Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/2004CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 19, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Cornmission meeting was called to Order by Vice Chair Jeannine Churchill Edgeton at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Jeannine Churchill, David Schindler, and Tom Melander Members Absent: Jim Hadley, Tim Burke, and Alan Duff Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, and Assistant City Engineer Jacob Fick. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. Community Development Director Kelly stated that the following Agenda items have been withdrawn: PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consideration of an Amendment to Planned Development 290, Zone 2, (PD-290, Zone 2), to Allow a Church as a Permitted Use 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS B. Hillcrest Acres 4`h Addition -Consideration to Subdivide Lot 7, Block 1, Hillcrest Acres, into Three (3) Commercial Lots and Site Plan/Buffding Permit Authorization to Allow Construction of Two (2) Multi-tenant Retail Buildings and a Restaurant Chair Edgeton called for approval of the Agenda as amended. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carved 4-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 5, 2004 Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes of May 5, 2004. The motion carved 4-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consideration of an Amendment to Planned Development 290, Zone 1 (PD-290, Zone 2), to Allow a Church as a Permitted Use Withdrawn by the Petitioner. B. Pool Ordinance Amendment -Consideration of an Amendment to the Zoning Code that Addresses Requirements for Swimming Pools and Landscape Ponds Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request for an amendment regulating swimming pools and swimming pool fencing. The two issues are first, what constitutes a swimming pool and second, when is fencing required to secure a pool. New trends in the construction ofportable above-ground swimming pools and the popularity of water landscape features have made it necessary for the City to evaluate and consider amending its existing requirements. Bodmer reported the City Code defines a swimming pool as follows: SWIMMING POOL. That which is built or constructed to contain water over 1.5 feet in depth or with a capacity of over 1,000 gallons. Staff reviewed other neighboring Cities swimming pool ordinance for comparison purposes. A copy was included in the packet to the Planning Commission. Apple Valley is more stringent with its ordinance than other neighboring cities. Another trend the City has been encountering is a growing interest in creating elaborate landscape designs that incorporate water features such as ponds and waterfalls. Some of these pond structures are created for fish, like a koi pond. In other cases, they are simply landscape features that incorporate planting materials and include waterfalls and water bodies. In still other cases, these landscape ponds can be dug out deep enough to become swimming ponds. On March 17, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the existing pool ordinance and offered comments regarding possible amendments. One of the issues brought forth from the Planning Commission was who is the ordinance really intended to protect. The City's Building Official provided information that injuries occur with children between 1-2 years of age living at home with an in-ground pool are at the highest risk of being involved in a submersion incident. The City Council reviewed the existing ordinance and concurred that amendments to the ordinance would be appropriate. Staff has drafted an ordinance that would amend the existing pool ordinance based on the following: 1. Define a swimming pool as a structure specifically intended for swimming, wading or recreational bathing. 2. Establish a definition for landscape ponds. 3. Increase the water depth when a structure is classified as a pool from eighteen inches (18") to twenty-four (24"). 4. Drop the provision stating "or over 1,000 gallons" and use a surface area measure and limit it to 75 square feet. 5. Reduce the minimum height of a protective fence from six feet (6') down to four feet (4'). Bodmer stated that in some cities, temporary above-ground pools and landscape ponds are not regulated at all. Chair Edgeton commented that she is surprised that cities aren't regulating this. She also stated that she does not consider the large inflatable pools as temporary because when most people put them up, they stay up for longer periods of time. In regards to landscape ponds, Bodmer reported that staff looked at two options. One was if the landscape pond meets the definition of a pool in terms of depth and area, then fencing would be required. The second option was to look at landscape ponds as a totally different type of amenity or structure and as long as it is not intended for swimming it could be regulated differently. Based upon previous comments received from the Commission, staff drafted an ordinance based on landscape ponds meeting the definition of a pool. Chair Edgeton stated that she foresees problems if landscape ponds are regulated the same as swimming pools. hi addition, Edgeton compared the landscape ponds to the City's stormwater ponds, which have no regulations. Edgeton asked why landscape ponds would require fencing and not the City's stormwater ponds, which tend to be much deeper. Bodmer stated that the definition in the ordinance specifically states "An artificial pond or other artificially created water basin intended to simulate a pond for decorative purposes and are not part of an engineered or natural stormwater drainage system." Commissioner Churchill stated that she would suggest a modification to the landscape pond definition to include "...not part of a City, County, or State engineered or natural storxnwater ...". Commissioner Churchill stated that residents could alter a small natural stormwater pond by simply adding a lining to it. City Attorney Hills agreed with Commissioner Churchill. Commissioner Churchill is concerned that the City does not become a party to a negligence lawsuit. Commissioner Churchill stated that she thinks landscape ponds are wonderful and that the City benefits from residents taking that much time to install them. Her concern, however, is that the City does not somehow become a party to a negligence lawsuit by implying that the City is "blessing" the structure if it is built to the specifications stated in the ordinance. Churchill would like the opporhmity to review the area around the landscape ponds, such as boulders, steep slopes, etc., and reserve the right to comment on areas that might create a danger. Chair Edgeton stated that it might be a good idea to deal with swimming pools at this time and review landscape ponds as a separate issue. She feels there are still a lot of issues to be worked out with regulating landscape ponds. Commissioner Schindler feels that any body of water meeting the requirements of the pool defmition should be treated the same. Schindler stated that if the requirements are for safety reasons, then they should be treated the same. Chair Edgeton disagrees and feels that landscape ponds need to be reviewed separately. Edgeton asked Schindler about stormwater ponds in relation to his comments. Schindler stated that stormwater ponds are different because they are there when you move into the residence and, therefore, you are aware of the safety issues; landscape ponds are something that are usually created after the fact. Commissioner Melander feels the City should separate the ordinance between pools and landscape ponds. He also feels that in regards to landscape ponds, the City should not try to regulate everything and that some responsibility should lie on the homeowner. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission directed staff and the City Attorney to separate the swimming pools from landscape ponds for their next meeting. Chair Edgeton asked if any one from the public would like to comment on this issue and if so, they may do so at this time. Marian Brown, 7754 142"a Street West, asked why the City would chose to regulate landscape ponds and not stormwater ponds, which can have more depth and be much more dangerous. Brown also wanted to know what is an "unclimable fence" and if pools that are used for bathing are included in the defmition. Mark Cimensky, 14625 Hallmark Drive, stated that he is in support of using the IRC code for swimming pools. Cimensky stated that pools are built for children, and landscape ponds are for adults. He stated that he has taught his children to respect the water. He feels the City should not regulate landscape ponds and that it should be taken out of the ordinance. Cimensky stated that parents should take responsibility for their children's safety. John Bergman, 14691 Guthrie Avenue, stated that he would like to see landscape ponds kept as a separate ordinance. He feels that landscape ponds and swimming pools are totally different. Bergman asked if the City is going to start regulating everything that could be potentially dangerous to a child, i.e., trampolines, swing sets, etc. Bergman also stated that there is no fence that is "unclimable" and that if children want to get into a yard, they will find a way. Bergman has a landscape pond that is within the City's present ordinance. He showed pictures of stormwater ponds around the City that appear to be landscape ponds (with decorative features), with some having over 5 feet of water, which are not fenced. Mike Eckstein, 13950 Gauntlet Court, asked if under the proposed definition, do both the 24 inches requirement and the 75 sq. ft. surface area requirement have to be met. Bodmer stated that both have to be met. Eckstein asked if the surface area requirement is necessary in the pool definition. 4 The Commission directed staff to look at the above-ground swimring pools that are on the market to get a better idea of the surface azea. The Commission would like to see the ordinances separated between swimming pools and landscape ponds separated and directed the City Attorney inform them of potential liability in regazds to regulating landscape ponds versus a lack of regulation. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Hillcrest Acres 3rd Addition -Consideration of a Zoning Amendment to Allow Class II Restaurant Drive-thru Facilities in aMulti-tenant Building, Consolidation of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Hillcrest Acres, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow Construction of a 10,207 sq. ft. Retail Building City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the request from New World Enterprises, Ltd., for an amendment to Section A25-2(C) (6) of "PD-679" (Planned Development) zoning ordinance to allow for drive-through facilities in conjunction with a Class II restaurant within amulti-tenant building subject to the restrictions that no more than two drive-through restaurants will be allowed, and the orientation and screening of the drive-through will be approved by the City Council. Also requested is the approval of the consolidation of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, of Hillcrest Acres into one lot, and construction of a 10,207 sq. ft. retail building and 89 surface parking spaces on a 2.64 acre site. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on May 5, 2004, at which time several concerns were brought forth with the site layout and traffic issues. The applicant has made several revisions to the site and had addressed these issues. The City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the revised plans and has indicated a couple of minor revisions that still need to be made. Lovelace has included these in his recommendation to the Commission. Other outstanding issues are the approval of the zoning amendment to allow the drive-up window in a multi-tenant building will be required before the City will consider approval of the site plan building permit authorization request. Commissioner Churchill stated that we should add the restriction that "no more than one drive-through restaurant per lot" within Zone 3 be allowed. The building and pazking lot will be constructed across Lots 3 and 4. Lovelace stated the consolidation of these lots is subject to issuance of a building permit. Drainage and utility easements exist along the perimeter of Lots 3 and 4. The applicant must make application for vacation of those easements prior to building permit issuance. The parking requirement of 58 spaces has been met. The applicant is proposing 89 surface pazking spaces. Four handicapped spaces are also shown on the plan. Mechanical systems still need to be identified and screened according to City code. Revisions to the landscape plan per the Natural Resource's Coordinator's comments will need to be implemented. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the amendment to the Planned Development Ordinance No. 679, Zone 3, to allow drive-through facilifies in conjunction with Class II restaurants within a multi-tenant building, subject to the restrictions that no more than two drive-through facilities will be allowed within the zoning district, and no more than one drive- through facility will be allowed per lot and the orientation and screening of the drive- through will be approved by the City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the consolidation of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, of HILLCREST ACRES ADDITION, into one lot subject to the vacation of the existing perimeter easements and establishment of new perimeter easements over the new lot. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 10,207 sq. ft. retail building on Lot 1, Block 1, HILLCREST ACRES THIRD ADDITION, subject to the following: • The driveway shall be widened from 32 ft. to 36 ft. • The sidewalk in the rear of the building shall be widened by five feet (5') at the northwest corner and "One Way Do Not Enter" signs shall be installed at that corner. • No signage shall be allowed on the trash enclosure. • All sidewalks shall be concrete. • Revisions to the landscape plans should be made per the Natural Resources Coordinator's comments. • No building permit shall be issued until the final plat has been approved by the City Council and recorded by Dakota County. • All signage shall be in compliance with the City's menu ordinance. • Removal of the. fence around the fire hydrant. B. Hillcrest Acres 4th Addition -Consideration to Subdivide Lot 7, Block 1, Hillcrest Acres, into Three (3) Commercial Lots and Site Plan/Building Pernrit Authorization to Allow Construction of Two (2) Multi-Tenant Retaff Buildings and a Restaurant Withdrawn by the Petitioner. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Scholtes Property Sketch Plan Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented a sketch plan review from Miles Development for a proposed 6-lot development of approximately 5 acres from Miles Development for the Scholtes property located at 13995 Diamond Path. The applicant will be requesting a rezoning from "A" (Agriculture) to "R-3" (Single family, minimum lot 11,000 sq. ft.) and subdivision by preliminary plat to create 6 lots for single family development. Bodmer reported the Scholtes property is located on the northwest corner of Diamond Path and 140th Street. The petitioner wishes to development the property by extending the stub street on the west side of the site, Duluth Drive, and terminating it in the cul-de-sac. Chair Edgeton asked if the existing driveway that leads to 140th Street will go away with the proposed development. Bodmer stated it will. Bodmer reviewed some of the issues that will need to be addressed as part of the development. The northern part of the site appears to be a wetland. Apre-treatment pond or similar overland treatment/filtration system maybe required to pre-treat storm water entering into the wetland which will have to be reviewed by Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. The cul-de-sac needs to be modified to meet the City's tear-drop design standard. The applicant would be required to provide a tree inventory that identifies all significant trees, and it will be necessary to replace all removed significant trees in accordance with the City's Natural Resources Management Ordinance. Commissioner Churchill noticed that the site slopes to the north to a pond and Commissioner Melander pointed out that the property is hilly. Bodmer stated that the site would have to be graded. Bodmer reported that a bituminous trail can now be constructed on the north side of 140th Street West The applicant, Mark Gergan, with Miles Development, was present to address any questions or concerns from the Commission. The Commission had none. The Commission stated they are supportive of the proposed project and would like to see the developer proceed. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m.