Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/2005CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 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: Karen Edgeton, Tom Melander, David Schindler, Tim Burke, and Keith Diekmann Members Absent: Jeannine Churchill and Thomas Helgeson Staff Present: City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Mazgazet Dykes, Assistant City Engineer Colin Manson, and Planning Intern Jeff Thomson 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 Schindler moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 5-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2005 Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to approve the amended minutes of the October 19, 2005 meeting. The motion carried 5-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Dick's Valley Service -Consideration of an Amendment to an Existing Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Extension of the Motor Vehicle Outdoor Storage Area North 35 Feet Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from RJ Ryan Construction and Richard Tuthill for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit for outdoor storage of vehicles. Dykes reported that Dick's Valley Service moved to a platted lot located at the northwest intersection of Foliage Avenue and 146th Street West. The applicant is requesting an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow outdoor storage of vehicles on the subject site. One of the conditions for approval was that any future expansion of outdoor storage required an amendment of the CUP. Dykes reported the applicant is now requesting an amendment to the CUP because the he wishes to construct the outdoor storage area 35 feet north of the original approved location. The original site plan showed that the north 190 feet of the subject lot would be unirnproved, unless and until the property owner needed to construct additional storage space on the lot. The applicant is not requesting to store additional cars on the site. The applicant is requesting this amendment because the building has been constructed 35 feet further to the north than was shown on the approved plan. It appears this was done to accommodate changes made to the storm drainage system. As part of the original review, the applicant submitted a sightline study which shows the view for residents of the townhouses in the Midtown Village development. These residents would be located approximately 130 feet from the outdoor storage area. The study showed that with the fence constructed on top of the berm, the majority of the outdoor storage area would be screened. Dykes reported that City code defines a conditional use permit as one that is permitted in a zoning district provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to determine if the proposed site has any unique characteristics that require special consideration to adequately accommodate the proposed use without adversely impacting surrounding uses. Chair Edgeton asked how this request came about. Dykes replied that she would defer to the applicant to respond to this question. Jack Grotkin, of RJ Ryan Construction, Inc., responded that the site plan was based on a topographic plan that was provided at the time of the purchase of the property. Anew survey was done and the site did not match the topographic plan that had been prepared. The existing elevations were higher than originally thought. In addition, the civil engineer did not put dimensions of the setbacks on the plans, which caused a dimensional error. Chair Edgeton asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission, and if so, they may do so at this time. David Babcock, 13455 Guild Avenue, commented that the end units of the nearby Midtown Village condominiums have not sold. Babcock thinks it might be related to the units facing the subject property. Babcock asked if the Planning Commission would consider requiring increased buffering if the condominiums do not sell. Chair Edgeton responded that would be a private matter between the two property owners. Chair Edgeton also informed Babcock that the proposed site is not yet fully developed and that the he will be pleasantly surprised to see the finished landscaping. Commissioner Melander also noted that the industrial zoning existed on this property prior to the construction of the condominiums. David Stavseth, 14356 Flora Way, asked if it would be possible to have a site line study done to see what the view is from the homes located in the Cedar Isles development. Dykes responded that sightline studies were done in the previous approval process and that the effect was minimal to nearby Cedar Isles development. Dykes added that no signage will be on the sides facing residential properties and the lighting of the property will be downcast. Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an Agenda item the same night as its public hearing. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Glesmann Variance - Considerafion 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 24%. The 7,943 sq. ft. lot is located at 15835 Hyland Pointe Court. Lovelace reported that at the last Planning Commission meeting, this request was denied. At the meeting, Commissioner Schindler asked about the building coverage on the other lots in the development. Staff found that the 20% building coverage requirement was not applied to many of the properties in zone 1 of the Planned Development 444. Staff then concluded that it would be appropriate to resubmit this request again based on the new information. Lovelace reported that this also raises a greater issue, as to how the City should address properties that are currently not in compliance with the minimum requirements as set forth in the planned development zoning district. Staff should review this planned development ordinance and present to the Planning Commission possible amendments to the ordinance, which would alleviate the non-compliance issue. Lovelace reported that the subject lot is part of the Hyland Point Shores development that was approved in 1989. The following condition was part of the approval: The lot size shall be limited to a 5,500 sq. ft. minimum. All homes shall be designed to fit on their lot. There will be no variances granted in the future for the lot size and shape. The Glesmann variance request would conflict with this condition. The City Engineer reviewed this proposal and concluded that the project's building coverage increase will have minimal impact on the volume of storm water runoff in the area. However, water quality is always a concern. It would be staff s recommendation that as part of any approval of a variance request, that the applicant adequately mitigate storm water runoff from the site to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Coordinator and the City Engineer. In order to approve a variance, the City must find "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 structures in the district and that the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrate hardship or difficulty." Although there is no physical hardship related to the land to justify a hardship, staff does. find that the request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan that encourages reinvestment in existing single family homes. In addition, the variance will not have a significant impact on the properties and the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. Chair Edgeton stated that one of her concerns in regards to the lot coverage was that the lot is adjacent to water that is used for recreational purposes. Edgeton asked if there has been any thought to requiring a rain garden. Lovelace stated that he has included as one of the conditions for approval that the applicant adequately mitigate storm water runoff from the site. Edgeton stated that it would be difficult to deny the variance request since several of the lots in the development are not in compliance with the 20% building coverage. Commissioner Schindler stated that he is frustrated with developers not following the guidelines set forth in the developments. Schindler stated that just because other neighbors are not in compliance should not be justification for someone else requesting non-compliance. Schindler would like to see more follow-up from staff during the development process so that these types of requests don't come up. Lovelace stated that staff shares his frustration. Chair Edgeton stated that she is also disappointed that the builder was well aware of the 20% building coverage and chose to ignore it. She stated that now it would not be fair to punish one homeowner when the developer is long gone. Edgeton stated that the City's internal check list needs to bedouble-checked to avoid these non-compliant issues. Commissioner Melander fi~rther commented that it would be unreasonable to the applicant to hold them to a different standard and that he, too, is frustrated with these types of requests. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of a variance from the maximum 20% building coverage in Planned Development No. 444/zone 1 to allow for construction of a 200 sq. ft. addition, which will result in a total building coverage of 24% for the property located at 15834 Hyland Pointe Court, subject to the following conditions: • Any land alteration and construction on the subject property shall strictly adhere to all applicable city codes and ordinances. • The petitioner shall adequately mitigate storm water runoff from this site to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Coordinator and Engineer. The motion passed 5-0. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to direct staff to review Planned Development Ordinance No. 444 and present to the Planning Commission possible amendments that will alleviate non-compliance of existing structures within the zoning district and establish standards for management of storm water runoff. The motion passed 5-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Cedar Marketplace Sketch Plan -Review of a Sketch Plan for a Proposed 4,000 sq. ft. Retail Building Planning Intem Jeff Thomson presented a sketch plan from L. A. Donnay requesting input regarding a proposed 4,000 sq. ft. building in the Cedar Marketplace development. The development is located on the northeast side of Cedar Avenue and 147u` Street. The site currently contains two commercial buildings. Thomson reported the development is governed by a Planned Development Agreement. The Agreement shows the construction of a trash enclosure and landscaping on the proposed site, but does not provide for the development of a building in that location. Thomson reported the proposed building would need to meet existing infiltration requirements for any new impervious surfaces. The plans do not indicate how the applicant will meet this requirement and staff is concerned that there is limited space on the site to meet the requirement. There is currently a drainage and utility easement on the eastern property line and an infiltration system cannot be constructed within the easement. Thompson stated that another issue that needs to be addressed is the screening of the proposed building and parking lot from the adjacent residential property to the east. The site for the building is currently a flat grass area containing trees and landscaping which were planted during the first phase of the development in order to meet the 2.5% landscape requirement. Any landscaping or trees that are removed during construction must be replaced on a 1:1 ratio, and the replanting does not count towards the proposed 2.5% landscaping requirement. City staff is concerned that there is limited space on the site for the replanting and additional landscape requirements. Thompson stated that no arrangements were made during the construction of the original development to provide water and sanitary sewer connections to the site. Water and sanitary sewer connections are not stubbed into the site. The City Engineer reviewed the availability of municipal utilities and determined that sanitary sewer is not readily available. A water connection is available along the southern edge of the property line. While the plan appears to meet the minimum requirement for number of parking spaces, City staff is concerned about the actual use of parking at the site. The City's Traffic Consultant reviewed the traffic impact of Cedar Marketplace before the original development in 1998. The study found that the development would double the average trips per day on Glazier Avenue, although the average trips per day would still be below the average on residential streets. Staff is concerned about the fra£fic impact on Glazier Avenue since the building would have two access points off of Glazier Avenue. In summary, Thomson stated that staff's major concern is that the planned development does not allow for another building on the site, there are no utilities stubbed for the building, no grading/drainageplav, and no landscape plan was submitted. Commissioner Burke stated that it would very difficult to add water and sanitary sewer connections to the site. Assistant City Engineer Colin Manson stated that services are possible but it would be a long run to connect. In addition, there is an existing problem with maintenance from the grease buildup from the existing restaurant. Manson stated that if the proposed site were to be a restaurant, it would only add to an already existing problem. Gary Demele of WCL Associates and Shelli Krueth of L. A. Donnay, addressed the Commission. Krueth stated that she agrees with the Commission in that the project is a challenge but she is hoping that they can come up with a plan that would be amenable to the Commission and staff. Demele stated that the proposed building would not be a restaurant but would be a day time retail use which would also help the parking situation for the businesses that are open in the evenings. Chair Edgeton stated that just because the site is not a restaurant today doesn't mean it won't be one in the future and that the Cormission must take that into consideration when reviewing a plan. Chair Edgeton stated that parking is an existing problem at the site and she is concerned that adding an additional building would only compound the problem. Commissioner Melander reiterated Edgeton's concerns and stated that allowing another building would exacerbate the situation. Commissioner Schindler added that the landscape also looks like it would be a battle. Schindler stated that the southern entrance is tough to get in and out of as it exists and that adding another building will not make it better. The Commission asked staff if the proposal would require an amendment to the planned development. City Attorney Sharon Hills stated that the proposal would requirement an amendment to the planned development. Demele asked if he could get an idea as to whether or not the Commission is in favor of the proposed plan. Commissioner Diekman stated that he is not in favor of putting another building on the site. Diekman fiuther stated that the site is not large enough and that the existing green space existing is needed. He doesn't think that a building and buffer would help. Chair Edgeton stated that she also is not in favor of adding an additional structure and thinks it would be a mistake to do so. Edgeton stated that she would welcome additional parking on the site. Commissioner Burke stated that he concurs with Edgeton and added that a day time only use would be difficult to put on the site. Commissioner Melander stated that retailers like visibility and the proposed building would be shielded. Melander shares the sentiments of the rest of the Planning Commission members. No action is necessary on this agenda item. The applicant is merely requesting feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the plan. B. CVS Pharmacy -Review of a Sketch Plan for a Proposed 12,000 sq. ft. Drugstore Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the sketch plan from Mike Grossman and Vehneir Companies for a zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and site plan building permit authorization for a CVS Pharmacy. Dykes reported the site is currently zoned "GB" (General Business), which allows for heavy commercial uses and those businesses which tend to serve other businesses and industry as well as residents, such as wholesale offices, sales, showroom space, storage facilities, etc. The applicant will be requesting a rezoning of both lots from the "GB" to "RB" (Retail Business), which allows for uses that are centrally located to serve the need for general retail sales. The site had been. zoned for retail businesses until 1984 when the City rezoned the property to "GB" as requested by the property owner at the time to accommodate a car dealership. Dykes reported that because the site is near the Central Village area, staff believes the site could be rezoned again to accommodate retail uses, if that rezoning meets the goals of the City. Staff believes that a mix of uses on this site would be appropriate, however, the applicant is interested only in stand-alone buildings. Staff is of the opinion that retail and office uses should be integrated on this site, though not necessarily vertically. This would create a more robust development for this highly visible corner. Dykes also pointed out that the City is not obligated to grant the rezoning request, particularly since the amount of "GB" zoned property is limited (about 0.2% in the City), the City may choose to retain the current zoning. Dykes reported that the applicant would also be requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for adrive-thnx pharmacy. The "RB" zoning district does not list a drive-thrn pharmacy as either a permitted or conditional use. The zoning district does allow for restaurants with drive-thrn windows as a conditional use. The City's Attorney has stated that the applicant will have to request that the City make a determination that adrive-thm pharmacy is similar to a drive-thru restaurant. Dykes stated that if a CUP is approved for adrive-thm pharmacy, the CUP should apply only to the lot upon which the CVS building would be located. Dykes reported that the site plan still shows a 12,900 sq. ft. one-story pharmacy with a drive-thru window for pharmacy pick-up. The building has been flipped 180 degrees and the main entrance to the building is now located on the southeast comer. The drive-thru window is now located on the northwest corner of the building, with the drive-thm lane on the north and west sides of the building. The parking lot has been reduced in size and shifted to the south and east sides of the building. The plan now shows a loading area on the northeast corner of the building. A trash enclosure is located on the southwest corner of the building. The site plan shows three pedestrian connections to the surrounding public roads, however, the plan does not show how pedestrians will actually access the building. The plan does not show any bike stands or other pedestrian amenities. There are planters located around the building that could be constmcted to have bench seating. Berms are shown on the north side of the lot that would help to soften the site. An on-site infiltration azea is shown on the southern end of the lot. The landscape plan has been revised and an attempt has been made to enhance the site so that it will be an attractive corner. Dykes stated that the renderings are nearly identical to those submitted from a previous sketch plan, with the addition of windows on the west side of the building. The building would be constructed of yellow EFIS and red brick. A corner tower feature is located on the northeast corner of the building that is 30' tall, with the remainder of the building 23' tall. The applicant has stated the building height could be increased somewhat to create a stronger presence on this very important corner. Chair Edgeton stated that even though the applicant has made revisions to the plan, she believes the still. did not take into consideration the comments and suggestions the Commission stated at the previous sketch plan. Edgeton stated she would rather leave the zoning as is than to change it to something the Commission does not want. Commissioner Schindler stated that he can see some positives in the plan with the added green space. Dykes pointed out that the green space will be lost once plans are made for the adjoining lot. Commissioner Diekmann stated that while the applicant has made considerable strides with the addition of a rain garden, bernring, etc., the building is not what the Commission wants on the site. Commissioner Burke stated that with the scarcity of land available in the "GB" zoning district, he would need a more compelling reason to rezone this site. Brian Alton, Jim Lavalle, and John Uban, all representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Uban stated that the proposed plan would be a good entrance into the Central Village and a good orientation to the surrounding area. Uban stated that while he can appreciate the Commission's concerns about the plan being compatible with the Central Village area, the Commission must keep in mind that the site is not part of the Central Village area and should not be held to those standards. In addition, Uban commented on the power station directly adjacent to the subject property and the fact that it does not fit into the Central Village guidelines. Uban stated that he would like to continue working with the Commission to come up with an acceptable plan. Lavelle stated that he took the Commission's comments into consideration when revising the plans and would like to know specifically if there is anything else they need to address. Chair Edgeton stated that there is nothing about the plan that would compel her to rezone the site. Edgeton stated that while there has been an attempt to revise the plan, she and other members of the Commission are looking for more of an urban style building, This building appears to be the "big box" type retail and is not pedestrian friendly, but more automotive. Edgeton stated that she has a desire for an "L" shaped building with the angle at the corner. Tom Roberts, who is under contract with Mike Grossman, asked for further clarification as to what the Commission is looking for. Chair Edgeton proceeded to describe again, what the Commission desires for that site. Edgeton stated that the building does not have to be an actual two-story building but could have a false second story. The pazking lot should not be prominent, and that the visual of the boxed building is not what the Commission desires. Steve Alexander, representing the applicant, stated that he is confused. Alexander questioned how the Commission can be in agreement with the landscape plan, yet still want the building to be moved closer to the corner. Chair Edgeton responded that the applicant did a good job with the landscaping but she still believes the building can be pushed up to the comer. No action was necessary on this item. The applicant was merely requesting feedback from the Planning Commission. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 9:04.m. ~~> ~m®e ®®®® 8®~s 4as. City of t4~~Ofalley MEMO Planning Department TO: Planning. Commission Members FROM: Margaret M, Dykes, Associate City Planner _ DATE: November 10, 2005 SUBJECT: CVS Pharmacy Review CVS Pharmacy has submitted an application to construct a pharmacy with adrive-thru pick-up window on the southwest. corner of County Road #42 and Galaxie Avenue, which is the former site of the Grossman Cadillac: The request requires a rezoning, a conditional use permit (CUP) for the drive-thru window,. and site plan building permit authorization; the rezoning and the CUP require a public hearing. The application was submitted on October 26, 2005, with the public hearing scheduled for November 16, 2005. Staff has met with the applicant since the proposal was submitted to discuss the site layout and the City's concerns regarding that layout; The applicant would like to revisit the proposal and has withdrawn. the application so that they can continue to work with the City to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission during sketch plan reviews; as well as concerns raised by staff. The applicant hopes to find a site design that works for both CVS pharmacy and the City: The applicant expects to resubmit the proposal for the Planning Commission meeting of December 7, 2005.