Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to Order by Chair Tom Melander at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Tom Melander, Keith Diekmann, Jeannine Churchill, Thomas Helgeson, Frank Blundetto, Tim Burke, and *David Schindler *Commissioner Schindler arrived at 7:02 p.m. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, and Assistant City Engineer Colin Manson 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the Agenda: There being none, he called for approval of the Agenda. MOTION: The Commission unanimously approved the Agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2006 Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Commissioner Blundetto made the following correction: Agenda Item 6A, CVS Pharmacy -The motion on Page 6, should read as follows: The motion carried 4-1, with Commissioner Blundetto opposed. Commissioner Helgeson made the following correction: Agenda Item 6A, CVS Pharmacy -The sentence on Page 4 stating "Jim Lavelle, representing the applicant, stated that he is in favor of restructing the access point to a "right-out only" and leave the drive-thru as proposed on the plan." Helgeson stated that the Lavelle was not in favor of restructuring the access point to a "right-out only". MOTION: Commissioner Aelgeson moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2006 meeting, as amended. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Burke abstaining. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. DeVos Accessory Structure Variance - Consider a Variance from the Maximum Area of 750 sq. ft. for an Accessory Building to Allow for Construction of a 1,040 sq. ft. Detached Garage on a .98 Acre Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented a variance request from Jason DeVos. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 750 sq. ft. maximum building area for an accessory structure to allow for construction of a 1,040 sq. ft. detached structure on a .98 acre parcel. The site is located at 135 South Surrey Trail. Lovelace reported that City code allows accessory structures with a maximum height of 16 feet and a maximum building area of 750 sq. ft. and as a permitted accessory use within the single family residential zoning districts. City code allows one accessory storage building in addition to any garage(s), except that it shall not exceed 144 sq. ft. in area if a detached garage exists. on the same lot. The applicant currently has a screened porch greater than 144 sq. ft. on his property. The applicant has indicated that the structure would be removed if the variance is granted. Lovelace reported that the proposed detached structure will increase the impervious surface from 9.3% to 11.8%, an increase of 2.5%. The City Engineer reviewed the plan and concluded that with proper grading and temporary and permanent erosion control measures, the buildings' impact on stormwater runoff in the area would be minunal. The applicant is proposing to build the structure on property that has been platted as an outlot. The outlot would have to be consolidated with the existing lot into one lot of record before the project could proceed. City code requires that garages and other accessory buildings shall have a design and appearance that will not detract from the main building or adjacent buildings. The building elevations submitted indicate lap siding and a steel roof. Staff is recommending that the applicant revise the elevations in order to meet City code. In addition, Lovelace pointed out that there is only one door on the plan and no windows. Staff is concerned about safety. Lovelace stated that in order to grant a variance, state statutes and City code requires that a demonstrated physical hardship must be present and-that no other logical alternatives are available to the applicant. Staff review finds that although granting of this variance may not have a significant impact on neighboring properties, there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship demonstrated in order to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Commissioner Churchill stated that the site is large and the accessory building would not be visible from the street. Churchill stated that she has no issues with the variance other than the elevations would need to be revised to meet City code. Cormissioner Helgeson asked if the. applicant would need a variance if the proposed structure was within the 750 sq. ft maximum buildable area that is allowed in City code. Lovelace responded that a variance would not be necessary if the structure was under 750 sq. ft. as long as other requirements of the code were met. Commissioner Schindler asked if there was room for a driveway on the property leading back to the accessory structure. Lovelace replied that there is room for a driveway but at this point, the applicant has not indicated plans for a driveway. James DeVos, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. DeVos read a letter from the applicant stating his intentions with the structure. The applicant would like to use the structure for wrestling training, housing wrestling mats, weights, and other training equipment. In response to earlier comments made by staff, DeVos stated that the applicant would be amenable to adding windows, providing two accesses, and matching elevations to the primary structure. Devos stated that the extra square footage is requested due to the activity proposed for the structure. Wrestling mats are typically 25' X 30'. -Chair Melander asked if the wrestling training is a business, and if not, could it possibly turn into a business. Devos replied that the training and use of the facility would be done strictly on a volunteer basis. He stated that the applicant's son wrestles for Apple Valley High School and would like to practice outside ofthe regularly scheduled practice sessions arranged through the school. In addition, he would like other wrestlers to partner up with while practicing at home. Melander asked if this is an unmet need at the high school. Devos responded that by having the structure available, wrestlers could practice more frequently and during the off season in order to stay in shape. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he is very concerned about safety. The proposed structure has one door and no windows. hi addition, the structure is proposed to be heated and insulated with foam-core. He further stated that he is surprised that the Commission is considering this type of use in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Churchill stated that parking might become an issue with kids coming in and out of the facility. The layout of the streets in that particular neighborhood are not conducive for parking. Chair Melander stated that there is also no way for the City to monitor how many kids are coming to the facility to work out. Devos again reiterated that traffic and parking would be kept to a minimum and that practice sessions would only be limited to the applicant's son and a couple of other kids that are interested in working out. The Commission asked City Attorney Sharon Hills if the. structure meets the definition of an accessory building. After reading the definition, Hills interpretation is that the proposed structure does meet the definition of an accessory structure. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he has major issues with the proposed plan. While he applauds the applicants' intentions, he can not see this type of use in a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he also applauds the applicant for being honest about the use of the structure but feels there are major concerns that would have to be resolved before he would feel comfortable with the plan. Commissioner Diekmann stated that he is concerned about the future use of the structure. Commissioner Churchill asked what would be different in theory if the applicant wanted to build an in-ground swimming pool or a sports court, structures that normally draw a lot of kids to visit the home. Lovelace responded that this is a good point and that in theory, there is probably no difference. Churchill stated that in regards to safety, she feels that it is the responsibility of the homeowner. She feels that the Commission should be basing its decision on criteria such as size, location, and design. Commissioner Schindler stated that the use would have to meet City code requirements that define the structure as a garage or storage building. Schindler added that he visualizes people and traffic in and out of the building, particularly with the structure being tucked away from the main resident and primarily teens utilizing the structure. Schindler added that the addition of a garage door and a couple of windows might make a difference in defining the structure. DeVos stated that the applicant would be amenable to adding a garage door to the structure. Commissioner Helgeson stated that the applicant might want to consider tabling the request, review the comments and concerns brought forth, and address them at the next meeting. Commissioner Melander asked Lovelace if the applicant were to minimize the structure to 750 sq. ft, take down the existing 144 sq. ft. gazebo on the property, would he still have to appear before the Commission. Lovelace stated that the applicant would not have to appear before the Commission if that was done. Lovelace pointed out that the outlot would still have to be consolidated into the existing lot. After a lengthy discussion, the applicant requested that this item be tabled. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Churchill, to table the Agenda Item 6.A., DeVos Accessory Structure Variance, until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace reminded the Commission of the upcoming Joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 21, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the Regent Conference Room. Agenda items will include the future planning of the south central area of Apple Valley, the Hanson property, the Magellan property (aka Williams Pipeline), and upcoming development projects for 2006. A Planning Commission Work Session has also been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the Regent Conference Room, to discuss the commercial. phase of the Cobblestone Lake development. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m.