Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 3, 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, Tim Burke, Frank Blundetto, and Thomas Helgeson Members Absent: David Schindler Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, and City Engineer Colin Manson 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace stated that Agenda Item SB, PUBLIC HEARINGS, Grand Slam, has been tabled at the request of the petitioner. Lovelace also added Agenda Items 7A, OTHER BUSINESS, Upcoming City Council Work Session, and 7B, Kelley Park Dedication. Chair Melander called for approval of the amended Agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda as amended. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2006 Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, he called for approval of the Minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Helgeson, to approve the minutes of the April 19, 2006, meeting. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Burke abstaining. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Mount Olivet Assembly of God Church -Consider an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map Redesignating an 8.5-Acre Parcel from "C" (Commercial) to "INST" (Institutional), Rezoning from "LB" (Limited Business) to "P" (Institutional), and Replatting of Two Existing Platted Lots and One Unplatted Parcel Into One Lot Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Associate City Planner Mazgaret Dykes presented the request from Mount Olivet Assembly of God Church, located at 14201 Cedar Avenue. The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment changing the designation of the property guided "C" (Commercial) to "INS" (Institutional), arezoning of the property zoned "LB" (Limited Business) to "P" (Institutional), and platting of three parcels into one lot of record. Dykes reported that the applicant owns three contiguous parcels of land totaling 8.5 acres. Two of the parcels aze currently platted and one is unplatted. The church building site and the unplatted parcel are guided "INS" (Institutional). The vacant lot is guided "C" (Commercial) in the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan. The applicant wishes to amend the Comprehensive Plan map so that all of the pazcels aze guided for institutional uses. Dykes stated that the request does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, but will require approval from the Metropolitan Council. Staff believes the proposed amendment is a minor amendment and will not adversely affect any regional or local systems. Dykes stated that Lot 1, Block 1, Hamlet First Addition is zoned "P" (Institutional). Lot 7, Block 1, Bor -Nel Addition, and the unplatted parcel aze zoned "LB" (Limited Business). The Limited Business district does allow for institutional uses as a permitted use. The applicant wishes to rezone the property so that all three parcels are zoned "P" (Institutional). Though the request for rezoning is not necessary to use the subject lots for the church, the request will ensure that the zoning and the use are consistent. Dykes reported that two of the three parcels are currently platted and one parcel is unplatted. The applicant wishes to plat the three parcels into one lot. The proposed plat generally meets the requirements of the City's Code, however, the preliminary plat shows that existing draining and utility easements are to be retained. Dykes reported that the drainage and utility easements should be vacated and new easements established with the plat. Since the proposed plat abuts Cedar Avenue, which is a County road, the Dakota County Plat Commission must review the proposal. The preliminary plat shows the necessary right-of--way for Cedar Avenue for the unplatted parcel, as well as the dedication of an additiona125 feet of right-of- way for Lot 1, Block 1, Hamlet First Addition. However, the dedication of additional right-of--way means that the existing parking lot will not meet the required setbacks. The parking lot will be set back zero feet from the future east property line. The parking lot would be considered a legal, non-conforming use. Any changes to the parking lot in the future will require the reconfiguration of the parking lot so that it complies with the zoning code. Currently, the parking lot complies with the required setbacks. Chair Melander asked if anyone from the public would like to speak and if so, they may do so at this time. No comments were received from the public. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Guide changing the designation of the property guide "C" (Commercial) to "INS" (Institutional). The mofion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to rezone the property from "LB" (Limited Business) to "P" (Institutional). The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to replat the three parcels into one lot of record. The motion carried 6-0. B. Grand Slam -Consider Planned Development Zoning Amendments, Minor Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, and site PlanBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for Construction of a 31,860 sq. ft. Commercial Recreation Building on a 2.44-Acre Lot Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. The applicant requested to table this Agenda item and continue the public hearing at the May 17, 2006, meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to table Agenda Item SA, Grand Slam, until the May 17, 2006, meeting, as requested by the applicant. The motion carried 6-0. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Johnson Front Yard Setback Variance - Consider a Variance of 2 Feet from the Required Front Yard Setback of 30 Feet to Allow for Construction of a Third- Stall Garage Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Greg Johnson for a 2' front setback variance to construct a 3rd garage stall onto an existing 2-stall garage. The subject property is located at 14283 Dulcimer Way. Bodmer reported that the applicant would like to add a 12'x 24' garage stall to his existing 2-stall garage. The zoning code requires a front yard setback of 30' from the front property line. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow him to encroach into the setback by two (2) feet, placing the garage 28' from the front property line. The applicant owns an extended cab pickup truck which he uses for work. The truck has a toper for tools and equipment and a rack for ladders and similar longer items. The applicant is requesting a variance that would allow him to construct a 3ra stall garage that is large enough to accommodate his lazge truck. Bodmer reported that the existing garage is located on the property such that a 3ra stall could be constructed without a variance to the side or front yard setbacks. However, the current garage is 22' deep, which the applicant states is not long enough for his pickup truck. The applicant has indicated that he needs a 24' long garage stall in order for the truck to fit in the garage. Bodmer reported that one alternative available to the applicant would be to move the proposed 3ra stall back so that the front of the new stall is even with the existing garage and 30' from the front property line. This would allow the garage to be 24' long without needing a variance. The applicant states that because there is a two foot notch in his house behind the proposed 3ra stall, pushing the garage back 2' would not allow sufficient room to park the pickup truck. Bodmer provided a sketch to show how the truck would fit with the notch taken out. In order to fit the truck in the garage with the sufficient room to open doors, it appears that the notch makes the garage stall inconvenient, but not unusable. Bodmer reported that the second alternative would be to construct a detached garage behind the house. The increased impervious surface area and negative impacts on neighboring properties makes this an undesirable alternative. In addition, the Planning Commission pointed out that it would be difficult to connect the roof of the new garage with the existing home. A third alternative would be to request a side yard variance to encroach into the 5' side setback. However, a drainage and utility easement exists along the property line which also makes this an unworkable option. Bodmer reported that the applicant is requesting the variance in order to park a pickup he uses for work inside a garage. A two foot variance is not a significant variance. In addition, the variance would not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and in fact, parking the vehicle inside a garage maybe seen as a benefit to neighboring properties. Bodmer reported that in order to grant a variance, the City must detemrine that special conditions applying to the structures or land in question are particular to such property, the special conditions do not generally apply to other land or structures in the district; the granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this ordinance and comprehensive plan, and the granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Bodmer stated that although staff fmds that the granting of this variance will not have a significant impact on neighboring properties, there does not appear to a sufficient hardship demonstrated in order to grant the variance. However, the Planning Commission may find that the variance is in keeping with the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage homeowners to make improvements to their homes so that they can continue to live in the City. At the same time, no negative impacts aze expected on neighboring properties. Commissioner Blundetto asked the applicant why a boat is pazked on the grass at the subject property. Brad Johnson, the applicant, replied that he recently got his boat out and that it is only temporary and that the boat will be moved shortly. Blundetto stated that for architectural purposes, he would have also requested the 2 feet variance. Commissioner Helgeson feels that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship based on the roofline issue if the garage was to be located at the back of the home, and that the existing 2 foot notch in the home is abnormal. Helgeson is in favor of the variance. Commissioner Churchill concurs. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to grant the variance based on the following reasons: The roofline of the existing structure makes it impractical to constmct the garage without the additional 2 feet. The variance adds to the architectural interest of the building. The motion carried 6-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Informal City Council Work Session Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace extended an invitation to the Planning Commission to attend the City Council's informal session scheduled for May 11, 2006, at which time Maxfield Research and the Dakota County Community Development Agency will discuss housing in Apple Valley. B. Kelly Park Dedication Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace extended an invitation to the Planning Commission for the dedication of Kelly Park, scheduled for May 17, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. Invitations will be sent out. Lovelace also reminded the Planning Commission of the upcoming meeting scheduled for May 24, at 6:00 p.m., with the Hartford Group to discuss the Central Village Plan. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Churchill to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 p.m.