Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2004CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 21, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Comrission meeting was called to Order by Chair Karen Edgeton at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, James Hadley, Tom Melander, Tim Burke; and David Schindler Members Absent: Jeannine Churchill and Alan Duff Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Attorney Sharon Hills, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner Margaret Dykes, and Assistant City Engineer Jacob Fick. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the Agenda. The motion tamed 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2004 Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Schindler, to approve the minutes of January 7, 2004. The motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Burke abstaining. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Cedar Knolls 2"d Addition -Proposed Subdivision of .76 Acres into 2 Single Family Residential Lots and Variance for Front Yard Building Setback Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer informed the Commission that after the applicant submitted this request to the City, it was discovered that the subject property is connected to adjoining property, therefore, additional property owners must be notified of the public hearing. Bodmer recommended delaying discussion of this proposal until a new public hearing notice can be mailed out. Community Development Director Rick Kelley recommended reviewing this Agenda item tonight, opening the public hearing for those who are in attendance, and continuing the hearing until a new hearing can be scheduled. The Commission concurred. Bodmer presented the request from Independent Residential Construction Services for a subdivision by preliminary plat to create two lots for single family development and front yard setback variances to construct the homes 20 feet from the front property line. The property is currently zoned "R-3" (single family residential, minimum lot size 11,000 sq. ft.). Bodmer reported the parcel. is just over 33,000 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to create one lot with an area of 16,800 sq. ft. and a second lot of 16,300 sq. ft. The elevation of the site extends from 996 feet at 130th Street up to 1,050 feet at the top of the hill, resulting in a 54 foot tall hill. A 6.5 foot retaining wall on Lot 1 and a 20 foot tall retaining wall on Lot 2 would be necessary for construction of the homes, which may result in more site disturbance than what is shown on the plans. Bodmer indicated that developments must show "due regard" for the natural features on the site. In addition, the subdivision ordinance states that any disturbance of a hill with a slope of greater than 12% must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering department. The Assistant Engineer estimates the slope of the hill to be 45%. The plans show the location of the house pad of Lot 2 at 20 feet from the front property line. The applicant states that 130th Street has additional right-of--way which results in a lazger boulevard area. The boulevard is 10 feet wider than is typical for a local street. The applicant wishes to move the house pad 10 feet closer to the street, resulting in the home being placed 10 feet from the front property line which reduces the height of the retaining wall in the rear yard. This would place the home 33 feet from the back of the curb, giving the appearance the home is placed at a 20 foot front yard setback. Commissioner Melander asked why the street was wider than normal and whether it indicates that the County might have future plans for the street. Community Development Director Rick Kelley responded that 130th Street was wider to provide a frontage road. Assistant City Engineer Jacob Fick stated the County has no plan to widen the road further. Commissioner Hadley asked if the City would require fencing on top of the retaining wall due to the height. City Engineer Fick stated that the City reviews fencing requirements for retaining walls on a case-by-case basis. Fick stated the City does not require fencing and can only recommend it. City Attorney Sharon Hills will check and see if a fence can be required as a condition of subdivision approval. The applicant Craig Wagenlrnetch, representing Independent Residential Constmction Services, stated that if a variance is granted, he could reduce the height of the retaining wall by 4 feet. In addition, if a split level home were built on the property, the retaining wall could be reduced another 5 feet. Wagenknetch explained how the 2 retaining wall would be anchored from the front so that additional site disturbance would not be needed. Bodmer stated that a previous request for subdivision by preliminary plat on the subject property was presented before the Planning Commission in 1999 along with a request for rezoning. The Commission would like Bodmer to present the results from the last request. Commissioner Melander commented that it seems like the developer is wrestling with the land in developing the lots. Commissioner Schindler stated that he had friends that previously resided across the street from the subject property and is very familiar with the area. He stated that due to the curve in the road, there have been several accidents and, therefore, he is concerned about moving the proposed homes closer to the street. The Commission also questioned whether the driveway on Lot 2 is located in the best place on the property. City Engineer Fick stated that after reviewing the plans, he feels the driveway location is the best place on the property. Chair Edgeton commented that she is comfortable with the project if it meets the zoning requirements. Her only concern is the issue of the front yard setback and if the project shows due regard for the land. Chair Edgeton asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission and if so, they may do so at this time. John Kallaus, residing at 7360 130' Street West, stated that in his opinion, the proposed plan is the best out of the three previous plans presented. Kallus stated that the previous plans were approved by the Planning Commission but denied by the City Council. Chair Edgeton requested staff clarify how many previous plans have been presented on the subject property. Kallus also stated he has concerns about the cars traveling southbound on Germane. Chair Edgeton requested staff to have the City's Traffic Engineer perform traffic counts and the Police Department provide accident reports. Eva Nagel, residing at 7395 130a' Street West, expressed concerns about the location of the driveway. Nagel stated that this is a busy street due to drivers cutting through as an alternate/shortcut route to Galaxie Avenue. She is aware of the accidents that have occurred as a result and stated that she does not allow her children to play in the area. In response to Nagel's comments, the applicant asked if it would be possible for the City to install a 3-way stop sign. Chair Edgeton informed the applicant that the State controls traffic signs. Stan Sobocinski, 12989 Garvinbrook Lane, stated that he is concerned about the speed of traffic and water run-off from the retaining walls. He questioned how a 20 ft. retaining wall is large enough to construct the homes. City Engineer Fick stated that a 20 ft. high retaining wall is adequate. Eric Lee, 12975 Garrett Avenue, was also concerned about the traffic and retaining wall. He stated that vehicles approach the curve in the road at a high speed. He also commented that the present drainage system is not adequate to hold the storm water. Lee is hopeful that the developer of the homes constructs attractive elevations on the north side of the property for aesthetic purposes. Chair Edgeton stated that the public hearing will be continued until a future meeting so that a corrected official notice can be mailed out by the City. MOTION: Schindler moved, seconded by Burke, to continue the public hearing until acon-ected official notice is published by the City. The motion carried 5-0. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. New Horizon Daycare Center -Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization To Allow for Construction of a 10,587 sq. ft. Commercial Building Assistant Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from Building Block Childcare, Inc., for site plan building permit authorization for a daycaze center to be located on the southeast corner of 140a' Street West and 1415` Street West. The applicant is also requesting a variance to reduce a driveway setback from the required 100 feet to 80 feet. Dykes reported the proposed plan shows a 10,587 sq. ft. one-story building to be used as a daycare facility. The building and pazking lot meet all of the required setbacks. The mechanical fixtures aze to be placed on the roof. The applicant must confirm that the mechanicals are adequately screened. The trash enclosure will be constructed of the same materials as the building. A painted gate is shown on the trash enclosure. Dykes informed the applicant that the gate must be amaintenance- freematerial or stained cedar and cannot be painted. Dykes reported that City code requires a daycare of this size to have 31 parking spaces. The applicant meets this requirement with 31 parking spaces. The plan shows a privacy fence constructed of white vinyl delineating various playground azeas on the site. A pedestrian connection is shown connecting the building to the bituminous path on 140a' Street West. Dykes informed the applicant a connection must also be made form the sidewalk on 1415` Street West to the building. The applicant stated they are unable to make a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk along Upper 141St Street West because of slope issues. The building is to be constructed of brick and stucco, which comply with City Code. Glazed the will be used as an architectural accent. The building has a cupola with a seamed metal roof. Chair Edgeton stated that she dislikes the building materials and color of the roof. Since the building is abutting a residential neighborhood, she would like to see something that would blend in with the neighborhood. Edgeton would like the applicant to develop a more desirable roof top plan. After reviewing the plan, the City Engineer has no outstanding issues other than the applicant must constmct an infiltration pond on the site. The Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed the plan and has no major outstanding issues. He has recommended that the spacing of some of the deciduous trees be revised. Dale Maher, representing the applicant, stated that he would like to scale back on the landscape plan. Maher calculated the landscape plan at 2.5% of the total project, when it is actually 2.5% of the cost of construction. The Commission recommended the applicant work with staff on this issue. The plan shows a driveway on the west side of the property that intersects with 141st Street West. The zoning code requires that driveways be setback 100 feet from the curb line intersection of a minor arterial. The driveway as shown on the plan is setback 80 feet. 140th Street West, which intersects with 141St Street West,. is classified as a B-Minor Arterial. However, the driveway aligns with the driveway that accesses East Valley Plaza, which would likely limit potential traffic conflicts. When East Valley Plaza was developed, it does not appear that the location of the driveway was an issue. Dykes stated that City policy dictates that driveways should align when possible and when they cannot, they should be offset at least 125 feet. The west property line of the proposed building is 220 feet long, which makes it impossible for the driveway to be offset from the East Valley driveway. Dykes stated that if the building did meet the required 100 feet setback, traffic circulation on the site would actually be more difficult. Because the parent would drop off their child at the front door, the setback makes the turning movement more difficult for cars exiting on the south end of the site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the variance reducing the setback of the location of the driveway is justified. Dykes reported that staff is recommending approval of the requested site plan building permit authorization and variance. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to approve site plan building authorization to allow for the construction of a 10,587 sq. ft. single- storyoffice building on Lot 1, Block 1, East Valley 3Ta Addition, as shown on the submitted revised plans dated January 9, 2004, subject to adhering to applicable city codes with the following conditions: a. There shall be a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk on the subject building. b. The grading plan shall be revised to comply with the comments in the City Engineer's memo dated January 16, 2004. c. The applicant must submit a revised rooftop plan for staff's review and comment. The motion carved 5-0. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to approve a variance to reduce the setback of a driveway located on the west side of the subject property from the required 100 feet to 80 feet from the curb line intersection of 140th Street West and 141St Street West so that the driveway aligns with the exiting driveway accessing East Valley Plaza due to the hardship created by the depth of the subject lot and the existing conditions of the East Valley Plaza property. The motion carried 5-0. B. Harmony Commons -Subdivision of 28.5 Acres for Future Commercial Development and Site PlanBuilding Permit Authorization Tabled at the request of the Petitioner. OTHER BUSINESS A. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Community Development Director Rick Kelley reminded the Commission about the joint informal meeting with the City Council scheduled for Januazy 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Center's Regent Conference Room. Agenda items to be presented include a presentation on Affordable Housing by the Dakota County Community Development Agency, a discussion on the Apple Valley Central Village Plan Design Guidelines, and a discussion of the "R-1"Residential Zoning District. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 p.m.