Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2003CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2003 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, James Hadley, Tom Melander, Alan Duff, Jeannine Churchill, David Schindler, and Tim Burke Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, City Planner Tom Lovelace, 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: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 7-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2003 Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes of November 5, 2003. The motion carried 6-0, with Commissioner Burke abstaining. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. I)ahle Oaks Rezoning from `B-1" (Single-family whninimum lot 40,000 sq. ft.) to "R-2" (Single family w/minimum lot 18,000 sq. ft.) and Subdivision of 5 Acres into 8Single-Family Residential Lots Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request by Dahle Bros. for a rezoning from "R-1" (single family residential, 40,000 sq. ft. min. lot) to "R-2" (single family residential, 18,000 sq. ft. min. lot) and subdivision by preliminary plat of Dahle Oaks development, an eight (8) lot single family development. The property is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as Rural Estate Residential. Rural Estate Residential is identified as a parcel that is a minimum of 5 acres or more in area and contains a single family detached residential home. Bodmer reported that many of these parcels have the potential to be developed to amore intensive use and aze categorized as "underdeveloped." Commissioner Melander asked if the land were developed within its R-1 capacity with 5 houses on the property, would it still be considered underdeveloped. Bodmer reported the proposed development is located on the 4.7 acre Miller pazcel on the east side of Galaxie Avenue immediately south of the Minnesota Zoological Gardens property, 12810 Galaxie Avenue. In Apri12003, the applicant requested a rezoning of the property from "R-1" to "M-2" to allow construction of fifteen (15) townhomes. The City Council denied the request on April 10, 2003. The applicant now proposes to construct eight (8) single family homes on the property, resulting in a density of 1.7 units per acre. Several members requested staff prepaze a layout of the site with 5 houses versus 8 houses to determine the impact of the trees that would be saved. Bodmer reported the rezoning from "R-1" to R-2" is needed to create the requested eight lots. Without the rezoning, the property could still be subdivided to create approximately five (5) single family lots. The Comprehensive Plan guides the development of the property for Low Density development at 0-6 units per acre. The site plan shows the lots on the proposed eight single family homes ranging from 18,000 sq. ft. to 33,000 sq. ft. with an average lot size of 25,610 sq. ft. The City must determine if the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, neighboring land uses, and goals of the community. "Due regard" must also be shown for the natural features on the site. The setback for single family homes from local access is 30' from the front property line. Bodmer reported the City's Natural Resources Coordinator has indicated that in some cases, a reduced front yazd setback may help to preserve additional trees in the development. A wetland delineation report was submitted which identifies the location, type, and size of the two wetlands on the property. The proposed development would have 26.8% impervious surface area, resulting in 73.2% greenspace. The tree plan indicated that 168 trees or 2,503 inches (48.3%) of significant trees are proposed to be removed. The City's goal is to try to preserve 50% of the significant trees on a wooded site. With this plan, 173 trees, or 2,635 inches (50.8%) of the significant trees would be saved. The developer will also take extra measures to try and save an additional 3 trees that are within the grading limits identified as "custom trees", which would bring the percent saved to 51.7%. The northeast corner of the property contains a portion of Pond 213-P, which is a Department of Natural Resources protected water body. The water quality of the pond has been an on-going issue for the City. The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) recommends that a 30' natural vegetative buffer be maintained between the buildings and wetland. The applicant indicated that currently 2.0 acres of the site drains directly into Pond 213-P. Under the proposed development, 1.4 acres would drain directly into the wetland. The Commission requested the City Engineer verify the accuracy of less drainage into the wetland. Commissioner Churchill asked if anything has changed since Dahle Bros. made their last request for rezoning and subdivision. Churchill stated she felt the City Council voiced their opinion about the land staying zoned as R-1. Bodmer stated that nothing has changed since the last request. Chair Edgeton stated that she liked the last proposal for townhouses that was presented by Dahle Bros. She felt the City would have more control over the land in the future with multi-family housing versus single-family housing. Edgeton would also like staff to determine if the site was developed into single-family, is there any ability for the City to control what happens to the land in the future, i.e., setting up an association, making the site a conservafion area, etc. Edgeton would also like to know if the Nordic Woods development has an association. Chuck Ryan, representing Dahle Bros., addressed the Commission. Ryan listed the size of the lots in the existing Nordic Woods neighborhood and the average size of the 8 lots he is proposing to develop. These numbers included the area of Pond 213-P on the lot. The Commission requested getting the average size without the area of the water included. Ryan also showed a diagram of the trees that would be saved on the site. Ryan indicated that silt fencing would be used during development. Commissioner Melander indicated that the silt fencing he has seen does not do an adequate job of preventing erosion. Melander asked if there have been any advances in silt fencing. Edgeton requested Ken Ardnt, with Pioneer Engineering and representing the applicant, bring a sample of the silt fencing proposed to be used. 3 Commissioner Schindler asked if it is a requirement that the public road to be constructed on the site have a cul-de-sac that connects in the future and could the road be designed to saee more trees. Commissioner Hadley asked if a "hammerhead" had been considered for the site. Assistant City Engineer Jacob Fick stated that this option has been looked into but is not viable for this site. Bodmer explained that the City encourages future connections between neighborhoods when developing a new road. Commissioner Schindler stated that five houses versus eight houses is, in his opinion, not a significant impact and therefore, he cannot justify rezoning the area to allow three additional homes. Commissioner Hadley requested staff show how much R-1 has been lost in the last 5-10 years to rezoning and how much R-1 property is left in the City. Commissioner Melander stated that if the azea were rezoned to "R-2" and the developer does not develop the site, some other developer could come in and maximize the azea and develop more houses than the eight being presented tonight. He also feels the City is encouraging density and is not addressing the needs of people who want larger lots such as R-1. Melander feels R-1 is a part of the history of Apple Valley and would like to see it remain. Chair Edgeton asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission. Mazk Allen, 12765 Foliage Avenue, stated that he thought it was clear that the City Council wanted the site to remain R-1 and is surprised to see another proposal to develop the site being presented tonight. He feels the area is one of the few natural, wooded sites left in the City and should remain that way. Chair Edgeton asked Allen what he sees as the difference in developing 5 homes on the lot versus 8 homes. Allen stated that with 5 homes, more trees would be saved. Loran Cnuman, 12775 Foliage Avenue, summarized the letter he previously sent to the Commission that was included in their packet. He indicated that the City Council made it cleax they wanted the site to remain R-1. He feels the pond would be damaged by the silt fencing and that the City needs to keep R-1 zoning as balance and to provide different types of zoning. Linda Melena, 12845 Foliage,- stated that she likes the natural forested area that is currently there and would hate to see it changed. She feels it would be terrible to cram eight houses on the site. Linda Troester, 12825 Foliage Avenue, stated that her property has trees and indicated that she has not cut any of them down since she purchased the property. She is concerned that with the layout of the cul-de-sac would result in many trees being cut down. Marianne Neitzel, 12842 Galaxie Avenue, stated she likes the trees in the area. Neitzel also indicated that she liked the previous proposal from Dahle Bros. for multi-family townhouse development. She liked the fact that with the townhouses, future owners would have less leverage for cutting down additional trees and the buildings themselves would be less intrusive. Neitzel does not see a significant difference in developing five versus eight homes on the site. She feels Dahle Bros. is a quality contractor who would be sensitive to the natural forested azea. Margaret Miniger, of 13125 Heritage Way, stated that she is concerned with projects the City has approved in the past and particulazly the Palomino Hills project. She asked if the City looks at the financial impact of the site, such as additional taxes, when deciding whether to approve or not approve a project. She feels the Planning Commission and City Council have not had the best interest of the residents of Apple Valley and have made decisions based on finances and other factors. Chair Edgeton explained to Miniger that the Planning Commission does not consider the fiscal impact of a project when deciding whether to approve or deny the project. Edgeton also stated that the final decision is made by the City Council based on information provided by City staff, the Planning Commission and the residents of Apple Valley, based on what is the highest and best use of the land. Brian Belbat, does not live in Apple Valley but stated that he has watched the growth of Apple Valley and would like to see some of the City remain rural. In regards to the comment made eazlier about the Council denying the previous request from Dahle Bros. for mulfi-family housing, Ryan stated that he wanted to point out that the City Council denied the zoning request for "M-2" zoning, not "R-2" zoning which is the present request. The Commission directed staff work on the issues brought forth from the public and the Commission and report back. Chair Edgeton also informed the public that they may contact the Planning Department directly with any additional comments or concerns. Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing with the standazd remarks. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Central Village Small Area Plan Regulations City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the `Apple Valley Central Pillage Plan ", planned development ordinance and sign regulations for the proposed rezoning request of the Central Village, a 54-acre site generally located at the intersection of Galaxie Avenue and 153'a Street West. This azea represents the last section of vacant property adjacent to the City's downtown ring route, an azea bounded by 153' Street West on the south, Galaxie Avenue on the east, 147`h Street West on the north and Pennock Avenue on the west. The design incorporates new urbanism and pedestrian friendly concepts. Lovelace reported the first item is the Apple Valley Central Village Plan ". The Plan provides "a coherent framework for the completion of downtown development in Apple Valley, which will guide future private sector acfions in the subject properties around the intersection of Galaxie Avenue and 153`a Street". It contains guidelines, controls and recommendations for development within the Central Village. The second item is the planned development ordinance, which essentially creates two zones in the 54-acre site. Zone 1 is intended for multiple family residential developments and Zone 2 is for commercial and residential development within mixed-use buildings. Permitted, wnditional, and accessory uses aze identified for each zone, as well as area requirements and performance standards for the zoning district as set forth in the ordinance and `Apple Valley Central Village Plan ", which is referenced in the planned development ordinance. The last document included in the Commission's packet is the sign regulations for the planned development zoning district, which idenfifies types and design standards for signage in the Central Village. Several members of the Commission stated that there aze several typographical errors and inconsistencies throughout the Plan that staffmust correct. It is also unclear throughout the Plan what is a guideline, recommendation, or control. Chair Edgeton suggested that perhaps the document should state in each section whether the suggested action is a guideline, recommendation or a control. City Attorney Shazon Hills responded that the Plan should be left as is because the ordinance incorporates the Plan, controls the Plan, and gives it some flexibility. Commissioner Churchill stated that if a standard is a control, which is a required item, she feels the Plan needs to state it. Churchill would like the document to be cleaz so that when the Planning Commission and City Council are trying to enforce the Plan, they have concrete information to base it on. Lovelace suggested staff would continue to work on the Plan so that the standazds are more cleazly defined. Staff is recommending approval of this document. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Duff to approve the `Apple Valley Central Village Plan ", subject to the editing changes for consistencies and typographical errors and defining standards and guidelines. The. motion carried with a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Duff, to approve the rezoning of the Apple Valley Central Village and planned development ordinance with the recommended change with the design of parking structures. The motion carved 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Duff, to approve the Apple Valley Central Village Sign Regulations. The motion carried 7-0. B. Amendments to Planned Development No. 716 Assistant Planner Margaret Dykes presented the revisions to Planned Development Ordinance #716, which is the zoning district for The Legacy of Apple Valley, Legacy Square Addition, The Legacy of Apple Valley 2aa Addition, and The Legacy of Apple Valley 3'a Addition (hereafter referred to as "the Legacy"). The Legacy is a 24-acre development located southeast of the intersection of 153rd Street West and Galaxie Avenue. The City approved the plats for the Legacy so that the area could be used for an integrated mix ofhigh-density attached townhomes, high-density apartments, retail, restaurant, and limited business uses. Dykes reported the Legacy is part of the Central Village, which encompasses approximately 70 acres of undeveloped land bounded by County Road 42, 155th Street West, Garrett Avenue and Foliage Avenue. The City Council approved the Plan in May 2002, although at the time the design guidelines were not adopted. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 15th, 2003, for the planned development ordinance that will govern the portion of the Central Village that is outside of the Legacy. The draft planned development ordinance for the remainder of the Central Village are now complete and contained in the `Apple Valley Central Tillage Plan." During the public hearing, the Commission stated it wanted the design guidelines to apply to the Legacy development. Dykes noted that PD-716 was written and approved before the design guidelines were drafted. The amendment to PD-716 incorporates the design guidelines into the ordinance. On November 5, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for PD- 716. The Hartford Group, the developer of the Legacy, did not object to the inclusion of the design guidelines in PD-716 provided they were not retroactively enforced. The Commission agreed that the design guidelines would apply to those building that have not received site plan building permit authorization from the City. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Duff, to approve the amendments to Planned Development Ordinance #716 to require that uses within this district be consistent with the design guidelines in the "Apple Palley Central Village Plan". The motion carried with a vote of 7-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m.