed the revised site plan and has some minor outstanding issues related to parking, which must be addressed by the applicant. The revised circulation plan has also been reviewed. There are no major issue related to traffic circulation other than widening the drive isle abutting parking spaces located near the entrance to the underground parking. Dykes reported that overall staff is comfortable with the number ofparking spaces proposed for the Tuscany and the future supportive housing apartment. It is still unclear how many parking spaces will be required for the future office building. She noted that parking requirements would limit how large the future office building can be and may prohibit the development of the northeast corner. Dykes reported that the Fire Marshal reviewed the plan and is concerned with the private drive access that intersects with Galaxie Avenue located on the south end of the site. He is concerned that if the median is constructed in Galaxie Avenue limiting access to both the Tuscany and Kingston Green driveways, the emergency vehicle response time will be slowed considerably. Dykes reported that because the south driveway is further away on the revised plan than on the previously approved plan, it may not be necessary to install a median in Galaxie Avenue. However, because the designs for improvements to Galaxie Avenue have not yet been completed, it was an issue that would need to be dealt with in the future. The City's crime prevention specialist has reviewed the site plan and has concerns about lighting. The applicant was requested to provide a lighting plan to assess whether the lighting is appropriate. Dykes recommended approval of the proposed revisions to the Tuscany Apartment building. 7 MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval of a site plan building permit authorization to construct afour-story 244-unit apartment building as shown on the submitted site plans dated February 24, 2003, subject to the following conditions: • The Tuscany apartment building shall be constructed on Lot 1, Block 1, The Legacy of Apple Valley final plat. • No building permit shall be issued until the final plat of The Legacy of Apple Valley is filed with Dakota County, and all the conditions of the executed Development Agreement have been met by the applicant. • The building permit shall be issued for the Tuscany building only. • No building permit shall be issued until a lighting plan has been submitted that addresses the concerns of the City's crime prevention specialist as discussed in the memo dated February 27, 2003. • The applicant shall submit revised grading, landscaping, and utility plans that address the concerns of the City staff and consultants as discussed in their memos attached to this report. • No building permit shall be issued until a Natural Resources Management Permit has been obtained. • No building permit shall be issued until the building(s) can be accessed by paved streets, either public or private. • Submission of a nursery bid list that confirms the landscape materials, imgation system and other common area amenities meet or exceed 2.5% of the value of the construction of the building based on Means Construction Data. The motion passed 6-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 10:16 p.m. The motion carried 6-0.