Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/2005CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to Order by Vice Chair Jeannine Churchill at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Tom Melander, David Schindler, and Tim Burke Members Absent: Karen Edgeton, Keith Diekmann, and Thomas Helgeson Staff Present: City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, Assistant City Engineer Colin Manson, and Planning Intern Jeff Thomson 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. There being none, she called for its approval. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Melander, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 4-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 2005 Vice Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Commissioner Burke stated that his name should be added as being present at the meeting. Vice Chair Churchill called for approval of the minutes as amended. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the amended minutes of the October 5, 2005 meeting. The motion carried 4-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Jacobson Lot Split -Preliminary Plat to Allow for Subdivision of an Existing Single Family Lot Into Two Single Family Lots Vice Chair Churchill opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Brian and Nancy Jacobson to split their existing 30,910 square foot corner lot into two lots. The proposed lots would be 14,450 for the corner lot and 16,460 for the interior lot. The parcel is located at 13179 Ferris Court. The Comprehensive Plan guides the development of this parcel for "LD" (Low Density Residential at 0-6 units per acre). The proposed lot split is consistent with the comp Plan designation. However, when the Comp Plan evaluated parcels that were expected to be further subdivided in the future, the Jacobson property was not part of that inventory. Bodmer reported that the preliminary plat shows how the existing parcel will be subdivided into two parcels. Drainage and utility easements will be required to be depicted on the final plat along all of the property lines in accordance with the subdivision regulations. The original lot survey for the parcel prepared in 1973 showed an approximately five foot (5') Williams Brothers pipeline easement along the west property line of Lot 2. If this easement has not been vacated, it will also be required to be shown on the final plat. Bodmer stated that Lot 2 will be a new parcel available for construction of a new single family home. The lot contains a buildable footprint area of approximately 6,100 square feet. A single family home will easily fit within the footprint area. However, the maximum impervious area allowed on the lot will be 5,761 sq. ft. The elevation of the lot increases from the east side of the lot to the west side of the lot. As a result, minimal grading of the site will be required. Bodmer reported that as land becomes scarce in Apple Valley, there will be more requests to further subdivide lots in fully established neighborhoods that may have been initially passed over for development. The City will need to consider the overall neighborhood impacts and whether the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing neighborhood. when evaluating these types of requests. Brian Jacobson, the applicant, stated that he views the lot split as a positive change for the neighborhood. Vice Chair Churchill asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission, and if so, they may do so at this time. No public comments were taken. Vice Chair Churchill closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. Bodmer reported that staff is recommending approval of the above requested subdivision. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the subdivision by preliminary plat of Greenleaf 14th Addition, with the following conditions: • Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all property lines in accordance with the subdivision ordinance. • The plat shall depict the Williams Brothers pipeline easement if it is still present on the property. • The owners shall execute a development agreement with the City requesting the extension of City sewer and water and agreeing to pay for the requested improvements. The motion carried 4-0. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Glesmann Variance -Consideration of a Variance to the Maximum Building Coverage of 20% in "PD-444" (Planned Development 444) to Allow for Construction of an 188 sq. ft. Addition to an Existing Residential Dwelling City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the request from Curt Glesmann for a variance from the maximum 20% building coverage in Planned Development 444, zone 1, to allow for construction of a 200 sq. ft. addition, which will result in a total building coverage of 23%. The 7,943 sq. ft. lot is located at 15835 Hyland Pointe Court. Lovelace reported that the lot is located in the Hyland Pointe Shores development that was approved in 1989. One of the. conditions for approval was that "the lot size shall be limited to a 5,500 sq. ft. minimum. All homes shall be designed to fit on their lot. There shall be no variances granted in the future for the lot size and shape." Lovelace stated that this variance request would be in conflict with this condition. Staff does not have an accurate record as to why this condition was put in place. Staff can only conclude that it was to ensure that dwelling units would be constructed compatible in size and massing with the lots. Lovelace stated that the City Engineer has reviewed this variance proposal and has concluded that the building coverage increase will have minimal impact on storm water runoff in the area. Lovelace stated that according to the applicant's calculations, the total impervious surface of the lot with the proposed addition will be 34%. The City did not establish a maximum impervious surface standard for Planned Development 444, but has a maximum impervious surface standard of 35% in all of the Residential (single family) zoning districts. Lovelace reported that state statutes and the City's zoning code require that in order to approve a variance, the City must find that "special conditions applying to the structures or land in question are particular to such property, or immediately adjoining property; do not apply generally to other land or structure in the district; and that the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Lovelace stated that staff found that although granting of this variance will not have a significant impact on neighboring properties, there does not appear to be a sufficient hazdship demonstrated in order to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Vice Chair Churchill stated that when this subdivision was approved for development, there were a lot more buildable lots in Apple Valley. Churchill stated that this was the first area with narrower setbacks and now that available land is declining in the City, allowing a variance such as this seems consistent with adding to the value of the property and in keeping with current trends to upgrade and improve homes. Churchill asked if the Commission is likely to see this type of request from other homes in the area. Lovelace stated that this variance request has potential for precedent. Commissioner Melander stated lot sizes are usually a lot larger in shoreline areas. Melander stated that because of the small lot sizes, he can see a lot of homes in that area applying for a variance and, therefore, he would be reluctant to recommend approval on this request. Lovelace reported that if the variance request were recommended for approval, the City's Public Works Director would want a wetland buffer established as one of the conditions for approval. This buffer would help filter stonnwater run-off. Cormmissioner Schindler asked if the area has a history of flooding. Lovelace responded that staff have no flood concerns. Commissioner Melander stated that he doesn't see how adding a buffer will help water quality. Melander feels that the homeowner is pushing the development past its limits. Rick Riley, of Sawhorse Designers and Builders, stated that the home owner is requesting the variance in order to enlarge a family room and kitchen. Riley stated that the home would still be under the 35% hardcover established in other residential zoning districts. The lots in the area are around 9,000 sq. ft. and the subject home is less than 8,000 sq. ft. Riley stated that the City Engineer has concluded that the addition will not adversely affect storm water runoff. Colin Manson, City Engineer, clarified Riley's statement by adding that his report addressed the volume of water, not quality. Vice Chair Churchill stated that in her opinion, the only reason the variance could be justified would be the small size of the lot. She is, however, concerned if the small size of the lot could be justified as a hardship. Commissioner Melander stated that in his opinion, the lot is akeady maxed out. Commissioner Schindler stated that he is in favor of homeowners making improvements. Yet he is also sensitive to shoreline, lakes, etc. He is not compelled enough to grant a variance. Schindler requested staff get more information on the size of other lots in the azea and the amount of impervious surface. 4 MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Schindler, to recommend approval for a variance from the maximum 20% building coverage in Planned Development 444, zone 1, to allow for construction of a 200 sq. ft. addition, resulting in a total building coverage of 23%. The motion failed with a vote of 0-4. B. Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church Expansion -Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for Construction of a 13,300 sq. ft. Building Addition on a 10-acre Site Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church for site plan review/building pemut authorization to construct a 13,300 sq. ft. addition onto the existing Church located at 12650 Johnny Cake Ridge Road. The addition will include classrooms, an expanded fellowship area outside of the main sanctuary, a coffee station, and expanded nursery rooms. Bodmer reported that the 13,300 sq. ft. addition will be constructed on the east side of the facility. All required setbacks are met. The building coverage calculation with the new addition and the existing structure is 15.5%. The maximum coverage permitted is 20%. Bodmer reported the addition will not expand the size of the main sanctuary. In addition, church officials indicate that the new addition should help to bring more activity to the southern end of the building. This should help to encourage more of the parishioners to park in the southern end of the lot away from the Pinecrest neighborhood area. The grading plans were reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. An 18" private storm sewer line will be relocated to accommodate the expansion. A 3' retaining wall will be constructed on the southeast portion of the graded area. The applicant will need to determine whether the grading will require the removal of significant naturally occurring trees, or whether some landscaping installed as part of a previous building permit approval will be removed. Trees and shrubs that were installed as part of previously approved landscape plans will be required to be replanted on a 1-to-1 basis. The exterior of the building is proposed to be constructed primarily of brick to match the existing building. The addition will have apre-finished metal banding treatment along portions of the roofline. The north elevation contains this roofline, but the existing structure does not. The applicant will need to demonstrate how this is compatible with the existing building. The Fire Marshal has indicated that the church needs to provide a walkway from the east side of the building to the parking lot on the west side of the building. In the event of a fire, particularly during winger months, parishioners exiting on the east side of the building will have no clear path to get out and away from the building. The Fire Marshal would like a pathway constructed or either concrete or bituminous around either the north or south side of the building to provide a clear pedestrian connection from the east side of the building to the parking lot. The pathway should be maintained during winter months to ensure that the path is always accessible. Doug Keefer, representing Shepherd of the Valley, stated that the church held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the expansion plans. Keefer stated that the church is concerned that they will not be able to meet the 2.5% landscape requirement. Keefer stated that the church. might consider requesting a variance if they cannot meet the 2.5% requirement. Vice Chair Churchill stated that the 2.5% does not have to be all plantings but can be a combination of flower beds, statutes, furniture treatment, decorative walkways, etc. Bodmer reported that staff is recommending approval of the projects with the conditions outlined in staff's report. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the site plan and give building permit authorization to construct a 13,300 sq. ft. addition to the Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church in accordance with all applicable City ordinance requirements and construction standards, subject to the following conditions: • No site grading or land-disturbing activity may begin until a Natural Resources Permit (NRMP) has been issued by the City. • A landscape bid list shall be submitted at the time of application of the building permit to confirm that the landscape plantings meet or exceed 2.5% of the value of the construction of the building. • Removal of landscape materials that were planted as part of a previously approved landscape plan must be replaced on a 1-to-1 basis. This replacement shall not be included in the landscape budget noted above. • A minimum 5' wide pedestrian path shall be constructed to provide access from the east side of the building to the parking lot on the west side of the building. This pedestrian access shall be maintained throughout the year. • The petitioner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of City staff that the building materials on the north elevation of the expansion are compatible with the existing building. The mofion passed 4-0. C. ISD #196 Alternative Learning Center -Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for Construction of a 28,000 sq. ft. Building on a 3-acre Lot Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from RY Ryan and William Radichel, for site plan building permit authorization to construct an approximately 28,000 sq. ft. one-story building on a 3.12 acre lot. Dykes reported that the building, parking areas, and driveways meet all required setbacks. The 21% building coverage conforms to the zoning code. The building has a mezzanine that is 28' tall but the majority of the building is 18' tall. Dykes reported that access to the site is from one driveway on 149th Street West. The entrance that the students will enter from faces this driveway. There is a bus loading/unloading area in the front of the building that is 17' wide which should be sufficient for a school bus. A bituminous trail on County Road 42 is indicated but the plan does not show any pedestrian connection to the building. Dykes is recommending that a pedestrian connection be made. There is no sidewalk on 149th Street West, so no connection is required to this street. Staff is recommending that a sidewalk be constructed around the entire building, and a pedestrian connection should be made to the north parking lot. A ponding area is shown on the southeast end of the property. The site must infiltrate the first % inch of a rainfall event. The applicant did not include calculations that confirm the ponding area is sized correctly. This must be submitted for staffls review. The plan does not indicate where trash will be placed. Any outdoor trash enclosures must be composed of the same material as the primary structure. The plan does not indicate where building mechanicals will be placed. Any exterior mechanicals must be screened from view with either a fence or vegetation that provides a permanent opaque screen. Any rooftop mechanicals must also be screened from view with either a parapet or a fence. There are 102 parking spaces shown on the plan, with an additional 23 spaces indicated as future parking, making a total of 125 spaces. The City does not have a codified calculation for parking at educational facilities. In the past, the City has used 1 space per 4 student seats plus 1 space per 3 employees. The plan indicates that the building will have 200 students and 40 employees. The number of spaces necessary would be 63. Parking is sufficient based on those numbers. However, if the entire building is used for general offices, the number of parking spaces required would be 129, making it short 4 parking spaces. Any future reuse of the building will need to be reviewed by the City to ensure adequate parking. The building elevations indicate that the building will be constructed of brick veneer and rockface concrete block. The concrete block must be integrally colored per the ordinance requirements. A variety of materials is used which also help break up massing. The building materials meet the zoning code. Dykes reported that the zoning code requires that the costs of live landscaping materials, not including sod, equal or exceed 1.5% of the cost of the construction of the building based on Means Construction data. The applicant must supply building cost and landscaping costs. 7 Commissioner Schindler commented that he would have liked to see renderings of the building. Dykes responded that the building is a typical of what one would see in an "IlVD" (Industrial) zoning district. Commissioner Melander commented that ISD #196 will be having a referendum to increase taxes. Melander is curious as to how they have money to construct a new building and at the same time are asking taxpayers to support a referendum. Jack Grotkin, representing the applicant, stated that the building will not be owned by the school district. The district will be leasing the building. Grotkin indicated that the lease will be less expensive their current lease. Vice Chair Churchill also pointed out that the City does not take economics into account when reviewing projects. Dykes reported that staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in staff's report. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval for site plan building permit authorization for an approximately 28,000 sq. ft. building to be used for classrooms and other uses consistent with the City zoning code, as shown on the plans dated September 28, 2005, subject to conformance with all applicable City codes and standards, and the following conditions: • The drop-off lane located on the south side of the building must be clearly demarcated with striping or curbing to facilitate turning maneuvers. • A pedestrian sidewalk must be installed on all sides of the subject building, and a pedestrian connection shall be made from the north parking lot to the building. • A pedestrian connection shall be made to the bituminous public trail abutting the property and County Road #42. • No grading shall commence until the applicant has obtained a Natural Resources Management Permit. • The grading plan shall be revised to address the comments of the City Engineer's memo dated October 14, 2005. • Submission of a nursery bid list and building construction costs that confirms the landscape materials meet or exceed 1.5% of the value of the construction of the building based on Means Construction Data. • Submission of calculations to confum that the ponding area will infiltrate the first 1/2" of any rainfall event. • All rooftop and/or exterior mechanicals shall be adequately screened to comply with City code. • Any trash enclosures shall be constructed of the same materials as the primary structure, and shall be located on the site so as to cause the least impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The motion carried 4-0. D. Legacy Village Professional Office Building -Consider Revisions to an Approved Site PlanBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow Changes to a Proposed 40,000 sq. ft. Commercial Office Building on a 1.3 Acre Lot City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the request from Legacy Holdings, AVN, LLC, for revisions to a previously approved site plan building permit authorization. The applicant is requesting elimination of five exterior entrances to the building along the north and west elevations, modification to the footprint of the building that would straighten out the east/west leg of the building, revisions to the landscape plan, and revisions to the exterior elevation materials. Lovelace reported that the original site plan identified two L-shaped buildings along the north side of 153rd Street West and either side of Fresco Terrace. The City granted approval to allow the construction of a 35,840 sq. ft. building located along the east side of Fresco Terrace on Lot 1, Block 10. The building would be a two story with a small third story at the elbow of the building and underground parking with 50 spaces. A 29-space surface parking lot would be located north of the site. The second building approved was a 40,000 sq. ft. building, located along the west side of Fresco Terrace on Lot 1, Block 9, which is essentially a mirrored image of the east building. This building will have 55 underground pazking spaces and a 41 space surface pazking lot. Lovelace reported that staff have major concerns with two of the proposed revisions to the approved plans for this project. First is the landscape plan. The petitioner is proposing changes to the plant materials and planting scheme. The City's Natural Resources Coordinator who was unavailable at the time of the preparation of this report. Since the time of the mailing to the Commission, the City Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed this request and has recommended some changes. Another concern that staff have aze the revisions to the exterior finish materials. The elevation plan previously approved by the City included a combination of brick and stone as the primary materials with Hazdi-plank as an accent material. The revised plans call for the use of brick, stone, and stucco as the primary exterior finish material for a commercial building within Planned Development No. 739. Lovelace reported that staff is not opposed to the elimination of the exterior entrances along the north and west elevations or the modifications to the building footprint. Vice Chair Churchill stated that the addition of greenspace between the sidewalk and the building is a major concern to her. Churchill stated that the Commission and staff spent a lot of time coming up with the design standazds for this planned development and is disappointed that the applicant is requesting to deviate from the standards. Commissioner Schindler concurred and stated that the greenspace needs to be eliminated. Schindler is not comfortable with pulling the building away from the sidewalk, particularly since this is one of the major corners in the development. Vice Chair Churchill said that the two buildings need to mirror each other. In regards to the elimination of the five exterior entrances to the building along the north and west elevations, the Commission did not have a problem with that. Jason Thomas and Matthew Nugent, representing Hartford, addressed the Commission. Thomas stated that their intention was not to deviate from the previous approved plan but due to new staffmg, they were not aware of the specifics of the planned development. Thomas stated that straightening the building saves on construction costs. Nugent stated that it also makes for a cleaner entrance into the garage. Thomas stated that the current elevations were development as a result of costs, marketing, parking, and other issues. Thomas stated that they would be willing to install hardscape rather than have the open greenspace that is indicated on the plan. In regards to the elevations, the Commission reminded the applicant that stucco is not an approved use in that Planned Development. Commissioner Schindler asked if EFIS was an acceptable material. Lovelace stated that EFIS was used as a band in a planned development adjacent to the subject property but is not allowed in this zoning district. Thomas asked the Commission if they would be in favor of approving the plan with the exception of the building materials. The Commission suggested the applicant work with staff on revising the plan and come back to the Commission at their next meeting as there are some major issues at hand tonight. Thomas stated that they were not aware of the design guidelines and would like to take some time at this meeting to work with staff and see if they can move the project forward tonight and modify the recommendations brought forth by staff. Sharon Hills, the City's Attorney, stated that the Commission has to act on the plan they have in front of them tonight. Lovelace suggested the applicant take a look at the previously approved plans and come back with something that might be acceptable to the Commission and staff. After a lengthy discussion, the applicant agreed to take the advice of staff and table the item. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to table Agenda Item No. 6D, Legacy North Professional Office Building No. 19, Revised Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization. The motion passed 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. to