Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2005CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 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, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, Jeannie Churchill, and *David Schindler Members Absent: Thomas Helgeson Staff Present: City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Shazon Hills, 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 Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 5-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 2005 Chair Edgeton asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the minutes of the November 2, 2005 meeting. The motion carved 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CVS Pharmacy -Consider Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for a Proposed 12,900 sq. ft. Drugstore with a Drive-thru Window Withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS 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 ft. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from R. J. Ryan Construction and Richard J. Tuthill for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage of vehicles. Dykes reported that Dick's Valley Service moved to a platted lot located northwest of the intersection of Foliage Avenue and 146' Street West. The "I-2" (General Industrial) zoning district allows for the outdoor storage of vehicles provided the items to be stored outside are screened. A CUP was approved for outdoor storage of vehicles along with certain conditions. One condition of the CUP restricted the outdoor storage of vehicles or other equipment on the north 190 feet of the subject lot. Any future expansion of outdoor storage required an amendment to the CUP. The applicant is now requesting an amendment to the CUP because he wishes to construct the outdoor storage area 35 feet north of the original approved location. The applicant is not requesting to store additional cars on the site. The applicant is requesting the amendment because the building has been constructed 35 feet fiu-ther to the north than was shown on the approved plan. The relocation of the building was done during the construction process and was not shown on the approved site. plans. The applicant previously stated that the building was moved because there was a discrepancy on the site survey. Dykes stated that though is it typical that buildings are shifted around on a site during construction, it is usually no more than 1-2 feet. A 35 foot difference is unusual. As part of the original plan, the applicant submitted a sightline study which shows the view for residents of the townhouses in the Midtown Village development, which is 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. In addition, it is staff s opinion that the residents in the Cedar Isle development located closest to the subject property will also have a limited view of the storage area. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the CUP based on the consistency of the approved CUP resolution that was approved in August 2004. Chair Edgeton asked if anything else had changed on the plan other than the location of the building. Dykes responded that there were no other changes. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of an amendment to Resolution No. 2004-171 to allow for outdoor storage of vehicles at 6781 146`" Street West, subject to the prohibition of storage of vehicles or any other equipment on the north 155 feet of the Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Industrial Park Fifth Addition. Any future expansion of outdoor storage shall require an amendment of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried 6-0. B. Legacy Village Professional Office Building -Consider Revisions to an Approved Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for Changes to the Exterior Finish of a 40,000 sq. ft. Commercial Office Building on a 1.3 Acre Lot Tabled at the request of the petitioner. C. Rivers Setback Variance -Consideration of a 10-foot Variance from the Rear Yard Building Setback of 30 Feet to Allow for the Construction of an Attached Garage Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from Lloyd M. Rivers for a variance to reduce the rear setback from the required 30' to 20' to construct a 2- stall garage addition. The applicant is making an attempt to properly store equipment such as trailers and the like in a garage. The subject property is located at 4556 152"a Street West. Dykes reported the house was constructed in 1980 and is part of the Apple Valley East Fifth Addition. The property is a rectangular corner lot at the intersection of Dresden Trail and 152ne Street W, and measures 100' x 130'. The front entrance of the house and driveway face 152°a Street West. However, according to the zoning code, the shortest lot frontages, which faces Dresden Trail, is considered the lot front. The house must be set back 30' from the rear property line, which is the lot line opposite the front property line. Dykes reported that currently the house is set back approximately 29' from Dresden Trail, 36' from 152°a Street West, 44' from the rear property line, and 40' from the side property line. Dykes stated that the existing 18'x24' (432 sq. ft.) garage is approximately 45' from the rear property line. The applicant would like to expand the existing 2-stall garage and add an approximately 616 sq. ft. garage addition. The total garage would be 1,049 sq. ft., and would be set back approximately 20; from the rear lit line. The footprint of the house is approximately 920 sq. ft., however, the applicant has proposed constructing a 144 sq. ft. addition in order to bring the total footprint of the house to 1,064 sq. ft., which complies with the requirements of the code. The impervious surface would be 30% of the lot and the code allows for no more than 35% of asingle-family lot to be covered. The site is flat and there are no significant trees that would be removed for the proposed garage expansion. The applicant has indicated that the neighbor to the west has no issues with the garage addition, however, a letter was not submitted to that effect. 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 structures 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." Dykes reported that staff did not fmd any physical hardships or circumstances particular to the lot. The orientation of the house might be considered somewhat of a difficulty since the house does face which is technically considered a "side" lot line, however, there are other houses in the City that are oriented in the same manner, so this is not a unique situation. The orientation of the house does not create a hardship that justifies the granting of a variance fora 4-stall garage. Dykes stated that the applicant could reduce the size of the garage or pursue other alternatives, such as constmcting a detached garage or adouble-loaded garage, which would not require variances. The applicant indicated that he is not interested in any other design other than the one submitted. Dykes reported that staff did not fmd that the applicant meets the hardship test that would justify granting a variance. Staff also found that there are no other homes in the immediate neighborhood that have 4-stall garages. The 4-stall garage is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and staff is concerned that the massing of the garage may overwhelm the house. Commissioner Schindler stated that he might consider the variance a hardship due to the configuration of the lot. However, he feels that the addition doesn't fit the existing character of the neighborhood. Schindler stated that a 3-stall garage is reasonable but not a 4-stall garage. Commissioner Churchill stated that she straggled with the project. While she applauds residents who want to update their homes, she has a problem with the addition of a 4-car garage as proposed. Churchill stated that she would support a 3- stall addition, but not a 4-stall addition. Lloyd Rivers, the applicant, stated that there are 4 other homes in the neighborhood that have 4 stalls, and numerous homes have 3 stalls. Rivers stated that he would like the addition to store his construction equipment. Rivers stated that he had visited the City's Planning and Zoning Department previously and was told that the addition would not be a problem. Commissioner Churchill stated that while she understands what the applicant is trying to accomplish, she has a problem with the straight linear elevation of the home and adding more garage will create a blank, long wall. She asked if there was something the applicant could do to stagger the elevation or create something to give the home a little more relief/interest. Commissioner Burke commented that the proposed stoop addition might help give some relief to the front of the home. Rivers stated that the addition materials would be brick and cedar, which should help break up the massing. Commissioner Melander asked if the applicant could offset the garage by 2 feet. Commissioner Diekmann asked if there was a way to make the proposed 4-stall garage appear as 3 stalls. He, too, has a problem with the front elevation and would like to see something different to add interest to the home. Commissioner Schindler stated that he would be comfortable with the garage addition if it could appear as a 3- stall garage. 4 City Attorney Sharon Hills reminded the Commission that the proposed addition to the home would have to be built prior to the garage addition in order to bring the footprint of the home into compliance. After a lengthy discussion, the consensus of the Commission was that they were comfortable with recommending the variance be approved if the addition is made to appear as a 3-stall garage and the front stoop enhanced to give the home more interest. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of a variance for 4556 152na Street West, to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 30 feet to 20 feet fora 616 sq. ft. garage addition, as shown on the plans dated October 21, 2005, subject to the conformance with all applicable City codes and standards; the simultaneous construction of a 144 sq. ft. addition to the house; the alteration of the garage so that it appears as a 3-stall garage with one double door and one single door, and enhancing the front stoop. The variance is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed 6-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Schedule for 2006 City Planner Tom Lovelace presented a draft calendar for the 2006 Planning Commission meeting dates and the associated application deadlines. Lovelace asked if members of the Commission had any revisions to the calendar. No revisions were made. Staff recommended approval of the calendar. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to recommend approval of the 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Melander, to adjourn the meeting at 7:38 p.m.