Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/2004CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2004 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: Jeannine Churchill, Jim Hadley, *Tim Burke, Tom Melander, Thomas Helgeson, Karen Edgeton, and *David Schindler *Commissioner Burke arrived at 7:01 p.m. and Commissioner Schindler arrived at 7:02 p.m. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, and Assistant City Engineer Colin Manson 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 Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 5-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 2004 Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for its. approval. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2004, meeting. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2005-09 Capital Improvements Program -Consider Adoption of 5-Year Capital Improvements Program as Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Charles Grawe, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented the 2005-09 Capital Improvements Program for the City of Apple Valley. Grawe gave a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted the key points of the CIP's intended use, process, and purpose. Grawe stated that the City prepares a 5-year CIP to establish an anticipated timeframe for physical improvement projects and major equipment acquisitions relative to the need for them and the fiscal capacity to pay for them. The CIP is prepared by the Department of City Administration in consultation with all other operating departments. The CIP document is a planning document intended to assist policy makers and staff to plan for major capital improvement, renewal, and replacement expenditures. The CIP does not bind the City to the anticipated expenditures in the projected years. It is also not a budget, nor authorization to expend funds. Final authorization of expenditures occurs through City Council action and in adoption of the annual budget. Grawe explained that the CIP facilitates two distinct planning purposes. First the CIP is a tool with which to implement the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and secondly, the CIP is a financial planning document. Grawe stated that the CIP document generally line itemizes outlays which exceed $50,000, but there are a few major exceptions. The CIP also is not intended to be all inclusive of every item categorized as a capital outlay in the annual budget nor is it intended to anticipate the sporadic purchases of very small tools or equipment. Chair Edgeton asked if anyone from the public had any comments regazding the CIP and if so, they may speak at this time. Joe Taylor, 385 Cimmazon Road, stated that he is concerned that the expenditures listed in the CIP will result in higher taxes. Taylor asked if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the CIP, does this mean that the money is spent automatically for these items. Chair Edgeton explained to Taylor that the Planning Commission reviews the document for planning purposes as it relates to the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the Planning Commission does not authorize expenditures. Grawe stated that the document is merely projecting the needs of the community. Some line items will actually occur, others will be moved back to a later date, some will disappear, and some might get pushed forward based on the needs of the community. In addition, some expenditures such as the Southwest Park Athletic Complex will probably be a voter referendum. Community Director Rick Kelly stated that the CIP is a document that is required by the Metro Planning Act. Kelly stated that the Planning Commission is in charge of reviewing the line items and making sure that the uses are not in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan but is not responsible for fiscal action. Fiscal action is the responsibility of the City Council through its adoption of an annual budget. In regards to raising taxes, Commissioner Churchill explained to Taylor that there is a need to recognize that Apple Valley is continuing to be developed and that the City has to make sure the infrastructure is in place to keep up with the growth. There will also be additional residents and businesses to accommodate the additional expenses. Commissioner Melander applauded Taylor for being a conscientious resident and questioning the expenditures of the CII' and its intended uses. Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing with the standard comments. Grawe stated that staff is recommending approval of the 2005-09 Capital Improvements Program. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the proposed 2005-09 Capital Improvements Program to the City Council. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Merillat NRMP Amendment -Consideration of an Amendment to a Natural Resources Permit (NRMP) to Allow Construction of a Single Family Home Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner, presented the request from Dennis Merillat for an amendment to an approved Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMP) to construct a single family home at 7270 130`h Street West (Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Knolls 2"a Addition). The proposed amendment would require additional grading of the hill behind the home and construction of a 12' retaining wall instead of tl!e approved 6.5' retaining wall. Bodmer reported that the lot is located on the corner of 130' Street West and Germane Avenue. The rear yard of the lot has a substantial hill that will require extensive grading and the construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a home on the lot.. Bodmer stated that this project was reviewed earlier this year and concerns were raised about how the homes could be constructed in a manner that would minimize impacts to the hill. The City approved front setback variances for both of the homes to push the homes forward on the lots in order to minimize grading on the site and reduce the height of the retaining walls. A Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMI') for this subdivision was approved in February 2004 for Cedar Knolls 2°a Addition. The subdivision ordinance requires that developers design their subdivisions in such a way as to "show due regard" for the natural features of the site. The approved NRMP was designed to minimize impacts to the hill. The City also required that all anchoring of the wall was to be done from the front of the wall and only a minimal amount of grading was permitted to take place behind the wall. The developer agreed to the conditions that were placed in the NRMP. The lot was sold to the petitioner who wishes to construct a home on the property. The proposed house has a front entryway feature that is five feet deep that pushes the house back five feet from the front of the lot. This would make the retaining wall 12' high at its tallest point rather than the approved 6.5' high. In addition, additional grading and site disturbance would be required to place the home and walls as indicated on the plans. Bodmer reported that the NRMP that was approved for Cedar Knolls 2id Addition showed how the site could be constructed in a way that would impact the existing hill as little as possible. The NRMP was an important consideration in the approval of the development. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the approved NRMP for the subdivision to accommodate his proposed home. The home is proposed to be 29' wider than the approved house pad. The City's Assistant Engineer, Colin Manson, has indicated that the builder needs to provide information that explains how the walls will be constructed so that any reinforcements are installed from the front of the wall. The applicant has not yet provided that information. The City's Public Works Director reviewed the proposed plan. The zoning code states that no retaining walls maybe constructed within a drainage and utility easement unless authorized by the City. If the City must remove a structure from an easement to do work within the easement, it is not required to reimburse homeowners to replace the structure. As a result, the City will typically not give permission to construct walls within the easement area. Bodmer reported that since the mailing of the plan to the Planning Commission, the applicant has modified the plans so that the 20'wide section of the wall that is 12' in height is now only 9 feet wide, the wall has been pushed back further, and is now outside of the drainage and utility easement. Bodmer stated that no information has been brought to staff's attention that necessitates the amendment, except that the home was not designed to fit within the constraints of the NRMP. Staff also anticipates that if the approved NRMP for Lot 1 is amended, the City should anticipate a similar request for Lot 2 Commissioner Churchill stated that when this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission earlier this year, a lot of neighbors voiced concerns about the location of the proposed homes on the lots and traffic issues. Churchill asked if the proposed request would make a big difference to the neighbors than what was originally approved. Bodmer stated that the biggest change is that there will be a taller section of retaining wall. It is also unclear as to how the wall will be constructed and reinforced from the front as stipulated in the approved NI2NII'. Chair Edgetoit asked if anything has changed that would necessitate this request. Bodmer stated that nothing has changed except the property owner desires a different house than what was approved. Commissioner Melander stated that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time on the original request earlier this year and feels that the applicant is asking for too much, particulazly since the Planning Commission struggled with approving the original request. The applicant, Dennis Merillat, stated that he was not aware of the in depth discussions the Planning Commission had when approving the previous request. Commissioner Melander informed Merillat that the realtor who sold him the lot should have disclosed that information Commissioner Helgeson asked about the history of past discussions in relation to the significance of the height of the wall. Bodmer stated that the taller the wall, long term maintenance is an issue the City will eventually face and there is also a concern about the stability of the hill. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he is not uncomfortable with the wall being built. Barry Eldenn, of Construction Project Services, stated that the wall will be made of panels that are 8' x 36" x 42", each weighing 5,600 lbs. Eldenn stated that the wall is stable enough to handle any slope. Eldenn informed the Commission that he doesn't see why requesting additional height on the wall would be not in conformance with the original plans. Commissioner Schindler stated that when reviewing the original proposal, he had trouble approving the project due to the traffic issues and the layout of the site. Schindler stated that he would have a hard time amending the NRMP based on the issues and concerns the Commission faced with the original approval. Chair Edgeton asked the applicant if he would like a vote from the Commission tonight or if he would like to table this until the next meeting and present revised plans that are more in conformance with the approved plans. The applicant decided to revise the plans and present them at the next Planning Commission meeting. B. Legacy Village North Townhomes -Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow Construction of 96 Townhouse Dwelling Units Tabled at the request of the petitioner. 7. OTHER BUSINESS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m.