Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/2005CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 5, 2005 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 and Karen Edgeton Members Absent: David Schindler and Thomas Helgeson Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes 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 Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 5-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 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 Churchill, to approve the minutes of the December 15, 2004, meeting. The motion carved 5-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS A. Szambelan Front Yard Variance MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to approve the consent agenda. The motion tamed 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Betty Jo's Dance Studio -Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Facility (Dance Studio) in a "BP" (Business Park) Zoning District Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Tom Lovelace, City Planner, presented the request from Betty Jo and Steve Schmitt for a conditional use permit to operate a dance studio in a "BP" (Business Park) zoning district. Lovelace stated that the applicant is proposing to locate a dance studio in the two westerly bays of the building located on Lots 23-25, Block 1, KNOB RIDGE ADDITION. They expect to occupy 6,500 sq. ft. of the approximately 7,750 sq. ft. building. The dance studio is expecting an enrollment of 350 students the first year with a maximum of 550 students at capacity. A maximum of 60 students and 5 employees will occupy the facility at any one time. Most classes will be held during the evenings and on weekend. Construction of the proposed building will be in conformance with conditions set forth in the resolution approved by the City Council on January 23, 2003, for Lots 23-25, KNOB RIDGE ADDITION. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the architectural and landscape appearance building and site from what was originally approved. The City's Commercial Building Inspector determined that the dance studio will have a maximum occupancy of 112 persons, which would require that 37 parking spaces be provided (one space for every three occupants). The applicant has indicated that 60 students and 5 staff persons would occupy the studio at any one time, making the parking demand 22 spaces. Lovelace reported that most of the traffic generated. by the proposed dance studio would be during the evenings and on weekends, which would be off-peak times for other uses currently or anticipated in the business park. The plan indicates that the applicant proposes to remove an overhead garage door at the northwest comer of the building. Staff is recommending that the existing driveway in front of the proposed overhead door also be removed and replaced with non-surmountable curb and gutter and will include this as one of the conditions for approval. Parking lots and access drives in and around the proposed building are partially installed. Final construction of the 34 parking spaces to the north and 7 spaces to the east must be completed prior to occupancy of the dance theater. Chair Edgeton asked if the dance studio will occupy the entire building. Lovelace stated that the applicant will occupy 6,500 sq. ft. of the 7,750 sq. ft. building and that the remaining area will probably allow for one additional suite. Chair Edgeton is concerned about availability of parking for future tenants of the building. Edgeton stated that she would like to add staggering of parking as a condition for approval of the permit. The applicant indicated in a letter to the Commission that they will ".. . definitely attempt to stagger the starting and ending times of classes in the three rooms to alleviate congestion with dropping-off and picking -up students." When questioned by the Commission about potential parking and traffic conflicts, the applicant, Betty Jo Schmitt, stated that she could not guarantee that classes could be staggered in such a way to avoid conflicts with other tenants in the building and business park. Schmitt stated that she currently has a studio in Rosemount with over 500 students and 12 parking spaces and has not had any issues with parking. Edgeton asked Schmitt if parking can't be staggered, then why did her letter to the Commission state that she would attempt to do so. Commissioner Melander asked if there were any restrictive covenants for the property that would not allow another evening type business or similar commercial type facility to occupy the building to avoid potential traffic and pazking conflicts. Dan Lincoln, representing Manley Brothers, stated that he was not aware of any covenants. Lincoln stated that he doesn't anticipate any parking or traffic conflicts. Chair Edgeton asked Lincoln what would happen in regards to parking if a similaz evening type business occupies one of the suites or nearby buildings. Edgeton explained to the Lincoln and the applicant that the Commission has to look at long term implications when deciding whether or not to recommend approval of a project and not just the present request. Commissioner Churchill suggested staff develop a clause in the conditional use permit that states what measures would be taken if parking or traffic conflicts become an issue. Chair Edgeton asked if anyone from the public had any comments regarding this proposal and if so, they may speak at this time. No comments were received. Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing with the standazd comments. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item the same night of its public hearing. The Commission directed the applicant to continue working with staff on the parking and traffic issues that were raised. B. Harmony Commons -Consideration of a Planned Development Zoning Amendment for a Hotel on a 7.11 Acre Parcel Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, presented the request from Pedersen- Wensmann, the property owners and developers of Harmony Commons, for an amendment to "PD-739, Zone 2", to allow for the construction of a 77-unit hotel in the triangle portion of the Harmony Commons development. The site is located southwest of the intersection of 153rd Street West and Galaxie Avenue. The property is guided "MIX" (Mixed Use) in the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Dykes reported the development proposal is part of the Central Village Plan, which uses Smart Growth principles such as reduced setbacks, pedestrian/transit oriented development, and mixed-use buildings to guide development. Dykes reported that the current zoning allows for a mix of office, retail, multi-family residences when part of a mixed-use building, and other similar commercial uses. The zoning code does not allow for a hotel. When the preliminary plat for Harmony Commons was approved in February 2004, the applicant stated that a hotel would be a potential use in this area, but did not have a specific hatelaer in mind. ©n Octcber 20, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan of the Landmark Corner, The Landmazk Corner is a triangle parcel bounded by 153`d Street West on the north, Galaxie Avenue to the east, and Founders Way on the south. At that meeting, the Commission reviewed a plan of the Grandstay Hotel. The Commission had issues with the fapade of the Grandstay Hotel's style and azchitecture because the facade was not consistent with the design guidelines in the Central Village Plan. The Commission, however, did not indicate that a hotel would not be a consistent use in the Central Village Plan. It is also staff's opinion that an addition of a hotel as a permitted use in this zoning district is consistent with the current mixed-use zoning designation. Staff also believes the addition of a hotel in the Central Village will help to sustain the vibrancy of this area. The Planning Commission had no issues in regards to amending the ordinance and feels that it was an oversight not to include hotels as part of the mixed-use buildings. Their opinion is that a hotel meets the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item the same night as its public hearing. Staff will present a request to amend to "PD-730, Zone 2" along with a request for site plan building permit authorization for three multi-story buildings at the next Planning Commission meeting. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Merillat NRMP Amendment -Consideration of an Amendment to a Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMP) to Allow Construcfion 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"' Street West (Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Knolls 2"a Addition). The proposed amendment would allow construction of a wider home with a deeper back yard than what was originally approved with the NRMP. Bodmer reported that at the December 15, 2004, Planning Commission meting, several concems were raised at the meeting. Some of the issues included increasing the height of the retaining wall, how the wall would be constructed and reinforced from the front, the long term maintenance of the wall, and the stability of the hill. Mr. Merillat has revised the plans to address the concerns raised by the Commission. The garage is now placed on the east side of the lot, reducing the slope of the driveway to 10%. The height of the retaining walls is reduced from 9 feet down to 6 feet high maximum for 23' lineal feet. The revised plan indicates that most of the wall will be a maximum of 3' tall. The City will need to authorize the placement of the driveway within the easement area. Bodmer reported that revised plans now indicate that most of the retaining walls are now outside of the drainage and utility easements. A section of the retaining wall on the east side of the property is still shown within the drainage and utility easement and will need to be relocated. Bodmer read the following statements indicated on the applicants' plans that she feels are critical not only to approval of the prof ect but also for the developer to adhere to. They are: "All retaining wall heights are approximate but aze designed to be minimized as much as possible and to follow as close to the natural grade and existing contours as possible. Retaining wall overdig is to be kept to a minimum. Exact distance behind walls disturbed would be determined by soil conditions. Our worst case estimate would disturb between T and 10' behind retaining walls but most likely disturb between 5' to 8'." Bodmer informed the applicant that it will be crucial to adhere to these statements. Bodmer reported that staff believes the revised plans address most of the concerns previously raised by staff and the Commission. As a result, staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. At the December 15th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant, Dennis Merillat, stated that he was not awaze of the conditions of the Natural Resources Management Permit before purchasing the site. Commissioner Melander stated that whoever is interested in purchasing the adjoining lot needs to be aware of the conditions of the NRMP and how it affects what can be built on the site prior to purchasing the lot. Commissioner Churchill suggested that a schedule of inspections be added as one of the conditions for approval. Churchill also suggested that the owners must submit a site-specific structurally engineered design for the retaining wall prepared by a registered engineer for the property before any grading begins on the property. MOTION: Commissioner Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the revised NRMP for Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Knolls 2"a, as shown on the plans received in City Offices on December 30, 2004, in accordance with all applicable City Codes and Construction Standazds and with the following conditions: • No retaining walls maybe constmcted within a drainage and utility easement except where crossing the property line. The wall on the east side of the lot must be relocated. • Owner must submit asite-specific structurally engineered design for the retaining wall prepared by a registered engineer for this property before grading begins on the property. • Any reinforcement for the wall, if required, shall be installed in a manner that results in no further disruption of the area behind the wall than the approved grading limits. The fmal retaining wall design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. • No grading maybe done on neighboring properties unless written consent is obtained from the neighboring property owner. The City shall be given a copy of any written consent. • No site disturbance may occur outside of the approved grading limits. The grading limit shall be a maximum of 10' behind the retaining wall. • Owner shall allow connection of future retaining wall on Lot 2 onto his property consistent with the previously approved NRMP. • Driveway slope shall not exceed 10%. 5 A 6' sidewalk shall be installed in accordance with the approved development plans. Driveway encroachment into the restricted access easement is granted in accordance with the December 30, 2004, plans submitted by the applicant. No fiirther encroachment into the restricted access easement is permitted. An inspection schedule developed by staff shall be adhered to by the applicant. The motion carried 5-0. 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 Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m.